B. F. Goodrich Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 1355 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY, EMPLOYER and PETROLEUM
HAULERS, GARAGE, STATION AND PARKING ATTENDANTS LOCAL 103,
INTERNATIONAL BROTI-IERIIOOD' OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
ILOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 9-RC5417
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
December 29, 1949
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held in this matter on
August 11, 1949, before William Naimark, hearing officer. On Sep-
tember 29, 1949, the Board issued a Decision and Order,1 dismissing
the petition on the ground that the unit sought by the Petitioner was
inappropriate. On October 7, 1949, the Petitioner requested recon-
sideration of the matter. On October 28, 1949, the Board ordered
the record reopened for the taking of additional evidence on the ques-
tion of the appropriate unit. A further hearing was held on November
15, 1949, before the same hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at this hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.2
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
Reynolds and Murdock].
186 NLRB 317:
2 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer ' s motion to set aside and
rescind the Board's order to reopen the record . The Employer alleges that it received
no notice of the Petitioner 's request for reconsideration of the Board ' s Decision of Sep-
tember 29 , 1949 , and contends that the Board has no power, ex parte, to reopen the
record. No contractual interest adverse to the Petitioner ' s representation claim has
arisen, nor has any opposing representation claim been made upon the Employer. The
Board has wide discretion in utilizing administrative procedures , including the reopening
of the record , before the certification of any bargaining representative . The motion is
therefore denied. Inland Empire District Council, et at. v. Millis, et at., 325 U . S. 697 ;
United States Gypsum Company.. 79 NLRB 451 ; Grifn - Goodncr Grocery Company, 73
NLRB 1332.
87 NLRB No. 166.
1355
1356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record, including both hearings in this matter, the
Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.3
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
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 seeks to represent a unit consisting of all service
department employees in three of the Employer's retail stores located
at Cincinnati and Norwood, Ohio, and Covington, Kentucky, and all
employees in the ,Employer's recap plant in Cincinnati. The Em-
ployer contends that separate units for. each of the stores and the recap
plant 4 are proper.
The operations of the Employer
In addition to the manufacture of automobile tires and tubes, the
Employer operates approximately 550 retail tire and automobile sup-
ply. stores throughout the country. For administrative purposes, the
Employer has divided the country into 5 ,divisions which include 30
districts. The Cincinnati District, with which we are here concerned,
is one of 6 districts in the Central Division. Of the 15 retail stores in
the Cincinnati District, 8 are in Ohio, 5 are in Kentucky, 1 is in Indiana,
and 1 is in West Virginia. The 3 stores in which the Petitioner seeks
bargaining rights are situated in Metropolitan Cincinnati : 1 in Cin-
cinnati itself, the other 2 in suburbs less than 5 miles away.5 The other
11 stores are at an average distance of about 82 miles from Cincinnati.
One store is 20 miles away (Hamilton, Ohio), 5 are between 55 and
75 miles away (Dayton, Troy, Springfield, and Greenville, Ohio, and
Lexington, Kentucky), 4 are between 82 and 115 miles away (Chilli-
cothe, Ohio; New Albany, Indiana; and Louisville and Ashland, Ken-
tucky), and 1 is 165 miles away (Charleston, West Virginia). There
is no interchange of employees between any of the Employer' s stores.
' At the end of the second hearing , the Employer moved to dismiss the entire proceeding
on the ground that the activities of the employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent
do not affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. At the first hearing, the Employer
stipulated that it was engaged in commerce . The Board has frequently asserted jurisdic-
tion over the Employer , and over retail chain store groups similar to the one operated by
the Employer . See The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company , 75 NLRB 465; B. F.
Goodrich Company, 73 NLRB 1250 . The motion to dismiss. is, therefore , denied.
4The Employer also contends that the recap plant should not at any event . be included
in the same unit with the stores . This question is considered separately below.
6 The-Employer has a 'store at Newport,-Kentucky;,another • Cincinnati suburb. However,
this store only makes retail sales ; it has no service employees. .
B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 1357
The Cincinnati District is under the over-all supervision of a district
manager and two store supervisors. Each store in the district is
under the immediate supervision of a store manager. Although cer-
tain conditions of employment, such as insurance, hospitalization, and
retirement benefits, are established by the Employer on a national
basis, considerable discretion is delegated to the store manager in the
operation of the individual stores. The latter has authority to employ
and discharge personnel, determine wage rates, hours of employment,
and vacation benefits, and decide the kind of merchandise and service
to be furnished by the. store. The record discloses that it is the settled
policy of the Employer for the store manager to adjust the operation
of the store to local community conditions. Thus, although the,
Employer sets general wage 'apges, the store-manager conforms wage
rates, store. hours, and employee vacations to prevailing community
practice. Such collective bargaining as the Employer has engaged
in for its retail store outlets has been on an individual store ,basis.
There is no history of bargaining for the three stores here involved.
The scope of the unit
There is no request for, and- the Employer's bargaining history
is inconsistent with, a unit finding based upon the administrative
organization of the Employer's chain system. This does not neces-
sarily mean, however, that collective bargaining in this case must be
confined to the individual stores In cases similar to the one now
before us, we have frequently found appropriate a unit based upon
geographical factors.' At the time of our earlier Decision herein, the
record contained no evidence to show the location of the other stores
in the Cincinnati District which the Petitioner did not include in its
unit request. As far as we could ascertain then, all the stores in the
Cincinnati District might have been in Metropolitan Cincinnati itself.
There was, therefore, no geographical pattern to which the Petitioner's
request conformed. However, in view of the proximity to each other
of the three stores in Metropolitan Cincinnati and their substantial
geographical separation from the other stores in the Cincinnati Dis-
trict, and in view of the Employer's policy to integrate the operation
of its stores with the economic life of the community in which such
stores are located, we are of the opinion that a unit comprising em-
ployees in the three stores in Metropolitan Cincinnati may be appro-
priate for collective bargaining purposes.8
See The Kroger Company, 85 NLRB 6.
See cases cited in footnote 8, infra.
s The Great Atlantic & Pacific-Tea Company, 85 NLRB 680; American Stores Company,
82 NLRB 882; The Kroger Company, supra.
1358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The. composition of the unit
There are eight service employees in the Cincinnati store, .and one
each in the Norwood and Covington stores. These employees change
tires, lubricate cars, reline and repair brakes, and perform similar
functions in connection with the servicing of automobiles. ' The
parties are in agreement, and we concur, that the service employees,
as distinguished from the selling and clerical employees in the stores,
may properly constitute a bargaining unit of their own.'
The only remaining question is whether the employees in the recap
plant should be included in the same unit with the store service em-
ployees. At the recap plant, situated adjacent to the Cincinnati store,
the Employer is engaged in recapping and repairing tires. The Cin-
cinnati store manager supervises the-'recap plant, in which there are
employed a recap manager and three operators. The Employer con-
tends that the recap plant is engaged in a manufacturing operation,
and that the recap employees should not be included in the same unit
with the service employees. We are not persuaded that the recap em-
ployees do work that is substantially different from. that done by the
service employees. Although the recap employees receive a somewhat
higher wage rate than the service -employees, they work approxi-
mately the same hours and are subject to the same general conditions
of employment as the service employees. It is significant that the
recap employees are under the supervision of a retail store manager;
they are not a. part of the Employer's national tire manufacturing or-
ganization. For these reasons, and because of the factors of geograph-
ical location and integration in the economic life of the community
discussed above, we shall include the recap plant employees in the
unit found appropriate herein.
We find that all service department employees employed by the
Employer at its Cincinnati and Norwood, Ohio, and Covington, Ken-
tucky, retail stores, and all employees employed by the Employer at
its recap plant in Cincinnati, Ohio, "excluding temporary employees 10
and supervisors 11 as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
See Harry Brown Motor company , et al ., 86 NLRB 652.
xo The Employer occasionally employs a temporary service man in its stores. Such all
employee is not carried on the regular pay roll , and usually works short and irregular
periods of time . The Petitioner would include such employees in the unit, the Employer
would exclude them. In accordance with our usual policy, we shall exclude temporary
employees.
n Excluded as supervisors are the store managers , the .Cincinnati service manager, and
the recap plant manager . The parties . agree, and we concur , that the assistant service
manager at the Cincinnati store is not a supervisor.
B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY
DIRECTION.OF ELECTION
1359
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 super-
vision 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 during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction 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 rein-
stated 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 bargain-
ing, by Petroleum Haulers, Garage, Station and Parking Attendants
Local 103, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL.
ORDER
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the Decision and Order issued on Septem-
ber 29, 1949, in this matter be, and it hereby is, vacated.