C. D. Beck & Co., Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 29, 195196 N.L.R.B. 1130 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation 1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. D. BECK & COMPANY, INC.' and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO1 PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-19208. October 09,1951 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 Bernard Ness, 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 Reynolds 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 certain 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 Petitioner seeks a production and maintenance unit, includ- ing inter alia janitors and firemen. The Intervenor 2 agrees with the propored unit. The Employer, however, would exclude janitors and firemen therefrom. There is no history of collective bargaining affecting these employees. The Employer employs one janitor, who performs the usual jani- torial duties in both the office and the shop. He is under the supervision of the shop superintendent, as are the other employees involved in this proceeding. As the Employer has advanced no cogent reason for excluding the janitor, we shall include him in the unit as a maintenance employee.3 The Employer also employs three licensed firemen who, during the hours when the plant is not in operation, tend the steam boilers used 'The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. The Employer con- tends that the Board is without jurisdiction in this proceeding, because the petition, the notice of hearing, and the amendment to the notice of hearing, designated and were served on C D. Beck & Company, a partnership separate and distinct from the Employer, a cor- poration. These documents were served by registered mail and telegram addressed to Ct D. Beck & Company, Attention : C. D. Beck, President. C. D. Beck is both a partner in the partnership and president of the corporation. The Employer participated in an in- formal conference held by the Board's Regional Office prior to the formal hearing, and appeared and participated fully at the formal hearing. No showing has been made that the Employer was prejudiced in any manner by this technical defect in the formal papers. Accordingly, we find the Employer's contention to be without merit. Rochester Metal Products, 94 NLRB 1779. 2 United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 776. 3 R J. Gould Welding and Erecting Company, Ino., 95 NLRB 460. 96 NLRB No. 174. C. D. BECK & COMPANY, INC. 11311 for heating the plant. They also perform janitorial duties and, for- 10 minutes out of each hour, make rounds of the plant to check for- fire and theft. Except with respect to their boiler room duties, they are under the supervision of the shop superintendent. As the firemen: do not spend more than 50 percent of their time performing plant- protection duties, we find that they are not guards within the meaning- of the Act 4 As they are essentially maintenance employees, and the Employer has advanced no cogent reason for excluding them, we shall include the firemen in the unit.5 The Employer contends that if the firemen are included in the unit, Short, also a licensed fireman, should also be included therein. The- Intervenor opposes his inclusion but the Petitioner, although not opposing his exclusion, believes that he should be included. Short- tends the boilers during the hours when the plant is in operation, and is also in charge of all machine maintenance work at the plant. No, employees are regularly under his supervision; however, when neces- sary, production employees are, at his request, assigned to assist him, in his maintenance duties. The three firemen discussed above report to Short with respect to their boiler room duties. The record does not reflect that Short's direction of the firemen and the employees who. assist him in his maintenance duties requires the exercise of independ- ent judgment, and he apparently possesses none of the other statutory- indicia of supervisory authority. We find, accordingly, that Short, is not a supervisor, and we shall therefore include Short in the unit. On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, we find that all' production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Sidney,. Ohio, plant, including janitors, firemen, and employees in the shipping- room, stockroom, machine shop, toolroom, and warehouse, but ex- cluding all office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. Beginning about June 15, 1951, the Employer has laid off ap- proximately 40 employees because of lack of work; the remaining employees are working only about 3 days per week. No promises were made to the laid-off employees as to whether they would be recalled. The Employer has no system of seniority or other system for recalling laid-off employees. The Employer's president testified that the Em- ployer would attempt to reemploy the laid-off employees if business The Carborundum Company, 95 NLRB 897. The Carborundum Company, supra We find without merit the Employer's contention that the firemen should be excluded from the unit because, in the event of a strike, they allegedly could effectively shut down the plant. Such a consideration is insufficient to warrant denying these employees collective bargaining rights, or to control their unit placement . See Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation , Fort Worth Division , 92 NLRB 1290; General Electric Company, 85 NLRB 1316. Cf. Standard Oal Company ( Indiana), 80 NLRB 1275, 1277. 1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conditions should warrant an expansion of the working force ; how- ever, he was unable to predict when such conditions might prevail. Under these circumstances we find, contrary to the contention of the Petitioner and the Intervenor, that the laid-off employees have no reasonable expectation of reemployment by the Employer, and that they are accordingly ineligible to vote in the election herein directed 6 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 6 Albion Malleable Iron Company, 90 NLRB 1640, 1642. Fox DELUXE FOODS, INC. and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 18-RC-1214 and 18-RC-123,2. October 29, 1951 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Clarence A. Meter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing 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 these cases to a three- member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in these cases, 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. Questions affecting commerce exist 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 the following employees as separate bargaining units : (1) All production and maintenance em- ployees at the Employer's Barron, Wisconsin, plant, including seas- onal employees, the truck driver, and the cattle buyer, but excluding office and clerical employees, construction employees, intake station employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and (2) all office and clerical employees at the Employer's plant, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act .1 1 The Employer contended that the Petitioner cannot represent the office and clerical employees apparently on the ground that the Petitioner has no such jurisdiction. As the Board has frequently held under similar circumstances , the willingness of a petitioner to represent the employees in issue is controlling under the Act, not the eligibility of em• ployees to membership nor the exact extent of the petitioner ' s constitutional jurisdiction. 96 NLRB No. 183. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation