E. Anthony & Sons, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 1, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 204 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

'204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ReadingCrane'is independent of any of the other partnership enter-
prises. Harold Federman, a partner, and Kenneth Givens, the gen-
eral manager, are in charge of its operations. Reading Crane designs
most of the -parts used in its construction of overhead cranes ; this
makes for an operation very different from that of Mayer Pollock
which is limited to either reconditioning second-hand cranes or assem-
bling "package cranes." There is no interchange of employees or
equipment between, it and Mayer Pollock Steel. Lastly, it has com-
pletely separate supervisory personnel and its labor policies are based
on the needs of Reading Crane with no dependence on those of Mayer
Pollock Steel. For the foregoing `reasons we find that the Reading
Crane employees are not an accretion to the Mayer Pollock Steel unit
and we shall deny Steelworkers' motion to clarify. '
We therefore find that a question affecting commerce. exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of Reading Crane within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) '(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the parties, that the
following unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees employed by the Read-
ing Crane and Hoist Company at Stowe, Pennsylvania, excluding
office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
'E. Anthony & Sons, Inc.' and Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers, Local Union No. 59 of the International Brother -
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen ' and Helpers
of America , Independent , ' Petitioner . Case No. 1-RC,-7729.
June 1, 1964
.DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly. filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Thomas M..
Harvey. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
RRelations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated it&
powers in connection with this case -to a three-member panel [Chair-
man McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
i The Employer ' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
147 NLRB No. 25.
E. ANTHONY & SONS, -INC. 205.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board funds :
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. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
.Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2.(6) and (7) of the Act2
The Employer is engaged in publishing, in New Bedford, Massa-
chusetts, the New Bedford Standard Times and the Cape Cod Stand-
ard Times. The former is distributed in the New Bedford area, and
,the latter in and around Hyannis, Massachusetts. Petitioner seeks a
unit of truckdrivers and "district managers" within the Employer's
circulation department, but excluding all other employees, profes-
sional employees, office clerical. employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act. At the hearing, .Petitioner stated that, in 'the
alternative, it desired to participate in 'an election in a unit of truck-
drivers, excluding district managers; and/or a unit of district man-
agers, excluding truckdrivers. The Employer contends that district
managers share no interests with truckdrivers and should be excluded
from a unit limited to truckdrivers and mechanics. The Employer's
motion to this effect is disposed of by our action below.
The record reveals that the 17 district managers work a regular
40-hour week from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and hold no other jobs. There is
little turnover among them, and they can and do progress to better
jobs within the Company. The. primary responsibilities of the district
managers are to promote sales of the Employer's newspaper and to
service subscription routes. They handle complaints, build up sales
through promotional campaigns, make house calls to obtain subscrib-
ers, and counsel carriers on serving their newspaper routes. Each
district manager works with 75 to 80 of the 1,306 carriers employed
by the Employer. In connection with these sales activities, the district
managers spend approximately 21/2 to 3 hours each day working at
their own desks in the circulation department. The balance of their
time is spent outside training and working with carriers, or servicing
present subscribers and soliciting new subscribers. The district-man-
agers enjoy such fringe benefits as vacations, insurance, and retirement,
2 The Employer moves that the petition be dismissed on the grounds that the Petitioner
is not authorized or qualified to file the petition. The sufficiency of a petitioner's show-
ing of interest is an administrative matter not subject to litigation. 0. D. Jennings cf
Company, 68 NLRB 516. ' We are administratively. satisfied that Petitioner's showing is
adequate. Nor does the fact that, Petitioner. was under a trusteeship imposed by its parent
International affect its status, as established : in. the record, as a labor organization under
Section 2(5) of the Act. Terminal System, Inc., et al., 127 NLRB 979. Accordingly, the
Employer's motion is denied. .
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and receive wages 25 to 50 percent higher than those paid the truck-
drivers. No contention is raised, nor do we find, that the district man-
agers are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
Truckdrivers are considered part-time employees and average 30 to
35 hours of work each week. on an irregular schedule. Of the 32
drivers, 28 are students or have full-time employment elsewhere. In
performing their work, which consists of driving trucks and throwing
off newspaper bundles, they work outside and do not come in contact
with inside employees; nor do they receive any of the fringe benefits
enjoyed by the district managers or other circulation department em-
ployees. There is no interchange between district managers and
truckdrivers.3
Based upon the record as summarized above, we find that there is
an insufficient community of interest among the district managers and
truckdrivers to warrant their inclusion in the same unit. Denver Pub-
lishing Company, 117 NLRB 1465. We have previously noted the
distinction between employees who are principally delivery men and
those who are salesmen and drive vehicles only as an incident to their
sales activity, holding that the latter are more closely allied to sales-
men than either to production and maintenance employees or to truck-
drivers.' We find, therefore, that the district managers alone, ex-
eluding truckdrivers and all other employees; constitute a separate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining. See Lowell Sun Publishing
Company, 132 NLRB 1168. We also find that the truckdrivers and
mechanics helpers,' excluding district managers and all other em-
ployees, constitute a separate appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining. E. H. Koester Bakery Co., Inc., 136 NLRB
1006. Accordingly, the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on
the ground that it seeks an inappropriate unit is denied.
The parties disagree as to the supervisory status of certain individ-
uals. The Petitioner would exclude the head mechanic from the truck-
drivers unit on the grounds that he is a supervisor. The Employer
would include him. The record reveals that he effectively recommends
the hiring of helpers, directs their work and disciplines them, and ef-
fectively recommends discharges or promotions and increases. We
shall, therefore, exclude him. The Petitioner would. also exclude the
suburban circulation manager from the district managers' unit. • The
Employer took no position as to his supervisory status. As the record
reveals that he hires drivers in New Bedford, assigns their work, and
a Although seven of the district managers in the New. Bedford area spend a portion of
their time driving trucks when working with the carriers , they are essentially salesmen
whose driving is merely incidental to the normal sales function performed by all district
managers.
4 Plaza Provision Company (P.R.), 134 NLRB 910.
5 See Arcata Plywood Corporation , et al ., 120 NLRB 1648.
ROSS-MEEHAN FOUNDRIES 207
has authority to discipline and discharge them, we find that he is a
supervisor and shall exclude him. It further appears from the record
that the drivers in Hyannis are directed in their work by two individ-
uals named Jiminez and George Morrison, although the exact nature
of their duties is not specified. Under these circumstances, we shall
permit them to vote in the truckdrivers' unit subject to challenge.
We find the following employees of the Employer constitute units
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining : (1) all truck-
drivers and mechanics helpers of the Employer, employed at its New
Bedford and Hyannis, Massachusetts, branches, excluding district
managers , the head mechanic, professional employees, office clerical
employees, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act; (2) all district managers of the Employer, employed at its
New Bedford, Massachusetts, office, excluding truckdrivers, mechanics
helpers, professional employees, office clerical employees, all other em-
ployees, guards , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Ross-Meehan Foundries and United Steelworkers of America,
CIO. Case No. R-4240. June 1, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION
On November 5, 1942, in the above-entitled case, the Board certified
United Steelworkers of America, CIO (Steelworkers), as the bargain-
ing representative of all production and maintenance employees of
the Employer, excluding all machinists and certain related classifi-
cations. On the same date the Board also certified International
Association of Machinists, Success Lodge No. 56, AFL JAM), for
the machinists and other classifications excluded from the production
and maintenance unit.
Thereafter, on January 24, 1964, Steelworkers filed a motion for
clarification of its certification, requesting a declaration that the IAM
certification does not extend to certain work performed on an auto-
matic power hacksaw by shipping department employees who are
admittedly within the Steelworkers' unit. On January 31, 1964, IAM
filed an opposition to the Steelworkers' motion in which it alleged
that the work in dispute had been traditionally performed in the
machine shop by employees within its certified unit, and requested
the Board to withhold any clarification of its certifications until a
hearing had been held in this matter. On March 3, 1964, the Employer
filed a statement in regard to the above motion and the opposition
147 NLRB No. 27.