Central Sash and Door Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 418 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of CENTRAL SASH AND DOOR COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 10-R-2625.-Decided April 29,1948
Messrs. A. R. Willingham and John B. Harris, both of Macon, Ga.,
for the Employer.
Mr. R. E. Starnes, of Macon, Ga., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this case was held at Macon,
Georgia, on December 1, 1947, before Frank H. Stout, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The Employer's "Plea to the Jurisdiction" urging dismissal of the
petition herein on the ground that it is not engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act is denied for the reasons set forth below.
The Employer has also filed a "Special Plea" urging dismissal of
the petition herein on the grounds, inter alia, that there is no current
question concerning representation because of the lapse of time since
the petition was filed, because of an economic strike during this inter-
val, at the termination of which some of the strikers did not return
to work and because the present employees do not wish to be repre-
sented by the Petitioner; that notice of the Petitioner's appeal from
the Regional Director's dismissal of the petition was not served on
the Employer, and that the petition. does not show compliance by the
Petitioner with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. These allega-
tions concern administrative processes of the Board which are not
litigable by the parties to the proceeding. Inasmuch as the Employer
makes no showing of prejudice, and participated fully in the hearing,
we find this "Special Plea" to be without merit, and it is hereby denied.'
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Central Sash and Door Company is a Georgia corporation engaged
in the retailing and wholesaling of building supplies, and in the man-
h. L. R . B v. The Baltimore Transit Co ., 140 F . (2d) 51.
77 N. L. R. B., No. 68.
418
CENTRAL SASH AND' DOOR COMPANY 419
ufacture and sale of windows and doors. The Employer's retail,
wholesale, and fabricating divisions are located in Macon, Georgia.
During the year 1946, the Employer's total sales were $569,852.19, of
which 871/2 percent was retail and 121/2 percent wholesale. No sales
were made to customers outside the State of Georgia, nor were any
goods shipped out of the State of Georgia: 'During the- same period,
the Employer's purchases were valued at $364,459.53. Of this amount
about 27 percent, or $98,404.08, was purchased from firms outside the
State of Georgia. The employer contends that of this amount, goods
valued at $39,623.23 were bought from its sources of supply delivered
in Georgia, title to which did not pass to the Employer, under Georgia
law, until delivery; and that title to goods valued at $58,780.85, or
16.1 percent, passed when the purchases were made outside the State.
All these goods moved in interstate commerce regardless of where title
passed under local law.2
We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that its opera-
tions affect commerce within the meaning of the Act.'
It. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organ_ izations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that all
production and maintenance employees of the Employer, excluding
office and clerical employees, sales employees, full-time guards and
watchmen,4 draftsmen, full-time lumber checkers, and all supervisors,
2 Santa Cruz Packing Co v N L. R B , 303 U S 453, 463 (1938) , N L. R B V Sun-
shine Mining Co , 110 F (2d) 780, 784-5, (C C A 9, 1940).
3 Matter of Far,nville Manufacturing Company, 76 N I, R B 237 ; Matter of IV P.
Stephens Lumber Company, 73 N L. R B 1451.
"The Employer has only one full-time watchman. A volunteer from among the work-
men is used as watchman each Saturday afternoon and Sunday The employment of these
production employees as watchmen is casual and infrequent We find that these employees
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Central Sash and Door Company,
Macon, Georgia, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early
as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5,
a uong the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, 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 by International Woodworkers of
America, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER MURDOCK dissenting :
In Matter of Liddon White Truck Company, Inc., 76 N. L. R. B.
1181, we dissented from the majority's decision to assert jurisdic-
tion in the case of an automobile dealer, because we thought it
administratively unwise for the Board to assume jurisdiction over
enterprises essentially local in character. All the considerations that
led us to dissent in the Liddon White case are equally appli -able to
the present case. This employer is engaged in selling the building
supplies which it purchases and the doors and windows which it
manufactures to customers located exclusively within the State of
Georgia. Accordingly, in the exercise of our discretion, we would
decline to assume jurisdiction over the present controversy and would
dismiss the petition.
are not guards within the meaning of the Act, and aeroidmglp we shall not exclude them
from the unit. Matter of Steelwctd Egaupmemt Co, 76 N L R 13 831, Matter of
Radio Corporation of Amevica, 76 N L. R B S26