Texas Hardwood Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 356 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of TEXAS HARDWOOD MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND
SOUTHERN HARDWOOD COMPANY, EMPLOYERS and CONGRESS OF IN-
DUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS , PETITIONER
Case No. 16-R-0029-Decided April 11, 1947
Messrs. Alto B. Cervin and J. C. Muse, Jr., of Dallas, Tex., for the
Employers.
Messr. W. E. Keeter and W. L. Campbell, of Dallas, Tex., for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Stanley Segal, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon an amended petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations
Board, on January 10, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among
the employees of the Employers in the alleged appropriate unit, to de-
termine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 72 eligible
voters, of whom 58 voted for the Petitioner, 8 voted against the Pe-
titioner, and 5 voted under challenge.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Dallas, Texas, on February 13,
1947, before Claude H. Eads, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
The Employers' motion'to dismiss the petition on the ground that
the "CIO Organizing Committe" is not a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act is denied for reasons stated
hereinafter.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National'Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE 13USINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS 1
Texas Hardwood Manufacturing Company and Southern Hard-
wood Company are Texas corporations with offices and sole plant
I The name of the Employer was designated in the petition and the notices of election
as Texas Hardwood Manufactuiing Company At the hearing it developed that another
73 N. L. R. B, No. 68.
356
O
TEXAS HARDWOOD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 357
in Dallas, Texas, where they are engaged in the manufacture of di-
mension furniture. The Employers annually, purchase for their man-
ufacturing operations raw materials valued at approximately $250,-
000, of which about 40 percent is purchased outside the State of Texas.
The Employers annually sell manufactured products valued at ap-
proximately $600,000, of which about 65 percent is shipped out of
the State.
The Employers admit and we find that they are engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employers.2
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employers refuse to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employers until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employers within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance
employees, including the janitor and watchmen, but excluding office
and clerical employees, salesmen, and supervisory employees. The
Employers agree that this unit is generally appropriate. They would,
corporation, Southern Hardwood Company, was the Employer of some of the employees in
the unit Accoidingly, the Petitionei moved to amend the caption to read as above The
hearing officer granted this motion over the objection of the Employers Southern Hard-
wood Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Texas Haidwood Manufacturing Company
and has the sane stockholders and officers The operations of the two companies are closely
integrated They share the same premises, have common supervision and personnel poli-
cies, interchange employees, have a common office staff, and in all iespects function as a
single employer On the insistence of the Employers, the employees of both companies
were included in the unit and voted in the election Under these circumstances, we find
that Texas Hardwood Manufacturing Company and Southern Hardwood Company are a
single employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act and that the hearing officer's
ruling permitting amendment of the caption was proper
2 At the hearing, over the objections of the Employers, the hearing officer granted the
Petitioner's motion to change the name of the petitioning labor organization from "CIO
Organizing Committee," the name under which it appeared on the amended petition and
on the ballot, to "Congiess of Industrial Organizations " The Employers moved to dismiss
the amended petition on the ground that the "CIO Organizing Committee" is not a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act, they conceded that the Congress of Industrial
Organizations is a labor organization. The "CIO Organizing Committee" is a department
within the Congress of Industrial organizations devoted to oigamzing employees for col-
lective baigaining purposes. Accordingly, we find that it is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. we further find that the modification of the
Petitioner's name permitted by the hearing officer was proper in the circumstances.
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
however, exclude the janitor and watchmen, whose votes were
challenged.
The janitor sweeps and cleans the offices and services an apartment
located above the offices, used by customers of the Employers. The
janitor's work is that of a maintenance employee. Regardless of the
place of his employment, we believe that he should be included in
the same unit with production and maintenance employees generally.
We shall include him.3
The Employers employ three watchmen, one on each shift to tour
the premises, guarding against fire and the unauthorized presence of
strangers on company property. In addition, the watchmen check
the boilers to make certain that the proper amount of pressure is
maintained, and clean the boilers approximately once a month. The
watchmen are neither armed, deputized, nor uniformed. In accordance
with our usual policy, we shall include them in the unit 4
We find that all production and, maintenance employees of the
Employers, including janitor and watchmen, but excluding office and
clerical employees, salesmen, and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, of effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held before the hearing show that the
Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast, and that
the challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results
of the election. Accordingly, we shall certify it as the- exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Congress of Industrial Organizations
has been designated by a majority of the employees in the unit de-
scribed in Section IV, above, as their representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the
Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
Mi.. JOHN M. HousTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Certification of Representatives.
3 Matter of Inland Steel Company, 73 N L R B 19
4 Matter of J. d L Steel Barrel Company, 68 N L R B . 409; Matter of Marsh Furniture
Company, 66 N L. R. B. 133.