D. W. Newcomer's Sons

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 565 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

D. W. NEWCOMER'S SONS 565
D. W. Newcomer 's Sons and International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Taxi Cab and Produce Employees , Ambulance , Funeral Drivers
and Helpers, Kansas City, Missouri , Kansas City, Kansas and
Vicinities , Local 587, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-
2417. Marc& 8,1957
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 Martin Sacks, 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 a partnership of 8 partners who own and oper-
ate 6 funeral homes, 3 of which are located in the State of Missouri
and 3 in the State of Kansas. The only establishment herein involved
is located at Brush Creek Boulevard, Kansas City, Missouri. Total
gross income of the 6 establishments for the past year was $1,828,316.
Total cost of merchandise and equipment purchased from locations
outside the State of Missouri was $188,714. Gross income from the
Brush Creek establishment was $893,810. Of the 1,561 funerals held
at Brush Creek, 187 involved instances in which the remains were sent
into Missouri from outside the State and from which gross income
was $87,503. In 243 funerals, services were performed in connection
with remains sent outside the State of Missouri. The total income
derived by the Employer for such services was approximately
$118,891.
Contrary to the contention of the Employer, we find that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
Moreover, as the value of the goods furnished and the services per-
formed in connection with the preparation and the shipment out of
the State of the remains exceeds $100,000, we find, contrary to the Em-
ployer's contention, that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.2
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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.
1 The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and brief,
adequately reflect the issues and positions of the parties.
2 Hogue d Knott Sapermai kets, 110 NLRB 543, Cf Samuel II Burton et als. d/b/a
Burton Beverage Company, 116 NLRB 634
117 NLRB No. 87.
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The appropriate unit :
In general, the Petitioner seeks to represent the employees at the
Brush Creek establishment. The Employer does not question the ap-
-propriateness of such a unit, although it would include the clerical-
,receptionist-hairdressers and two other employees, whom the
Petitioner would exclude.
eClerical-receptionists : There are four women employees,' who act as
clerical-receptionists, switchboard operators, and hairdressers. The
evidence shows that these employees spend about 25 percent of their
time at the switchboard, which is located in the auditing department.
The remainder of their time they act as receptionists and hairdressers.
Their duties as receptionists require them, along with the assistant
funeral director, to meet people at the door of the funeral home at
the time of the service, escort people to the proper chapel, and take
them to the reposing room. We find that these employees perform
work closely allied with that performed by employees whom the Pe-
titioner would include in the unit. Accordingly, we shall include
them.
Disputed supervisory employees: The Employer would include, and
the Petitioner exclude, two men, Basil Honey and Tom De Atley.
Honey is listed by the Employer as an assistant supervisor. The evi-
dence shows that in the absence of the supervisor-director, Honey as-
sumes the supervisor's responsibilities and has the authority effectively
to recommend the hiring and discharge of employees. Tom De Atley
works in the garage and directs the work of some 8 to 10 men. As
the evidence shows that De Atley may effectively recommend hiring
and discharge, we find that he is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act. We shall therefore exclude Honey and De Atley from
the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute an
appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All drivers, yardmen, morticians, embalmers, crematory workers,
funeral and crematory helpers, funeral escorts, funeral home workers,
and assistants, garage attendants and clerical-receptionists-hair-
dressers at the Employer's establishment at 1331 Brush Creek Boule-
vard, Kansas City, Missouri, but excluding full-time musicians and
singers, office clerical employees, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
8 Renick, Adams, Calvert, Snowdall.