Alfred Shaheen , Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 23, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 96 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
land field offices, containing a separate supervisory hierarchy and pos-
sessing a significant degree of independent authority in the settlement
of claims . We find, accordingly, on the record as a whole, that a unit of
the Employer's Boston field office claims adjusters is appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Trav-
elers Insurance decision.
Another issue in this case is the unit placement of three inside
adjusters working in the Boston field office. The Petitioner would ex-
clude them, but the Employer contends they should be included in the
same unit with the other adjusters. The inside adjusters work on
property damage claims only, do not leave the office, and do not have
expense accounts, whereas the main body of adjusters sought by the
Petitioned handle all types of claims, do most of their work outside
the office, and have expense accounts. On the other hand, all the ad-
justers perform essentially the same type of work and, like the other
adjusters, the inside adjusters exercise discretion in the settlement of
claims; also, all the adjusters have the same salary range and receive
the same employee benefits. We find, therefore, that the duties and
working conditions of the inside adjusters are fundamentally like
those of the other adjusters and that the interests of all the adjusters
are closely allied. Accordingly, we shall include the inside adjusters
in the unit sought by the Petitioner.
The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act :
All investigator adjusters,5 including inside investigator adjusters,
at the Employer's Boston field office, excluding all other employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6In its petition the Petitioner described the employees sought as claims adjusters. How-
ever, as the Employer classifies its claims adjusters as investigator adjusters, we have
identified the employees involved herein to conform with the Employer's job title.
Alfred Shaheen , Ltd. and ILWU, Local 142, affiliated with Inter-
national Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union, Inde-
pendent, Petitioner . Case No. 37-RC-340. January 23, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before David E. Davis, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
117 NLRB No. 25.
ALFRED SHAHEEN, LTD. 97
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman Leedom and Members
Rodgers and Bean].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit limited to the Employer's
fabric handprint shop employees . The Employer contends that only
a plr ntwide unit of its employees is appropriate.
The Employer manufactures various types of wearing apparel. The
unprocessed cloth received by the Employer is processed through
various operational departments , such as designing , fabric printing,
cutting, and sewing and finishing . The Petitioner seeks to represent
the employees engaged in the fabric printing operation . The fabric
printing employees learn most of their duties in a period of weeks ; the
most difficult operations are learned within 4 months . There are some
differences between the job characteristics of the fabric handprint
employees and some of the other employees-such as working hours
and pay plans-although such variations are not limited exclusively to
handprint workers. On the other hand, the Employer has a single
labor policy for all its employees , and all the employees enjoy the
same fringe benefits and use common plant facilities . Such facts and
the record generally show that the Employer 's fabric printing em-
ployees are not craftsmen entitled to separate representation. The
record also fails to establish that they constitute a departmental group
traditionally entitled to separate representation . To the contrary, the
record establishes that the fabric handprint employees are an integral
part of the Employer's production operations and have common in-
terests with the employees in the other production departments. Thus
the only basis for the Petitioner 's unit request is the extent of its or-
ganization among the Employer 's employees . As extent of organiza-
tion cannot be the controlling factor in deciding the appropriateness
of a bargaining unit, we shall dismiss the petition.'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
1 See Dexdale Hosiery Mills , 115 NLRB 228.
423784-57-vol. 117--8