Hass Wholesale Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 408 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of HASS WHOLESALE INC., EMPLOYER and TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS & HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 364, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 13-RC-1461.-Decided November 30, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Irwin M. Lieberman, hear-
ing officer. 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 a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
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 employees
of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to all truck drivers, truck driver-
helpers, yard and warehouse employees, and checkers, at the Em=
ployer's plant at 3922 W. Sample Street, South Bend, Indiana. The
Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one composed
of the employees at its two plants located at South Bend and Ruple,
Indiana. .
The Employer's two plants are approximately 3 miles apart. At
South Bend, Indiana, the Employer operates a mill and warehouse;
and at Ruple, Indiana, a concrete block plant. The Employer is
engaged in the wholesale handling of building materials , including
concrete block, ready-mixed concrete, millwork, cement, ,lumber, and
other materials.
92 NLRB No. 74.
408
HASS WHOLE'SALE INC. 409
The record reveals that both plants are under the over-all super-
vision of the Employer's manager who personally does the hiring and
discharging both at Ruple and South Bend. Likewise, all employees
at both plants are on the same payroll, and all paper work, purchasing
and work schedules are handled for all of the Employer's operations
at the South Bend plant. In addition, there is considerable inter-
change among the employees of the two plants, particularly be-
tween drivers on ready-mix trucks and other drivers. Drivers at
Ruple are frequently transferred to the South Bend location, and
conversely, drivers from South Bend may be sent on a regular basis to
the Ruple plant. Likewise, laborers at both locations are frequently
shifted between the two sites.
In view of the foregoing facts, particularly the common super-
vision over both plants, the frequent interchange of employees, the
close proximity of both plants to each other and the fact that there is
no past bargaining history, we find that a unit limited to the em-
ployees of one of the two plants is inappropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining.- Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
1 Nowell-Wetterau Grocer Co., SS NLRB 515 ; The North Electric Manufacturing Com-
pany, 89 NLRB 260; Porto Rican Express Company, 88 NLRB S66; and The Harris-Clay
Company, 88 NLRB 934.
929979-51-vol. 92-28