G. F. Lasater

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 348 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Supervisor, Central Dispatch
Supervisor, Drill and Mill
Supervisor, Inspection
Supervisor, Material Control
.Supervisor, Metal Finishing
Supervisor, Punch Press
Supervisor, Subcontract Buyers
Supervisor, Technical Records
Tool Designer, Chief
II. CLERICAL EMPLOYEES
Clerk, Cost
Clerk, File
Clerk, General Office
Clerk, Kardex
Clerk, Mail
Clerk-Typist
Clerk-Typist-Shop
Clerk-Typist-Dept.
Material Control Planner
Operator, Key Punch
Operator, Microfilm
Operator, Multilith
Production Control Planner
Production Control Scheduler
Secretary
Stenographer
Tabulator, Analyst
Tabulator, Setup Man
III. TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES
Coordinator, Engineering
Cost Estimator
Draftsman
Engineer, Production
Engineer, Quality Control
Engineer, Tool
Engineer, Tool Design
Liaison, Tool
Liaison, Tool Design and
Processing
Technician, Assembly and Test
Tool Designer
Tool Design Checker
Tool Liaison Engineer
Tool Planner
iG F. Lasater and Local 47, Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers,
affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters , - Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO.
Case No.16 EC 1991. February 11,1957
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 J. Howard Stark,
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 operates a trucking service in the State of Texas.
During the last 12 months, the Employer received $185,000 from
Carter Publications, Inc., for hauling copies of its newspaper, the
Fort Worth Star-Telegram, from Fort Worth to various points in
Texas. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram publishes nationally syndi-
117 NLRB No. 47.
G. F. LASATER 349
cated columns and subscribes to several interstate news services. Dur-
ing the last fiscal period, Carter Publications, Inc., had a gross income
in excess of $500,000. Accordingly, as the Employer furnishes serv-
ices valued at more than $100,000 to an instrumentality and channel of
commerce 1 which meets the Board's jurdisdictional standards for
newspapers,2 we find, contrary to the contention of the Employer,
that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.3
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 Petitioner requests a unit of full-time truckdrivers only,
excluding part-time drivers, mechanics, greasemen, and all other
employees. The Employer contends all employees should be included
in the unit.
The Employer employs 25 employees, all of whom are classified
as drivers. Nineteen of them are regular full time , and 4 are regular
part-time, over-the-road truckdrivers. Witnesses disagreed as to
whether, on an average, one of the other 2 employees, Smith, who is
referred to as the greaseman, spends more time driving or at his
other duties. However, G. F. Lasater, operating owner of the Em-
ployer and the only witness at the hearing with first-hand knowledge
of the employees' duties,4 testified that Smith works 57 hours a week,.
29 hours of which is spent driving and the remainder at his other
duties of greasing and oiling trucks. Based on this testimony, we
find that a major portion of Smith's time is spent driving.
The remaining employee, Johnson, appears to spend a majority of
his time in mechanical maintenance of the trucks. He also has one
regular, route, a 4-hour run, 3 days a week, and substitutes for absent
drivers when so assigned.
It is clear that the 19 regular full-time drivers, the 4 regular part-
time drivers, and the greaseman and driver, Smith, who spends a
majority of his time driving, constitute a unit of truckdrivers such as
the Board has consistently found to be appropriate.' Although
Johnson, the mechanic and driver, does not spend a majority of his
time in driving or duties incidental thereto, he is, insofar as appears
from the record, the only other employee in the plant. As he would
i Press, Incorpoi ated, 91 NLRB 1360
The Daily Press, Incorpoi ated , 110 NLRB 573, 575.
aWhtippany Motor Co., Inc, 115 NLRB 52, 54; Jonesboro Grain Drying Coopevative,
110 NLRB 481, 484
d The witness who testified that Smith did not spend a majority of his time driving
based his testimony on information which he had received from other employees concern-
ing Smith 's duties
G The Lawson Milk Company, 116 NLRB 549, Sears, Roebuck d Company , 112 NLRB
559, 569 , Painesville Wombs, General Chemical Division , Allied Chemical and Dye Cor-
po) atson, 116 NLRB 1784
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
otherwise be unrepresented, we shall, under the circumstances of this
case, include Johnson in the unite
We therefore find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All truckdrivers,
including regular full-time truckdrivers, regular part-time truck-
drivers, the greaseman and driver, and the mechanic and driver; but
excluding guards, office clerical employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
,[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.)
6 King Csty Warehouse Company, 97 NLRB 1336, 1339
Cherokee Textile Mills, Inc.' and Textile Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-3674. Febru-
ary 11,1957
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 John H. Fenton,
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 the 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 Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's Sevierville, Tennessee, plant.
The Employer agrees that the requested unit generally is appropriate.
However, the parties disagree as to the unit placement of the follow-
ing job classifications.
A. Clerical employees : The Petitioner would exclude the clerical
employee in the carding department, the clerk in the weave room,
and the clerk-typist in the standards department. The Employer
would include these employees as well as the scheduler and the clerk
in the preparation department, pick clock readers in the weave room,
and the assistant clerk in the cloth room. The Petitioner would leave
1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
117 NLRB No. 44.