Alpine Metals Manufacturing Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 20, 195195 N.L.R.B. 1190 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation 1190 DECISIONS • OF NATIONAL ' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'• RENE D. WASSERMAN AND MARIE ROSE WASSERMAN , .CO-PARTNERSy D/B/A ALPINE METALS MANUFACTURING COMPANY1 and TRUCK' DRIVERS LOCAL UNION No. 807, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS" WAREHOUSEMEN, AND -HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC, 3313: August 20, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lewis Moore, hearing officer.. 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. 2. The labor organization involved claims to' represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce' exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks a unit comprising all shipping department and receiving employees,. including truck drivers. At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought is inappropriate. . The motion is denied for reasons appearing hereinafter. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of welding rods, elec- trodes, and fluxes. It employs a .total of approximately 76 employees; of which about 50 are production- employees, 7 receiving :employees and 19 shipping department employees. There is no history of col- lective bargaining at the Employer's plant. All of the employees, in- cluding those sought by the Petitioner, are covered by the same personnel policy with regard to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. Although the employees in the shipping department sought herein are separately located and under separate immediate supervision, the receiving employees, whom the Petitioner would like- wise include in its requested unit, are part of the production depart- ment and spend about 70 percent of their time in work closely related to production duties. . . . . It is clear that none ;of the shipping, department and receiving;, em- ployees exercise craft skills. Nor does it appear that their- duties and 1 As amended at the hearing. 95 NLRB No. 164. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF- BOILERMAKERS 119'1 interests are otherwise so clearly distinguishable from those- of other employees in the plant to warrant the establishment of an appropriate unit limited either to shipping department and receiving employees or to the shipping department alone. Such a finding would require the Board to accord controlling weight to the Petitioner' s extent of organization among the employees at the Employer's plant. How- ever, Section. 9` (c) (5) of the amended Act forbids this result. Ac- ,cordingly, we find that a unit 'of shipping department and receiving employees is inappropriate for the purposes. of collective bargaining.2 The Petitioner, however, has expressed a willingness to represent -any unit which the Board finds appropriate. Although its showing of interest is insufficient to warrant the direction of an election in a unit larger than requested, we find,' in accordance. with established Board policy, that the two truck drivers, who are engaged solely in transportation duties,' constitute. an identifiable; homogenous group entitled to separate representation 3 . We find that all truck drivers employed at the Employer's Flush- ang, New York, plant, 'excluding all other, employees and all Supervi- sors as defined in the amended 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.] CHAIRMAN HERzoG and MEMBER STYLES took no part in the con- sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 2 See Arnold Hoffman & Co., Incorporated, 91 NLRB 1371. ' Q-F Wholesalers , Inc., 85 NLRB 582, and cases cited therein. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD . OF .BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIPBUILDERS AND HELPERS OF ' AMERICA, SUBORDINATE LODGE No. 92; UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING .AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, A. F. L., LOCAL No. 460; KERN, INYO, AND MONO COUNTIES OF CALI- FORNIA BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, A. F. L., AND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF SANTA BARBARA `COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, A. F. L. and RICHFIELD OIL . CORPORATION. Case No. 21-CC,92. August 21, 1951. Decision and, Order On January 29, 1951, Trial. Examiner Peter F.. Ward issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the 95 NItRB No. 160. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation