Cupples Co. Manufacturers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 1457 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

CUPPLES COMPANY MANUFACTURERS 1457
employer is thereby failing to, conform to an order or certification of
the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees
performing such work, or unless an employer is bound by an agree-
ment to assign the work in dispute to the claiming union. Steam-
fitters has no order, certification, or contract claim to the work. Ac-
cordingly, we find that it is not entitled, by means proscribed by
Section 8 (b) (4) (D), to force or require Marshall Maintenance to
assign the disputed work to members of Steamfitters rather than to
Marshall Maintenance's own employees. However, we are not by this
action to be regarded as making an assignment of the disputed work.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record
in this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act:
1. Steamfitters Local Union 395, United Association of Journeymen
& Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO, is not, and has not been, entitled, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or
require Marshall Maintenance to assign the work of installing stain-
less steel piping to its members rather than to the employees of Mar-
shall Maintenance, who are not members of that labor organization.
2. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, Steamfitters shall notify the Regional Director for the
Third Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing
or requiring Marshall Maintenance, by means proscribed by Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the disputed work to its members
rather than to the employees of Marshall Maintenance, who are not
members of Steamfitters.
Cupples Company Manufacturers 1 and Warehouse and Distribu-
tors Workers Union, Local 688, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 14-RC-3756. June
22, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Thomas W. Seeler, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
I The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
127 NLRB No. 163.
560940-61-vol. 12 7-9 3
1458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
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 organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of industrial supply divi-
sion warehousemen and warehouse clerks. The Employer asserts
that this unit is inappropriate because it comprises only a segment
of a larger group of employees. There is no history of bargaining
for any employees of the Employer.
The Employer, a manufacturer and distributor, divides its opera-
tions into four divisions. The match division manufactures book
matches; the storm sash division manufactures aluminum storm
sashes; the mechanical division performs building maintenance; and
the industrial supply division, which does no manufacturing, operates
as a jobber and wholesaler of nuts, bolts, screws, and metal fasteners.
The Petitioner seeks to represent the industrial supply division ware-
house employees alone.
The record shows that all four divisions of the Employer are located
in three interconnected buildings constituting its Northside plant;
that all operations are under the overall supervision of the super-
intendent of the Northside plant; that personnel, bookkeeping, finan-
cial, and administrative records for all divisions are maintained in a
central office; that there is transfer of employees between the various
divisions; and that all employees of the Employer, including those
sought by the Petitioner, enjoy the same vacation, insurance, and
other employee benefits. The five warehouse employees in the indus-
trial supply division perform duties which require no skill or training.
These employees work in the same building with almost 200 em-
ployees, most of whom are similarly unskilled, employed in the other
three divisions at the Northside plant. On the basis of the foregoing,
it appears that the Employer's operations are substantially integrated,
that all employees of the Employer are allied in interest, and that the
warehouse unit sought by the Petitioner constitutes an artificial
grouping of employees with insufficient dissimilar interests to warrant
separate representation. Accordingly, we find that the unit here
requested does not constitute an appropriate unit apart from the
JOHN C. MAURER & SONS 1459
Employer's other production and maintenance employees.2 As the
Petitioner has not made an adequate showing of interest in the overall
unit and as the unit it seeks is inappropriate, we shall dismiss the
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2 Lily Tulip Cup Corporation , 124 NLRB 982.
B. F. Maurer, an individual doing business under the name and
style of John C. Maurer & Sons' and Local 78, United Pack-
inghouse Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 30-RC-4014. June 22, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert Schneider, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer contends that its packing-shed employees, whom
the Petitioner here seeks to represent, are not "employees" within the
meaning of the Act, but are "agricultural laborers" over whom the
Board may not assert jurisdiction.
The Employer grows celery on about 200 acres of farmland which
he owns or leases near Stockton, California. The Employer trans-
ports the celery by truck to a packing shed that he leases in Stockton,
a location ranging in distance from 3 to 16 miles from the farms. At
the packing shed, the celery is cleaned, sorted, and packed for sale.
The shed, about 23,000 square feet in area, contains equipment owned
or rented by the Employer and valued at approximately $10,000.
The packing season begins about October 15 of each year and ends
about March 15 of the following year. During the calendar year
ending December 31, 1959, the Employer packed about 150,000 crates
of celery with the assistance of 20 to 50 workers. The field operations
are supervised by a foreman of farm operations and the packing-shed
activities are supervised by a packing-shed superintendent. Separate
time and payroll records are kept for the two classes of workers, field
and packing-shed. The packing-shed employees work in the fields
3 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
127 NLRB No. 161.