Andrews Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 11 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

ANDREWS COMPANY 11
it does not permit a 30-day escape period for (1) employees who be-
come members of the Intervenor after the contract became effective or
(2) employees who were members of the Intervenor when the contract
became effective.
The contract contains the following union-security provisions :
All employees who, on May 16, 1950, are members of the Union
in good standing in accordance with its constitution and by-laws,
and all employees who voluntarily become members after that
date, shall, as a condition of employment, maintain their member-
ship in the Union through the prompt payment of dues, for the
duration of this contract.
We find this contention without merit. The contract does not re-
quire any employees to become members of the Intervenor.' For
reasons set forth in the Charles A. Krause case," the fact that the con-
tract contains no 30-day escape clause for old employees who were
members on the effective date of the maintenance-of-membership
clause is not material to the validity of the contract as a bar. We find
that the existing contract between the Employer and the Intervenor
is a bar to the petition herein. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed by United Gas, Coke
and Chemical Workers of America, CIO, be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed.
MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
7 Southland Paper Mills, Inc., 97 NLRB 896.
8 Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536.
ANDREWS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 19-RC--1611. February 7, 1952
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 Charles M. Paschal,
Jr., 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
98 NLRB No. 16.
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 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 Petitioner seeks to represent a unit 1 composed of all pro-
duction and maintenance employees and shipping and receiving em-
ployees at the Employer's bearing shop plant in Spartanburg, South
Carolina, excluding all office, clerical, professional, and technical
employees, guards or watchmen, salesmen, all employees employed
on a retainer basis, all supervisors as defined in the Act, and all em-
ployees employed at the Employer's reed and textile specialty shop.
In the alternative, if the Board finds such a single-plant unit in-
appropriate, the Petitioner is willing to represent a two-plant unit
consisting of the bearing shop plant and the reed and textile specialty
shop. The Employer contends in its brief that only a unit embracing
both plants is appropriate. There is no history of collective
bargaining affecting the employees involved herein.
As indicated above, the Employer has two manufacturing plants
which are located about 100 feet apart in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
One plant, herein called the bearing plant, is engaged primarily in
the production of ball bearings. The other plant, herein called the
reed" shop, produces reeds and other textile accessories 2
The Employer maintains a• single office at the bearing plant where
all personnel matters are handled. A single payroll and other rec-
ords are kept at this office for both plants. All employees have the
same general working conditions and enjoy similar benefits. Although
each plant has its own departmental foremen, they are responsible
to the Employer's manager , assistant manager , and superintendent,
who have over-all supervision of both plants.
Part of the reed shop and a separate warehouse are used for the
storage of materials for all operations of the Employer 3 Both plants
are also served by the high pressure boiler in another building of
the Employer which supplies heat and power. The making of boxes
in which all of the Employer's finished products are packaged takes
place in the reed shop, while the shipment of these products is the
responsibility of the shipping and receiving department in the bearing
1 The description of the unit sought by the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
2 At the time of the hearing in this case, the Employer was negotiating the sale of the
reed shop and- was contemplating an addition to the bearing plant to house the functions
carried on in-the reed shop.
s However, some sections of the warehouse are rented to another company.
ANDREWS COMPANY 13
plant. Most of the welding jobs and the other machine work for
both plants are done at the bearing plant . The reed shop in turn
performs certain processes such as soldering on some of the items
produced in the bearing plant . There is considerable interchange
of maintenance men and laborers who work wherever they are needed.
In view of the foregoing , particularly the integration of operations,
close proximity of both plants , centralized administration , common
supervision , and the community of employee interests , we find that
a unit covering both plants and the boiler building is appropriate'
As we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner has an ade-
quate showing of interest in the broader unit which it is willing to
represent , we shall not dismiss the petition but shall direct an election
in this unit.
There remains for consideration the unit placement of certain
individuals whom the Employer would include and the Petitioner
would exclude.
Betty Lawrence: b This employee , a stenographer in the Employer's
office, also spends 2 or 3 hours a day in the receiving and shipping
department making out express and freight receipts . As she works
regularly in the capacity of a part-time plant clerical which is within
the ambit of the unit , Betty Lawrence is entitled to representation as
to such work , although she devotes the greater part of her day to
office clerical duties." Accordingly , we shall include her in the unit.7
Jack Lussardi , a pensioner, is regularly paid by the Employer
whether he works or not. As a "privileged character" he may stay
home at any time if he so chooses. And although he performs some
specific tasks upon the request of the manager, he is generally free to
work or "sit outside in the shade " all day. As it is clear that Lussardi
does not have a substantial interest in the conditions of employment
within the unit , we shall exclude him .8
J. R. Harrison and L. D. Proffitt: Harrison , who also has a job
with another employer , maintains the Employer 's boilers whenever
such work is required . Similarly, Proffitt is called in periodically to
direct a crew of the Employer's laborers in special construction and
4 Phillips -Jones Corporation , 96 NLRB 153; Pine Hall Brick and Pipe Company , 93 NLRB
362; Hass Wholesale Inc, 92 NLRB 408.
There are no employees attached to the warehouse
6 The Employer's brief refers to one Edna McCraw instead of Betty Lawrence. It is
clear from the job description contained in the record and the brief that this substitution
of names is the result of an inadvertence on the part of the Employer . The record shows
that one Edna McCraw is an office employee and therefore is excluded, in any event, from
the unit.
6 WWEZ Radio, Inc., 91 NLRB 1518; Harms Hosiery Co , Inc , 91 NLRB 330.
° We also find in view of the fact that she works a substantial number of hours each
week in the appropriate unit that she has a sufficient interest in the terms and conditions
of employment within the unit to entitle her to vote. The Ocala Star Banner, 95 NLRB 569.
8 Jasper Wood Products Company , Inc., 66 NLRB 333. Cf. Acme Lumber and Supply Co.,
79 NLRB 429.
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
building maintenance jobs. The Petitioner contends that Harrison
and Proffitt, who are both paid on a retainer basis, are independent
contractors and that the latter should, in any event, be excluded from
the unit as a supervisor. As the record is not clear whether they are
independent contractors or whether Proffitt is a supervisor, we shall
permit Harrison and Proffitt to vote subject to challenge.
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (c) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees" and shipping and re-
ceiving employees, including part-time plant clerical employees 10 at
the Employer's bearing shop, and reed and textile specialty shop and
.the boiler building in Spartanburg, South Carolina, but excluding
all office, clerical, professional, technical employees, salesmen, guards,
and all supervisors 11 as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
9 See discussion , supra, as to J. R. Harrison and L . D. Proffitt.
10 Betty Lawrence.
11 The parties agree , and we find, that the departmental foremen in both plants are
supervisors . They are therefore excluded from the unit.
UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, LOCAL 32, AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 7-RC-1515. February 8,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William M. Otter, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
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 organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section,
t (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
98 NLRB No. 9.