Ryan Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 9, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1455 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

RYAN INDUSTRIES, INC. 1455
right to regulate the amount and the method of compensation of its
employees although at present the benefits are generally the same as
those of store employees. As it is clear from the record that the lessees,
and not the Employer, control the essential terms and conditions of
employment governing these employees, we do not believe that they
should be included with the others for collective bargaining purposes.
We shall therefore exclude the employees of the leased departments
from the unit.?
We find that all employees, including the employees in the adver-
tising, display, and modeling department, and maintenance employees,
employed at the Employer's department store in Grand Rapids, Michi-
gan, the two branch appliance stores in Grand Rapids, and the branch
store at Holland, Michigan, but excluding 8 the employees in the leased
departments, restaurant employees, demonstrators, seasonal oil-call
extra employees, cooperative students, executive trainees, garage
attendants, all employees in classifications represented by other labor
organizations, professional employees, confidential employees,9 and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
7 Maas Brothers, Inc , supra, 134-135
8 The parties agreed to all the described exclusions except the employees in the leased
departments.
8 The parties agreed to the exclusion of the two clerks in the payroll section as confi-
dential employees . United States Rubber Company , 76 NLRB 309, 310.
RYAN INDUSTRIES , INC. and MECHANICS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OF
AMERICA, IND., PETITIONER
RYAN INDUSTRIES , INC. and DETROIT INSTRUMENT MAKERS-INDEPEND-
ENT UNION, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 7-RC-1877 and 7-RC-1883.
October 9,1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before
William E. Rhodes, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.'
I Local 155 , International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW-CIO), the Intervenor , moved to dismiss the petitions on
the grounds ( 1) that an existing contract between it and the Employer is a bar to ffiP
petitions , and (2 ) that the units requested by the two Petitioners are inappropriate. For
reasons given in paragraphs numbered 3 and 4, the motion Is denied.
100 NLRB No. 237.
1456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioners and the Intervenor are labor organizations claim-
ing to represent employees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor contends that an existing contract between it
and the Employer is a bar to the petitions herein. On October 2,
1950, the Intervenor and the Employer executed a collective bargain-
ing contract which was to terminate on June 1, 1953. This contract
covered the Employer's plant known as the "John R." plant. On or
about the end of March 1952, the Employer opened a new plant known
as the "Intervale" plant, for the manufacture of an airplane elevation
gage. On June 16, 1952, the Employer and the Intervenor signed an
agreement providing only for recognition as bargaining'representative
at the new plant.
The Intervenor contends that this agreement is a bar to the instant
proceeding. The Board has held that a mere recognition agreement
without providing for terms and conditions of employment, such as
wage rates, hours of work, and other terms, is not a bar to a petition
for representation.2 This recognition agreement does not purport to
incorporate by reference the existing contract between the Employer
and the Intervenor. The Employer's vice president, who testified
at the hearing, denied that it was intended to adopt the existing
contract for this new plant. Under all these circumstances, we find
that the contract is not a bar to the petitions filed herein.
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner in Case No. 7-RC-1877 and the Petitioner in
Case No. 7-RC-1883 each seek to represent a unit of all the employees
at the Employer's Intervale plant, excluding office and clerical em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors. The Employer agrees that the unit
requested by the two Petitioners is appropriate. The Intervenor
contends that only a unit including the employees of both the Inter-
vale plant and the John R. plant is appropriate.
In its John R. plant, the Employer makes tools only. In its
Intervale plant, the Employer is engaged in a manufacturing opera-
tion under contract with the United States Army. The Employer
has installed new machinery and equipment in its Intervale plant,
2 Casteel D2strabuting Company, 76 NLRB 153. Cf Clyde J. Merras, 77 NLRB 1375.
Cf. also Pillsbury Mills, Inc, 92 NLRB 172.
SUNSET MINERALS, INC. 1457
and the employees have been newly hired. There is no integration
between this new plant and the Employer's old plant, no interchange
of employees between the two plants, and each plant is under separate
immediate supervision. The employees in the two plants possess
substantially different skills. We find that a unit limited to the
employees of the Intervale plant may therefore be appropriate.8
However, as the two plants are located in the same community, about
5 miles apart, have common office services and facilities, are under
the same general supervision, and are subject to the same over-all
direction of labor relations policies, a unit of both plants as desired
by the Intervenor may also be appropriate.4
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in a voting group composed
of all the employees at the Employer's Intervale plant at Detroit,
Michigan, excluding office clerical employees,, professional employees,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of these employees vote for either of the two petition-
ing Unions, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be
represented by such union in a separate unit, and the Regional
Director conducting the election herein is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives to such union for a unit composed of
employees at the Intervale plant, which the Board, under such circum-
stances, finds to be appropriate. If a majority of these employees
vote for the Intervenor they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to be represented, together with the employees of the John R.
plant, in a two-plant unit, and the Regional Director will issue
a certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
a Wilson Athletic Goods Manufacturing Co., Inc., 95 NLRB 892.
Phillips -Jones Corporation, 96 NLRB 153.
" The Petitioner in Case No. 7-RC-1883 apparently requests the inclusion of plant
clerical employees . . As the Board has held that plant clerical employees properly belong
in a production and maintenance unit, we shall include them . National Cash Register
Company, 95 NLRB 27.
SUNSET MINERALS , INC. aIzd INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL
& SMELTER WORKERS, LOCAL 18. Case No. 19-CA-516. October 10,
1952
Decision and Order
On March 3, 1952, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
100 NLRB No. 241.