Fruehauf Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1966

157 N.L.R.B. 28 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 370, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND
APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual employed by Baughan
Plumbing and Heating Company, Incorporated, to engage in a strike or refusal
in the course of their employment to perform any services where an object
thereof is to force or require Baughan Plumbing and Heating Company, Incor-
porated, to cease doing business with Gladwin County, Michigan, in order to
force or require Gladwm County, Michigan, to cease doing business with Peter
Schierbeek, d/b/a Peter Schierbeek Construction Company.
LOCAL 370, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPREN-
TICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from .the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or coveredby any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, Telephone No. 226-3244.
Fruehauf Corporation, d/b/a Hobbs Trailer Division , Fruehauf
Corporation and International Union , United Automobile,
.-Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), AFL-CIO , Petitioner . Case No. 16-RC-3956. Febru-
ary 01, 1966
DECISION ON REVIEW
On September 10, 1965, the Acting Regional Director for Region 16
issued the attached Decision and Direction of Election, in which he
denied the Petitioner's request for a single election covering the em-
ployees at the Employer's Cleburne, Texas, plant, where there has
never been a contractual relationship with any union, and at its Fort
Worth plant, where the Petitioner herein has had a 10-year contrac-
tual relationship with the Employer. However, he directed a self-
determination election among the employees at the Cleburne plant to
determine whether they desire to be merged with the employees cur-
rently represented by the Petitioner at Fort Worth. Thereafter, in
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a
timely request for review alleging that the Acting Regional Director
erred in denying an election in the multiplant unit. The Employer
157 NLRB No. 4.
HOBBS TRAILER DIVISION, FRUEHAUF CORPORATION -29
filed opposition to the Petitioner's request for review.' The Board,
by telegraphic Order dated October 28, 1965, granted the request for
review and stayed the election pending decision on review. On No-
vember 4, 1965, the Petitioner filed a brief. Thereafter, the Employer
filed a request to correct findings of fact of the Acting Regional Direc-
tor, a motion to add certain uncontroverted facts to the record,2 and,
a request for special permission to file a reply brief. Special per-
mission being granted, the Employer filed its reply brief on Novem-
ber 29, 1965.
The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including
the briefs of the parties, with respect to the matter under review, and
hereby adopts the Acting Regional Director's findings and determina-
tions. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the Acting Regional Director's
Decision and Direction of Election, and the case is remanded to the
Regional Director for Region 16 for the purpose of holding an elec-
tion pursuant thereto, except that the payroll period for determining
eligibility shall be that immediately preceding the date above.3
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBER BROWN, dissenting :
We would direct an election in the two-plant unit requested by the
Petitioner and found to be appropriate by the Acting Regional
Director.'
1 The Employer does not oppose the self -determination election , as directed by the
Acting Regional Director. However , on review, the Employer contends , inter alia, that
individual plant units are the only appropriate units herein.
2 Assuming the proffered corrections and additional evidence to be accurate , they would
not affect the result herein. Accordingly , the Employer ' s motion is denied.
3 As provided in the Decision , the Petitioner may withdraw its petition , without
prejudice , within 10 days from the issuance of this Decison, by filing a written request of
such nature with the Regional Director.
' See D. V. Displays Corp., et al ., 134 NLRB 568.
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before a Hearing Offi-
cer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to Acting Re-
gional Director Hugh Frank Malone.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Acting Regional Director
finds: 1
1 Subsequent to the bearing , the Employer filed a motion requesting certain corrections
in the stenographic transcript of the proceedings , serving a copy thereof to all parties.
No opposition having been filed and the requested corrections appearing to be in order,
the Employer 's motion is granted and the record is hereby corrected.
30. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The Employer 2 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
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
Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.3
4. The following employees of the Employer may constitute an
appropriate bargaining group : 4
2 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing and is hereinafter
referred to as the Hobbs Division.
8 The Employer moved to dismiss the petition and requests the reinstatement of the
petition in Case No . 16-RD-365. The Employer contends inter alia that the present
petition was prematurely filed, and that the Petitioner 's position in the present matter is
inconsistent with its position in Case No. 16-RD-365 . The Employer 's motion 'to dismiss
and to reinstate Case No. 16-RD-365 is hereby denied , since we find that the employees
at the Employer 's Cleburne , Texas, plant constitute an appropriate bargaining group
who may express their desire to become included in the Forth Worth unit.
A The parties are in accord as to the composition of the unit in the plants Involved.
However , the Petitioner seeks to have both the Forth Worth, Texas, plant and its other
facilities included with the Cleburne , Texas, plant In a single unit. The Employer main-
tains that there should be separate units at Fort Worth and at Cleburne . The employer
asserts that it recognizes Petitioner in Its Fort Worth plant Under our disposition of
this matter , we find it unnecessary under these circumstances to order an election among
the employees in the Fort Worth plant and facilities.
The Employer is a national concern with various divisions located over the United
States. The present operations in the Hobbs Division represent historically an acquisition
of Hobbs Trailer Corporation , a plant formerly operated in Fort Worth with service
facilities in Dallas which have since been removed to Fort Worth . The Cleburne plant
before its acquisition was formerly the Hyde Corporation The Fort Worth plant em-
ploys approximately 200 employees in the unit which Includes the plant , the parts ware-
house two blocks from the plant , and the service establishment about 3 miles away. In
Fort Worth there are 100 office clericals and other nonunit employees . The Cleburne
plant, which is 30 miles from Fort Worth, has approximately 92 employees in the above
voting group . The Fort Worth plant builds what is known in the industry as common
or standard van or trailer assemblies . The Cleburne plant builds a specialty van or
trailer known as Hyd -Pak, which is mostly utilized by municipalities in the collection of
garbage and other waste materials which are compacted by a special mechanism. Addi-
tionally , the Cleburne plant builds cattle trailers , a former operation of the Fort Worth
plant, which was transferred to Cleburne at the time of a lack of plant facilities in Fort
Worth . In an emergency, the Fort Worth plant has built one or two cattle trailers.
From the record , it would appear that for some time the Employer has contemplated a
consolidation of the two plants and has started construction on a new building in Fort
Worth for this purpose . Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission has processed certain
divestment proceedings against the Fruehauf Corporation with the Commission ordering
the Fruehauf Corporation to divest itself of its acquisition of the Hobbs Trailer Corpo-
ration assets , plant, etc ., and dismissing its proceeding with respect to divestment of the
Hyde Corporation assets and plant. At the hearing, the Employer did not indicate
whether it would comply or appeal from the Commission ' s ruling. Against this back-
ground, we have dealt with our unit determination in the present context of the situation.
There are factors for considering the Fort Worth plant and its facilities and the
Cleburne plant as a single unit . They represent the only manufacturing plants of the
division , they are geographically located so as to favor a single unit . Although the
service facilities in Fort Worth are one of several , none of the other facilities are within
several hundred miles of the two plants . The engineering department , office employees,
and sales employees formerly located in Cleburne have either been removed or reduced in
size, and concentrated In the Fort Worth area so that at the present time central adminis-
tration offices , personnel policies , engineering services , and sales promotions are handled
from Fort Worth . There is sufficient similarity of work, skill , and working conditions
between the two plants to substantiate a finding of community of interest between the
plants to justify their being considered a single unit . This position is further strength-
HOBBS TRAILER DIVISION, FRUEHAUF CORPORATION 31
All production and maintenance employees, including shipping and
receiving department employees, parts department employees, and
service department employees at the Employer's Cleburne, Texas,
plant, but excluding all office clerical employees, guards, watchmen,
professional employees, technical employees, over-the-road truck-
drivers, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. If a majority of the employees voting cast ballots for the Peti-
tioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a
part of the existing unit currently represented by the Petitioner and
the Petitioner may bargain for them as part of such unit on the basis
of a certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
ened by the fact that collective-bargaining gains won by the Union in the Fort Worth
plant during the past years have been extended to the Cleburne plant . Additionally, both
plants would satisfy the statutory concept of a divisionwide unit. The inclusion of the
service facilities at Fort Worth in a division unit would not Impair the validity of such
a unit determination.
On the other hand there are reasons for not adding the Cleburne plant to the Fort
Worth plant unit. The Fort Worth unit has a history of successful collective bargain-
ing over the past 10 years . There has been no successful collective bargaining at the
Cleburne plant . The first election sought by the Petitioner several years ago was lost, but
the second was won. The Petitioner 's certification as bargaining representative , without
successfully securing a collective -bargaining contract , resulted later in the employees filing
a decertification petition in Case No . 16-RD-365, referred to in footnote 3 above. As
already noted , the Petitioner has disclaimed any interest . In the record and in its brief
the Employer has alleged Inconsistent action by Petitioner in continuing to press and
pursue a grievance on behalf of the employees in the Cleburne plant. The Petitioner in
its campaign literature in both elections stressed that it was seeking to represent the
Cleburne plant employees separate and apart from the employees in the Fort Worth
plant unit specifying such working conditions as seniority , layoffs, recalls, etc. There
are some variations in requisite work skills and in production assembly between the two
plants. The Fort Worth plant represents the standard for the industry , while the
Cleburne plant represents a specialty item in the industry utilizing components of automa-
tion and electronic equipment requiring a necessary difference in skills, techniques, and
facilities . Additionally , both plants do their own hiring and discharging within the
confines of management policy. Each is separately supervised at the plant manager or
superintendent level. The Cleburne plant keeps local personnel records in addition to the
central files maintained in Fort Worth . Seniority between the two plants is separate
as is layoff and recall . In a recent layoff of employees at Cleburne , five of them were
employed in Fort Worth on a new employee basis and when recalled, four of them returned
to Cleburne reserving their seniority with the fifth electing to remain in Fort Worth as
a new employee.
In view of the separate bargaining history, of the negation of any claim of accretion
of the Cleburne plant, and of logic of a single divisionwide manufacturing unit sought
by the Petitioner , and in the absence of any other union seeking to represent the Cleburne
plant in a single unit , we have found that , based upon the desires of the Cleburne plant
employees to be represented by the Petitioner , the Cleburne plant and the Fort Worth
plant and its facilities may constitute an appropriate unit. Chrysler Corporation (Mo-
Par Building ), 134 NLRB 454, 455; Pacsflo States Steel Corporation , 134 NLRB 1325.
At the hearing the Petitioner indicated that it would request withdrawal of its peti-
tion if separate units were ordered. The present decision provides for a single unit
under our well-recognized G lobe procedure and depending upon the success of the Peti-
tioner will be the unit determination on a divisionwide basis. Since this decision does
not satisfy the Petitioner 's unit request nor does it completely fall within the category of
its indicated intent to withdraw , we shall permit the Petitioner to withdraw its petition
without prejudice within 10 days from the issuance of our Decision by filing a written
request of such nature with the Regional Director.
The parties have stipulated that for the purpose of this proceeding ( without restriction
on future charges ) leadmen are nonsupervi sury employees and on this record we shall
Include them in the voting group as production and maintenance employees.