C. P. Clare and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 589 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

C. P. CLARE AND CO. 589
C. P. Clare and Company ' and Teamsters Local 310,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Peti-
tioner. Case 28-RC-2130
June 25, 1971
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Samuel Slaff of the
National Labor Relations Board.
Following the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended, by direction of the Regional Director for
Region 28, this case was transferred to the Board for
decision. Thereafter, the Petitioner and the Employer
each filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing and finds that they are free from
prejudicial error.2 They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. C. P. Clare and Company,' a wholly owned sub-
sidiary of General Instrument Corporation, is a Dela-
ware corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale
of electromechanical products at various locations. Its
principal office is located in Chicago, Illinois. C. P.
Calre de Mexico, S. A. de C. V.,4 a wholly owned
corporate subsidiary of C. P. Clare, operates an elec-
tromechanical products manufacturing plant in
Nogales, Sonora, Mexico.
The petition listed "C. P. Clare Warehouse" as the Employer and all the
documents in this proceeding to date have borne that name. In view of our
finding that the Employer is "C. P. Clare and Company" and not "C. P.
Clare de Mexico, S. A. de C. V," as contended by the latter firm, we have
changed the case title accordingly , and hereby amend the papers in this case
to read, "C. P. Clare and Company" wherever the Employer is incorrectly
denominated "C. P. Clare Warehouse "
While not raised as an issue at the hearing, in its brief the Employer
contends that C. P. Clare and Company was not notified of this proceeding
or joined as a party. The record reveals that a copy of the notice of hearing
was sent by certified mail to attorney Philip D Goodman, in Chicago,
Illinois , on January 8, 1971, and that he appeared on behalf of "C. P. Clare
Warehouse" at the hearing. A copy of the notice was also sent by ordinary
mail to Mr. Clark Shannon in Nogales, Arizona, and he appeared on behalf
of C. P Clare and Company even though he is vice president and general
manager of C. P. Clare de Mexico, a wholly owned subsidiary of C. P. Clare
and Company. We find that C. P. Clare and Company was notified of this
proceeding, appeared, and is party hereto.
Hereinafter C. P. Clare.
Hereinafter C. P Clare de Mexico.
The Nogales, Arizona, warehouse involved in this
proceeding annually receives goods valued in excess of
$50,000 from outside the State of Arizona. These goods
are shipped from the warehouse across the United
States-Mexico border to Nogales, Mexico, a distance of
about 3 miles, where they are used as raw materials in
C. P. Clare de Mexico's plant. The Mexican firm ships
its finished products directly to customers in the United
States, bypassing entirely the Arizona warehouse. The
Arizona warehouse is leased by C. P. Clare, but C. P.
Clare de Mexico reimburses the American company for
the rent it pays.
The three warehouse employees whom the Petitioner
seeks to represent were hired by C. P. Clare de Mex-
ico's personnel manager after interviews in Mexico.
The employees are Mexican nationals working in the
United States under "green card" permits. When he
was rehired in July 1970, employee Luis Ibarra re-
ceived a letter from Mr. C. P. Clare on C. P. Clare
stationery which welcomed Ibarra to the American
organization. The warehouse employees are paid by C.
P. Clare check drawn on an American bank. United
States income and social security taxes are withheld
from their earnings. C. P. Clare de Mexico reimburses
C. P. Clare for the wages paid the warehouse em-
ployees.
The warehouse employees receive goods destined for
the Mexican plant that are shipped from various points
throughout the United States. They inspect the ship-
ment upon delivery by common carrier and note its
arrival in an inventory control book. Ibarra, the most
senior warehouse employee, supplies C. P. Clare de
Mexico with data required by it for the preparation of
export-import documents covering the raw materials
the Mexican firm imports. Also, Ibarra receives daily
telephone orders from Mexico that tell the warehouse
employees which goods to ship that day. The raw
materials are transported across the border in trucks
driven by employees of C. P. Clare de Mexico. How-
ever, C. P. Clare owns one of the two trucks used by
the Mexican company and the other truck is registered
in both the United States and Mexico. There is no
evidence of interchange or transfer between the
Arizona warehouse employees and any of C. P. Clare
de Mexico's employees.
C. P. Clare de Mexico argues that it employs the
warehousemen and that the Board does not have juris-
diction in this case because the unit sought consists of
foreign nationals employed by a foreign corporation. It
contends too that the American parent corporation,
over whom C. P. Clare de Mexico concedes the Board
has jurisdiction, has no authority to affect the ware-
house employees' working conditions. We find no merit
in these arguments.
191 NLRB No. 116
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The warehouse employees sought by the Petitioner
clearly are employed by C. P. Clare, an American cor-
poration over whom the Board has jurisdiction. When
hired, they were welcomed to the "team" by C. P.
Clare's president in a letter on C. P. Clare stationery.
The employees ' paychecks are drawn on C. P . Clare's
American bank account and United States social
security and income taxes are withheld therefrom.
The Board has asserted jurisdiction, over foreign na-
tionals employed within the United States under spe-
cial work permits, such as the "green card," on numer-
ous occasions .' In McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de
Marineros de Honduras [United Fruit Company], 372
U.S. 10, the Supreme Court held that the Act was not
intended to apply to foreign registered vessels employ-
ing alien seamen . Contrary to the Employer's assertion,
that case is inapplicable to the instant situation which
involves employees of an American corporation who
work solely within the United States. Herbert Harvey,
Inc., 171 NLRB No. 36, also relied upon by the Em-
ployer, is likewise inapposite since there the Board de-
clined to assert jurisdiction over the World Bank be-
cause that international organization enjoys "the
privileges and immunities from the laws of the sover-
eignty in which it is located customarily extended to
such organizations," and no such considerations per-
tain in the instant proceeding . The Employer also relies
upon British Rail-International Inc., 163 NLRB 721,
where the Board deemed it inappropriate to assert ju-
risdiction over certain employees working in the
United States for an American corporation because
that employer was a wholly owned subsidiary of the
British Railways Board , an agency of the British gov-
ernment . Clearly, C. P. Clare 's situation differs from
that found in British Rail.
Accordingly, we find from the above that, inasmuch
as the employees involved in this proceeding are em-
ployed within the United States by C. P. Clare, the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of the employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of ware-
housemen, checkers, and platform people employed at
the Employer 's Nogales , Arizona , warehouse. C. P.
Clare de Mexico argues that due to the complete inte-
gration of the American and Mexican operations a unit
limited to the employees at the Nogales , Arizona, ware-
house is not appropriate.
Separate units of warehouse employees have been
found appropriate by the Board on numerous occa-
sions .6 The record reveals nothing to warrant a different
conclusion here . The Arizona warehouse employees
work in a separate location doing tasks unlike those of
the manufacturing plant employees . The warehouse
operates independently of the Mexican plant and, in
fact , currently performs the same customs function for
C. P. Clare de Mexico as an independent broker in
Nogales, Arizona, formerly performed.
The Employer contends that Luis Ibarra is a super-
visor within the meaning of the Act and therefore
should be excluded from any unit found appropriate.
We disagree.
Ibarra, who was initially hired in January 1970 as the
only warehouse employee, left the Employer's employ
in April, but was rehired in July at an increased wage
even though he remained the sole warehouse employee.
When the Employer hired the" two warehousemen
whom it now contends Ibarra supervises , Ibarra's wage
rate was not increased and, in fact , it has remained
constant to date despite his asserted greater respon-
sibilities.
Ibarra works alongside the other warehousemen
loading and unloading trucks and spend 2-3 hours a
day preparing papers for inventory control , import-
export documents , etc. He also supplies information to
C. P. Clare de Mexico so it can prepare customs docu-
ments and receives orders from the Mexican firm for
the shipment of goods to Mexico . He passes these'or-
ders along to his coworkers, who with Ibarra prepare
the shipments.
Ibarra has no authority to hire , suspend, lay off,
transfer , reward , discipline , or discharge any of the
men with whom he works, nor has he effectively recom-
mended such action to management . He routinely di-
rects the two warehousemen in the performance of
repetitive shipping and receiving tasks.
We find from the above that Luis Ibarra is not a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2( 11) of the
Act.
' Garrett Supply Company, 165 NLRB 561 ; California Physicians' Ser-
Great Northern Paper Company, 171 NLRB No . 120; Scott Paper Com- vice d/b/a California Blue Shield, 178 NLRB No 116; Pacific Abrasive
pany, 171 NLRB No. 117; Brown Company, 109 NLRB 173. Supply Co., 182 NLRB No. 48.
C. P. CLARE AND CO.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All warehousemen , checkers, and platform people
' In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad-
dresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior Underwear
Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R .B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U S. 759.
Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing
the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the
591
employed at the Employer's Nogales , Arizona,
warehouse, excluding all other employees , guards,
watchmen , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election ' omitted from publication.]
Employer with the Regional Director for Region 28 within 7 days of the
date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director shall
make the list available to all parties to the election . No extension of time
to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordi-
nary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be
grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed.