Afro Jobbing & Manufacturing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 20, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 19 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

AFRO JOBBING & MFG. CORP. 19
Afro Jobbing & Manufacturing Corporation and
International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW, Petitioner . Case 7-RC-9984
October 20, 1970
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELEC-
TION
CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Theodore C. Niforos.
Following the hearing, this case was transferred to the
National Labor Relations Board in Washington,
D.C., pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a brief.
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.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing 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 record establishes, and we find in accord
with the stipulation of the parties, that the following
unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees of the
Employer, including shipping and receiving em-
ployees, truckdrivers and plant clerical employees,
but excluding office clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
Petitioner would include six trainees whose employ-
ment is sponsored by a manpower training program
established pursuant to the Manpower Development
and Training Act of 1964. The program involved here
is administered by the Petitioner and is designed to
train the hard-core unemployed. Issues have been
raised as to the appropriateness of including the
trainees in the unit on grounds that (1) Petitioner's
functions in connection with the overall training
program may have resulted in a disabling conflict of
interest precluding representation of the trainee-
beneficiaries of the program, or (2) the trainees, whose
hourly wage rates are subsidized through Federal
funds, may not possess a sufficient community of
interest with other production and maintenance
workers to warrant their inclusion.
The facts show that Petitioner's program is designed
to recruit and train the hard-core unemployed as
described below: Under contracts with the Depart-
ment of Labor, the Petitioner recruits both employers
and prospective trainees to participate in the program.
Participating employers agree, pursuant to a contract
called a consortium, to provide a certain number of
openings that are filled by trainees after being
interviewed and accepted for training by the Petition-
er. However, employers are free to fill vacancies by
themselves recruiting the hard-core unemployed. In
addition, the employer is not obligated under the
consortium to accept a prospective trainee referred by
Petitioner. Once accepted by an employer the
Petitioner has no control over the trainee's employ-
ment tenure or conditions during training. The
training last from 9 months to a year.' After
completion of training it is the expectation of all
participants that the trainee will continue as a
permanent employee with the employer.
While in training, the wages of the trainees are
subsidized through funds set aside for the program by
the Federal Government. The employer furnishes
monthly reports on trainee complement and work
schedules which are then used as a basis of computa-
tion by the Federal Government for refunding
employers agreed percentages of salaries paid. The
Petitioner is sole conduit for the channelling of such
data and disbursements which, to the Employer here,
are made at the agreed current rate of $11.90 per 8-
hour day per trainee through checks signed by the
Petitioner.
Considering all the foregoing circumstances, we are
not persuaded that Petitioner's functions under the
program will result in a disabling conflict of interest
which precludes it from representing the trainees.2
Petitioner's role in referring qualified applicants is in a
sense a hiring hall function, and its role in forwarding
Federal funds is, as indicated, largely mechanical.
Accordingly, and as the trainees share the same
working conditions as other employees and are
I This Employer 's contract under the program is referred to as the attitudes. The contract known as OJT, not here involved, provides for on-
MA-4. Under it, in addition to the on-the-job training provided by the the job training only.
Employer, the trainees receive 1 -day per week classroom instruction from 2 Cf. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 108 NLRB 1555.
the Petitioner , which consists of their being taught basic education and job
186 NLRB No. 5
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
expected to be retained in permanent positions after
completion of their training, we are satisfied that they
possess a sufficient community of interest to warrant
their inclusion in the production and maintenance
unit.3 For these reasons, we find that these trainees
3 See e g, Westbrook Manufacturing Company, 72 NLRB 851, 852-853,
Reslnk and Wiggers Motors, 87 NLRB 126, 127
4 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Company,
394 U S. 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility
are appropriately a part of the unit and are eligible to
vote in the election directed herein.
[Direction of election4 omitted from publication.]
list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters , must be
filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 7 within 7
days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No
extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director
except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this
requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper
objections are filed