Arnold Hoffman & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 1371 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of ARNOLD HOFFMAN & CO., INCORPORATED, EMPLOYER
and LOCAL 526, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-1566.-Decided October 30, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph Lepie, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dical 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 Reynolds and Murdock].
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 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 a unit of warehouse employees including re-
ceivers , helpers, lift-truck operators, receiver-helpers and mule-truck
operators, laborers, shipper-helpers, clerks, and truck drivers,' but
excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Employer, on the other hand, contends that only a production
and maintenance unit is appropriate.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of dyestuffs, resins,
softeners, and sizes for the textile industry at its plants located in
Dighton, Massachusetts; Cincinnati, Ohio; and Charlotte, North Caro-
lina. This proceeding involves only the Employer' s plant located
at Dighton, Massachusetts. The Employer's production operations
' There is one truck driver in the unit sought.
91 NLRB No. 205.
1371
1372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are conducted in several departments 2 which are housed in four
main buildings. There is no prior history of collective bargaining
affecting the Employer.
The warehouse and safety department is located in the building
known as the gum plant, which also houses the synthetic, dextrin, size,
maintenance, and part of the dye departments. Although the ware-
house is physically separated by solid walls from the other depart-
ments and is under immediate separate supervision, warehouse em-
ployees are not the only employees engaged in warehouse operations,
as indicated by the Employer's method of handling its raw materials.
Raw materials that are stored in the warehouse are delivered
to the various departments by requisition.-' Upon receipt of the requi-
sitions, the material may or may•not be moved by the warehousemen.
In many instances the employees of the department requisitioning
the article may do the actual warehousing. Often the raw materials
are delivered on lift-trucks by the warehouseman. However, because
it is impossible to move the lift-trucks into the size, synthetic, and
dextrin departments, due to the existence of wooden floors which will
not support the weight of the lift-trucks, the raw materials are
delivered to the edge of the wooden floors. Thereafter, employees
from the requisitioning departments involved finish the delivery, stor-
age, and warehousing of such materials.
Although employees of the warehouse department are not inter-
changed with employees in other departments in the sense that formal
transfers occur between departments, it appears that quite frequently
the Employer uses employees from other departments to assist the
warehouse employees, particularly in the unloading of railroad cars,.'
It further appears that all employees in the warehouse receive the
same company benefits and are covered by the same over-all personnel
policy with regard to wages, hours, and other conditions of employ-
ment, as are the employees in other departments in the plant. The
record indicates that none of the warehouse employees is skilled and
that their duties not only require no particular training or aptitude,
but also do not differ to any substantial degree from those of various
other production and maintenance employees.
The Petitioner, in its brief, contends that because approximately
41 trucking companies make daily deliveries to and from the Em-
2 The departments are maintenance department, dye department, and the analytical and
control laboratory, size department, synthetic department, dextrin department, elastics
department, main office, and warehouse and safety department.
a Not all of the raw materials are stored in the warehouse. ' The record discloses that
at times from 25 to 40 percent of the total inventory is warehoused in other departments.
* The Employer's records indicate that 19 percent of the total man-hours charged to the
warehouse department was actually performed by employees in other departments doing
receiving and shipping, work.
ARNOLD HOFFMAN & CO., INCORPORATED 1373
ployer's warehouse by trucks which are loaded and unloaded by the
Employer's warehouse employees, a jurisdictional relationship is
automatically'created between the truck drivers of the aforesaid com-
panies and the warehouse employees here involved, and that the latter
are thus entitled to representation on a jurisdictional craft basis. We
find this contention without merit 5 The employees here involved
are not employees of the trucking concerns referred to by the Peti-
tioner and have no interests which associate them with these em-
ployers; nor do they constitute a craft. In view of the foregoing,
the only reason for'finding such a unit appropriate would be the extent
of the Petitioner's organization among the employees at the Em-
ployer's plant. However, Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act forbids our
making a unit finding based on this factor alone. Accordingly, as the
unit sought is inappropriate,r we shall dismiss the petition herein.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case and for the reasons
set forth above, the National Labor Relations Board orders that the
petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
'.we have frequently held that the extent of a union ' s jurisdiction over certain classifi-
cations of employees is not a determinative or persuasive factor for finding a unit appro-
priate, See Cannell f Chafan, Inc., 85 NLRB 887.
The unit sought includes a truck driver . Although the Board has frequently found a
unit of truck drivers appropriate, it has held that a unit comprising a single employee
is inappropriate. Acme Cartage, Inc., 87 NLRB 458.