Frank S. Owens Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1619 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

FRANKS, OWENB CO. 16. 9
time to outside sales and. service work. .However, it is clear that the
four employees here in dispute are presently primarily production
employees, and that such outside service work as they now perform
does not militate against their inclusion in the unit. The fact -that
one or more of them, as suggested in the record, may be transferred to
the new classification of service salesman at some future date is not
here material, as it is the nature of the work that these employees
are actually performing at this time which is controlling as to their
unit placement. We shall, therefore, include them in the unit.'
Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the Em-
ployer's plant located at 4272 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, constitute a unitapprapi3ia a for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, including Henry
Manton,. quality control employees, stockroom employees, truck-
drivers and apprentice boys, but excluding all production con-
trol employees other than Manton, office clerical employees; drafts-
men, foremen, supervisors and all other supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from,publication.]
vAfter issuance of the Decision and Direction of Election herein, the parties agreed
to exclude outside servicemen.
Frank S. Owens Co., Mid-States Marine Oil Co., Owens-Illinois
Oil Co., Owens-Iowa Oil Co., Owens-Wells Oil Co., Owens-
Indiana Oil Co. , and Owens-Missouri Oil Co.' and Chauffeurs,
Teamsters and Helpers, Local No. 26, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 18-RC-5589. 'October 15, 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 Virginia M. McEl-
roy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Murdock and
Rodgers].
Upon,the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Frank S. Owens Company, herein called Owens Co., con-
tends that the Board does- not hare A.jurisdiction over its operations.
i The caption In this proceeding . is hereby , amended to conform with our finding below
that the various Owens enterprises constitute a single employer.
118 NLRB No. 227.
1620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Owens Co. is one of a number of corporations of which Frank S.
Owens is a stockholder and principal executive officer, and Arnold
Owens, his son, is it vice president. These other corporations are
Mid-States Marine Oil Co., herein called Mid-States, and Owens-
Illinois Oil Co., Owens-Wells Oil Co., Owens-Indiana Oil Co., and
Owens-Iowa Oil Co., and Owens-Missouri Oil Co., he>+ein called the
retailing Companies. All of the foregoing corporations have their
principal office at the same location in Bloomington, Illinois. Mid-
States is engaged in making purchases of gasoline from various
suppliers; Owens Co. is engaged exclusively in transporting such
gasoline and related products from these suppliers to gasoline sta-
tions owned and operated by the retailing Companies and located
in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Missouri where such
products are sold at retail.
Although it is not wholly clear from the record what proportion of
the stock of each of the foregoing corporations is owned by Frank
S. Oweiis, it is clear that he owns a substantial interest in each, that
all are under his active administration and control, and that in
practice all the corporations are considered to be part of a single
integrated operation.2 Accordingly, in. view. of the foregoing and
the entire record, we find that all the aforementioned corporations
constitute an integrated, multistate enterprise engaged in the pur-
chase, transportation, and retail sale of gasoline and related prod-
ucts and that they are, therefore, for jurisdictional as well as unit
purposes a single Employer within the meaning of the Act.'
During a recent 12-month period, gasoline valued at approxi-
mately $390,000 was transported in the Employer's trucks from
Illinois to points outside that State. We find, accordingly, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
and. that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
in this proceeding'
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 seeks a unit of over-the-road truckdrivers, ware-
housemen, and garage mechanics employed by the Owens Company.
There is no dispute as to the composition of the unit. The record,
however, raises some question as to whether all employees in these
classifications are employed by the Owens' Company, or whether
. 2Illustrative of" this is testimony by Arnold Owens that it was not clear to him which
of the aforementioned corporations owned a warehouse , but he could state for certain
that it was owned , by one of them and that his father owned the corporation.
$ See : Empire Milling Company, 117 NLRB 1782.
4 The T. H. Rogers Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732.
BON MARCHE 1621
C
some of them are employed by certain of the other corporations.
It is clear, however, that all are employed by the enterprises which
we have found-to constitute a single Employer, that all were hired
by the Employer's vice president; and that all have the same im-
mediate supervision. Accordingly, we find that the following em-
ployees of the corporations that we have found herein to be a single
employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All over-the-road truckdrivers, warehousemen, and mechanics em-
ployed by the Employer excluding office clerical employees, watch-
men, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Consolidated Retail Stores , Inc., d/b/a Bon Marche and Retail
Clerks International Association Local 1682, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 7-RC-3338. October 15, 1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
On April 11, 1957, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction
of Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under the di-
rection and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh
Region, among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the
Board. Following the election, the parties were furnished a tally of
ballots. The tally shows that 28 ballots were cast, of which 14 were
for the Petitioner, 11 were against the Petitioner, and 3 ballots were
challenged. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to
affect the results of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to the
Board's Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation and, on
June 10, 1957, issued and served upon the parties his report on chal-
lenged ballots. On June 20, 1957, the Employer filed exceptions to
the Regional Director's report.
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 [Members Murdock, Rodgers, and Bean].
The Regional Director's investigation discloses that during the
course of the election the ballots of Edward M. Helzer, Roger Warfield,
and Annie Hornberger were challenged by the Board's agent because
their names did not appear on the eligibility list. Two of the voters
casting challenged ballots, namely Helzer and Warfield, are shoe
salesmen employed in the shoe department.
'Consolidated Retail Stores, Inc., d/b/a Bon Marche, Case No. 7-RC-3338, issued
March 14, 1957, not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
118 NLRB No. 222.