Carrier Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1966

157 N.L.R.B. 854 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carrier Corporation ; Thompson & Johnson Equipment Co., Inc.;
and Clark Equipment Company i and Local Union No. 527,
Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case No. 3-RC-37?0. March 18, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
William C. McGee. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The
Employers and the Petitioner each have filed briefs which have been
duly considered.2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Fanning and Zagoria] 3
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.
2. The labor. organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employers.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner requests an election in a unit of all truck and other
handling equipment mechanics and repairmen employed at the Carrier
plant, Syracuse, New York, and contends that Carrier, Clark, and T &-
J are joint employers of such employees. The Employers deny that
they are joint employers, and maintain that the unit is inappropriate.
The Employers are separate corporations, with no common owner-
ship, directors, or officers. Carrier is engaged in Syracuse in man-
ufacturing air-conditioning equipment and related products. Clark
manufactures, sells, and leases industrial trucks and equipment. Clark
has several hundred lease agreements throughout the country which
are implemented by the various Clark dealers, one of which is T & J.
1 The Petitioner was permitted at the hearing to amend its petition to include as an
Employer Clark Equipment Company, hereinafter referred to as Clark, which had pre-
viously intervened in this proceeding . Carrier Corporation and Thompson & Johnson
Equipment Co., Inc , are herein referred to respectively as Carrier and T & J.
2 Clark filed with the Hearing Officer a statement of position on the issues in this case,
which was received in evidence as Board ' s Exhibit 7, and has been treated as its brief
herein.
8 This case was referred to the Board for decision by the Regional Director for Region 3.
157 NLRB No. 80.
CARRIER CORPORATION 855
T & J has franchise agreements with some 10 to 15 manufacturers,
including a firm other than Clark which manufactured a trackmobile
which T & J sold to Carrier for which T & J provides on-site:
maintenance.
Before October 30, 1964, the truck and other handling equipment
used on the Carrier premises was owned by Carrier and maintained
and repaired by 10 Carrier employees who were included in the unit
of almost 3,000 production and maintenance employees of Carrier
represented by the Petitioner. On October 30 Carrier and Clark
entered into agreements by which Carrier sold this equipment to
Clark, and Clark leased it back to Carrier and assumed responsibility
for its maintenance. Clark then executed a contract with T & J, which
had participated in the Carrier-Clark negotiations, to perform the
maintenance and repair work. The agreements provided that some of
the maintenance work still was to be performed on the Carrier prem-
ises, but due to space and equipment limitations at Carrier, the heavier
work, as well as the installation and inspection of new equipment, was
to be performed at T & J's Deere Road plant, its only plant in Syra-
cuse. Watson, a former T & J employee, was hired by Clark as its
rental manager to direct the work done on the Carrier premises.
Of the 10 Carrier employees who had been performing this work, a
maximum of 5 qualified mechanics were permitted to continue doing
on-site maintenance, but any of them who thereafter left the job were
to be replaced by employees of Clark or T & J. Seven of the ten
Carrier employees elected to bump into other jobs in the production
and maintenance unit, while three remained in the maintenance opera-
tion. One of these three, during the hearing herein, transferred to
another position in the Carrier plant. The remaining two are paid
by Carrier and covered by the Carrier-Petitioner collective-
bargaining agreement.
T & J employs 27 employees in Syracuse, all of whom are unrep-
resented. At its Deere Road location it is engaged in maintenance
and repair of trucks and similar equipment including those leased by
Carrier. T & J has a crew of six employees assigned to the Carrier
premises at all times, but the makeup of the crew has varied from time
to time. Other T,','- J employees have replaced the T & J and Carrier
employees at Carrier who were absent on sick or on military leave or
vacation ; they have also been assigned to supplement the staff of six
"regulars" and two Carrier employees in emergencies and when there
is more work to do than usual. The T & J employees who were
assigned to the Carrier location for temporary periods were usually
selected on the basis of availability except in the rare instance when
a specialized skill was needed. Not including a supervisor who has
gone to Carrier 2 to 3 times a week to deal with problems in the service
and maintenance of Clark equipment there, and not including the 6
856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"regulars," prior to the hearing there had been 16 other T & J employ-
ees who had worked at the Carrier site, 8 of whom worked at least
5 separate weeks.
Although Watson directs the functions and assignments of the
employees working at the Carrier site, he cannot interchange the two
Carrier employees with other Carrier employees or replace them with
other Carrier employees. However, Watson can request T & J employ-
ees to come over from T & J's site at Deere Road to replace Carrier or
T & J employees or to complement the already existing work force, to
perform overtime assignments, or to fill in for either T & J or Carrier
employees while they are absent. Watson has also exercised an effec-
tive power to recommend promotions and removal of employees work-
ing under his supervision.
The wages, benefits, and seniority of the two Carrier employees are
governed by the Carrier-Petitioner collective-bargaining agreement
covering the Carrier production and maintenance employees. All
T & J employees wherever situated receive the same pay, vacations,
holidays, and insurance benefits, which are determined by T & J. The
two Carrier-paid maintenance employees, and all T & J employees in
Syracuse wear overalls imprinted with Clark's name, and Clark reim-
burses Carrier and T & J for wages paid them.
The above facts show that the unit sought by the Petitioner includes
some, but not all, of T & J's Syracuse employees who perform main-
tenance work of a similar nature on the same Carrier equipment, who
interchange and frequently and regularly work in close contact with
each other and have common employment interests. The requested
unit also includes 2 of the almost 3,000 Carrier production and main-
tenance employees which the Petitioner already represents. In these
circumstances, we find that the unit sought is inappropriate.4 As the
Petitioner has not requested an election in any other appropriate unit,
we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
' Since the unit sought is inappropriate , we find that it is not necessary to rule on
Petitioner's contention that Carrier , Clark, and T & J are joint employers.
Werstein's Uniform Shirt Company and Southern California
Joint Board , Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.
Cases Nos. 21-CA-5887 and 01-CA-6269. March 21, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 28, 1965, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
157 NLRB No. 77.