Engine Rebuilding Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1776 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
even considering the factor, which the authors of the standards pro-.
claimed to be of primary importance. The majority cannot claim
that its refusal to assert jurisdiction is based on its judgment that the
Employer's operations do not exert a substantial impact on com-
merce, when the standard it applies precludes it from even consider-
ing such impact. The deficiency of the retail standard as adopted in
1954 for cases such as this provides no permanent excuse for the pres-
ent majority's refusal to consider the impact of the Employer's opera-
tions on commerce.
Moreover, in the final analysis, we do not believe that the Employer
is properly treated as a retail enterprise. Its .cafeterias do not serve
nor are they available to the public. They exist only to provide services
to United and to United's employees, and only because United deems
such facilities a necessary adjunct to its production operations. For
these reasons, the Employer's operations would be classified as non-
retail, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which exempts retail es-
tablishments from the provisions of that Act. They. do- not become
retail merely because the question is whether the provisions of the
Taft-Hartley Act should be applied to them.5 As a nonretail enter-
prise, which furnishes meals and other commodities valued in excess
of $3,000,000 annually to employees of United, its operations satisfy
the Board's indirect outflow standard 6 and jurisdiction should be
asserted herein.
e See Federal Register , October 28 , 1950 (15 F. R . 7245 ), Part 779, Title 29-Labor,
Chapter v-Wage and Hour Division , Department of Labor, Section 779.9 (d),
e Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481.
Engine Rebuilding Corporation and Engine Parts Corporation 1
and United Industrial Workers, Local 976, UAW-AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Case No. ?1-RC-4342. June 09, 1956
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 Fred W. Davis, hearing
1 As noted herein, the Employer , Engine Rebuilding Corporation , urged at the hearing
that the unit should embrace both its own employees and those of Engine Parts Corpora-
tion, thereby in effect. moving to add Engine Parts Corporation as a party to the proceed-
ing. The Petitioner, in objecting to an enlargement of its requested unit to cover the
employees of both corporations , is. apparently opposed to the addition of Engine Parts
Corporation. Although no notice of hearing was served upon the latter corporation, in
view of the fact that we hereinafter find that Engine Rebuilding Corporation and Engine
Parts Corporation are together a single employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of
the Act, we believe that the notice of hearing served upon Engine Rebuilding Corporation
was sufficient notice to Engine Parts Corporation. Accordingly, the amendment is hereby
granted. Smith Rice Mill, Inc. and DeWitt Bonded Warehouse Company, 83 NLRB .380,
footnote 1. See also Frost Lumber Industries, 101 NLRB 659, 660, footnote 3; Maloney-
Chambers Lumber Co., 104 NLRB 503, footnote 2.
115 NLRB No. 279.
ENGINE REBUILDING CORPORATION 1777
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 2 is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees 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.
4. The Petitioner requests a unit of all production and maintenance
employees of the Engine Rebuilding Corporation excluding all em-
ployees of the Engine Parts Corporation and other usual exclusions
from a production and maintenance unit. The Employer urges that
the only appropriate unit must include all employees of both com-
panies, including all office clerical and inside selling employees.
Although Petitioner is limiting its requested unit to employees
of the Engine Rebuilding Corporation, it is in fact seeking a produc-
tion and maintenance unit of the manufacturing division of the two
corporations with the usual exclusions, namely, selling employees and
office clerical employees. This type of unit is clearly appropriate,
whether 1 corporation or 2 may be involved. We therefore find no
merit in the Employer's contention that the unit sought is inap-
propriate because Petitioner would exclude employees of the Engine
Parts Corporation, practically all of whom do either selling or cleri-
cal work, since in any case, for reasons hereinafter stated, such em-
ployees would be excluded from a production and maintenance unit of
the Employer.
Office employees: These employees work in a separate area apart
from the production workers and are supervised by the comptroller.
Some of them are, for bookkeeping purposes, on the payroll of the
Engine Rebuilding Corporation and some on that of the Engine Parts
Corporation. They perform the customary and usual functions of
2 The Petitioner contends that the Employer should be confined to the Engine Re-
building Corporation and should not include the separate corporation known as Engine
Parts Corporation . The Employer urges that both corporations are operated as a single
integrated enterprise and should be considered as one employer . Engine Rebuilding
Corporation has been engaged in the business of rebuilding and selling automobile engines
and parts since 1939 . In 1953 , Engine Parts Corporation was created for the purpose of
taking over the selling functions of the parent organization. The reason for the estab-
lishment of a selling corporation was solely for bookkeeping purposes , to facilitate the
administering of a cost -plus contract with Sears Roebuck & Company . The Engine
Rebuilding Corporation is now engaged exclusively in manufacturing and the Engine
Parts Corporation is engaged in selling . There are no production employees in the latter.
Both corporations are located on the same premises , owned by the same persons, and
have the same top management and supervision . Control of labor relations for both is
vested in the same individuals . Because it is clear that the two corporations are operated
as a single integrated enterprise , we shall treat them as constituting a single employer
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 2) of the Act.
390609-56-vol. 115-113
1778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
office clericals, such as typing, bookkeeping, billing, checking invoices
and prices, making out fiscal and statistical reports, processing credit
applications, etc. Their conditions of work differ from those of
the production workers in that they are paid on a salary basis and
are not subject to deductions for sickness. They are, as indicated,
under separate supervision. We find these employees are office cleri-
cals and exclude them from the production and maintenance unit.
Countermen, receiving clerks, phone- and mail-order clerks: These
men are on the payroll of the Engine Parts Corporation. The Peti-
tioner would exclude them and the Employer include them. The
evidence indicates that these employees function as a group, working
at the counter waiting on customers for parts and engines and taking
telephone and processing mail orders. As the Employer's representa-
tive testified that these men are essentially selling agents, we shall
exclude them. The parties also stipulated that outside salesmen
should be excluded from the unit, and we shall accordingly exclude
them.3
Perpetual inventory clerk : There is one female employee on the pay-
roll of the Engine Parts Corporation who works in the production
area. Although she is nominally under the same supervision as the
office clericals, she performs her duties exclusively in the plant, mak-
ing perpetual records of stock on hand. She comes in frequent con-
tact with the dispatcher and other production employees who check
with her concerning inventories. We find that although she is not
under the same supervision as the production employees, her duties
are clearly those of a plant clerical. Accordingly, we shall include
her in the unit.
Leadmen : The Petitioner would exclude the leadmen as supervisors,
whereas the Employer would include them. There is 1 leadman in
each of the 4 major assembly lines and in each of the following de-
partments : Teardown, crankshaft, ground rod, Babbitt rod, repair,
and bore line. The leadmen schedule and assign work in their var-
ious departments, supervise the training of new employees, are con-
sulted on wage increases, may recommend transfers, and have final
responsibility for the quality of the product in their respective de-
partments. They are paid about 10 cents an hour above the produc-
tion men. They work directly under the shop superintendent and
his assistant. There are no other foremen in their respective depart-
ments which vary in size but run as high as 22, or 23 employees
apiece. We find, on the basis of the above, that the leadmen respon-
sibly direct the employees in their groups and therefore are super-
visors within the meaning of the Act. We shall, accordingly, ex-
clude them from the unit. '
$ Tower Cleaners, 97 NLRB 376, 378; Daniel W. Sufert et als., d/b/a Flint 'Oil Co.,
88 NLRB 634, 636.
THE EAVEY COMPANY 1779
Assistant to superintendent: The Employer would include and the
Union exclude Judd, assistant to the shop superintendent. Judd sub-
stitutes for the superintendent during the latter's absence, contacts the
leadmen, effectively recommends transfers, is consulted on wage in-
creases , and has hired several employees during the superintendent's
absence. He is on a salary basis and does no production work. We
find that Judd is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and ex-
clude him from the unit. The parties stipulated that two men, Ed-
wards and Faieta, have the same duties as Judd and should be placed in
the same category. We therefore also exclude Edwards and Faieta.
Upon the entire record, we find that the following employees con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees of Engine Rebuilding
Corporation and Engine Parts Corporation at their Los Angeles, Cal-
ifornia, plant, including plant clerical employees 4 and the shipping
department employees, but excluding office clerical employees, selling
employees,' professional employees, watchmen, guards, leadmen, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
' This category includes the perpetual inventory clerk.
5 Excluded under this category are the outside salesmen, countermen , receiving clerks,
and phone - and mail-order clerks.
The Eavey Company, Petitioner and Retail Clerks, International
Association , AFL-CIO. Case No. 9-RM-1?1. June 29, 1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold V. Williams,
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. 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.
4. The Employer is engaged in the operation of wholesale and retail
grocery stores throughout the State-of Ohio. The only store here in-
volved is the Employer's retail store at Fairborn, Ohio.
115 NLRB No. 278.