Anderson Coach Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 3, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 1235 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of ANDERSON COACH COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED
GAS, COKE & CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 7-RC-619.-Decided November 3, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Jerome H.
Brooks, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 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 National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A 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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner contends that all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer, excluding "over-the-road" truck drivers, of-
fice and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors, constitute an ap-
propriate unit. The Employer is in substantial accord with the Peti-
tioner as to the appropriate unit, except that it would include the
drivers and an alleged group leader in the cabinet shop.
The Employer employs seven drivers. Of these, six deliver the
trailers manufactured by the Employer to various destinations in the
United States. They spend less than 10 percent of their time at the
plant and, during this time, merely service their vehicles while awaiting
further delivery assignments. They are paid a base salary and re-
ceive additional compensation on a mileage basis. The Employer has
no salesmen and, in addition to their delivery duties, these drivers, who
,are under the supervision of the sales manager, act as the sales rep-
resentatives of the Employer. They report to the Employer regarding
86 N. L. R. B., No. 141. 1235
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dealers' complaints and the status of dealers' inventories, and, on oc-
casion, demonstrate the Employer's product to prospective dealer-
purchasers. The seventh driver picks up material in various States
for delivery to the plant, does no production or maintenance work, and
is under the supervision of the Employer's purchasing agent and office
manager. He receives the same base salary as the other six drivers,
and in addition is paid on the basis of the tonnage miles he travels.'
The employees sought by the Petitioner are all under the immediate
supervision of either their respective department foremen or the
plant superintendent, and are paid at an hourly plus-incentive rate.
In view of the divergence in working conditions between the drivers
and the production and maintenance employees as well as their differ-
ent supervision and mode of payment, we.shall exclude the drivers from
the appropriate unit.2
The Petitioner contends that Orville Stiehl, who works in the Em-
ployer's cabinet department, is a supervisor and should be excluded
from the unit. The Employer alleges that he is merely a group leader
who should be included. Stiehl receives 35 cents an hour more than
other employees in this department, breaks in new employees, tries out
new production ideas suggested by the Employer to determine their
practicality, suggests improved working methods to other employees,
and performs the duties of absent employees. However, each of the
approximately 11 employees in the department, including Stiehl, per-
forms a different operation in the Employer's production process, is
free to accept or reject the suggestions made by Stiehl, and also sug-
gests improvements and fills in for absent employees. Other than
the plant superintendent and the plant designer, there is no immediate
supervision over the cabinet shop. The Employer's greater reliance
upon Stiehl is apparently based upon the fact that he is the oldest em-
ployee in point of service in the department. Stiehl has no authority
to reprimand or responsibly direct other employees, and he has no
power to hire or discharge or effectively to recommend such action.
We find that Stiehl is not a supervisor and shall, accordingly, include
him in the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer at its East Tawas, Michigan, plant, excluding over-the-road
truck drivers, office and clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
1 The pick-up driver was apparently included by the parties in their designation of "over-
the-road" drivers.
2 Matter of Marsh Furniture Company, 66 N. L. R. B . 133; Matter of Oklahoma Rendering
Company, 60 N. L. R. B. 907.
ANDERSON COACH COMPANY
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
1237
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses.of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot'shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard,
and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations; among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed dur-
ing the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direc-
tion of Election, including employees who did not work during said
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by
United Gas, Coke & Chemical Workers of America, CIO.
867361-60-vol. 86-79