Hopper Machine Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1949

83 N.L.R.B. 1007 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of HOPPER MACHINE WORKS, EMPLOYER, and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL LODGE No. 139,
PETITIONER
Case No. J1-RC-73O.-Decided May 31, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Eugene M.
Purver, hearing officer 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Local 87 (AFL), are labor organizations claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. A question of representation exists concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees who work in the steel-
yard and stockroom of the Employer's plant at Bakersfield, California,
including stockroom clerks 1 and warehousemen, but excluding watch-
men, guards, office, clerical, and professional employees, supervisors,
and all other employees who are already covered by a collective bar-
T It appears that the Employer does not classify any of the employees in question as
stockroom clerks. Some of the usual duties of stockroom clerks are performed by
employees classified as "warehouse and steelyard employees."
83 N. L. R. B., No. 143.
1007
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaining contract.2 The Intervenor and the Employer agree with this
description of the appropriate unit, except that the Intervenor would
include the two truck drivers whereas the Employer would specifically
exclude them.3
The Employer's operations, including the office, sales department,
fabricating plant, yard, and warehouse, are located within an area 2
blocks square. The Employer employs about 80 persons, of whom 12
are classified as warehouse and steelyard employees and 2 are classified
as truck drivers. The warehouse and steelyard employees are chiefly
engaged in receiving, storing, and issuing material and parts. Each
of these employees at times drives one of the Employer's 14 trucks,
although seldom for more than an hour a day. Each of the 2 truck
drivers has an assigned truck, but he may also drive any of the 12
additional trucks usually driven by the warehouse and steelyard
employees. One of the 2 drivers is usually assigned to long runs,
and therefore spends very little time in the warehouse and steelyard.
The other driver usually drives locally, and spends about 20 percent of
his time around the yard and warehouse. All the employees in the
proposed unit, including the 2 drivers, receive their work assignments
from the warehouse manager.
As the Petitioner represents the Employer's production and mainte-
nance employees, the employees herein sought appear to be a residual
group which has not yet selected a bargaining representative. There-
fore, and in view of the agreement of the parties, we find that this
group constitutes an appropriate unit. We find further that the truck
drivers should be included in this unit in view of the facts that (1)
they are under the same supervision as the employees in the unit; (2)
the employees in the unit spend part of their time driving trucks; (3)
the truck drivers have frequent contact with the employees in the unit,
and one of them spends a substantial part of his time with them; and
(4) no labor organization seeks to represent the truck drivers in a
separate unit 4
Accordingly, we find that all warehouse and steelyard employees at
the Employer's plant in Bakersfield, California, including truck driv-
ers, but excluding watchmen, guards, office, clerical, and professional
2 The Petitioner is the contractual bargaining representative of the Employer 's produc-
tion and maintenance employees.
J The Petitioner stated at the hearing that it had no objection to including the truck
drivers, but that, in the interest of maintaining harmonious relations , it went along with
the Employer 's contention that they should be excluded.
4 See Matter of American Security and Trust Co., 78 N. L. R. B. 927, in which we found
appropriate a residual group of employees who handled the paper and material necessary
to the production of newspapers . The group included two truck drivers and a helper.
HOPPER MACHINE WORKS 1009
employees, and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election
by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which
this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5,
as amended, among the employees in the unit found appropriate
in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction
of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay-
roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid
off, but excluding those employees. who have since quit or been dis-
charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are
not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to
be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by International
Association of Machinists, Local Lodge No. 139, by International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Local 87 (AFL), or by neither.