Houston Sash & Door Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 1089 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

HOUSTON SASH & DOOR COMPANY, INC. 1085
Accordingly, we shall direct the Regional Director to open and count
the ballots, as identified below, the challenges to which we have
overruled.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Twenty-_
first Region shall, within the 10 days from the date of this Direction,,
open and count the ballots of Baldo Arizola, Jr., Ysmael Barraza,
Eleanor Boureois (or Bourgrois), Alfredo Castaneda, Ernest Couch,
Francisco Cristina, Jesse Escontrias, Isabell Esposito, Tom Farley,
Stephen Fitzer, Jesse Fonseca, John Forrest, Wesley Hand, Larry
Kieft, Paul Lozano, Harvey McBrayer, Lucille Moyer, Bob Ochoa,
Ken Stepp, Etta Thomas, Paul Trejo, Bertha Trotter, Mary Van
Vorce, Elmer La Croix, and Betty Duren; and serve upon the parties,
a revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of the above
ballots. In the event that the ballots of June Thornton, Julio.
Gutierrez, and Jose Sanchez could affect the results shown by the
tally as so revised, the Regional Director shall conduct a supplemental
investigation with respect to such three challenged ballots and issue a
report thereon; if they could not affect the results, he shall take such
further steps as may be necessary in accordance with the Board's Rules.
and Regulations.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above.
Decision and Direction.
Houston Sash & Door Company, Inc.' and District 50, United
Mine Workers of America, Petitioner . Case No. 23-RC-1504.
June 10, 1960
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 C. L. Stephens, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free.
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
' The Employer ' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Employer moves to dismiss or remand this proceeding because the hearing officer-
ruled irrelevant the Employer 's attempt in cross-examination of the Petitioner' s agent, to
inquire into the internal structure and affairs of the Petitioner as part of its general
attempt to challenge the Petitioner 's status as a labor organization and performance of
its bargaining functions . We deny these motions because ( 1) the line of inquiry sought
to be pursued by the Employer extended beyond the purview of the matters properly
litigable in this proceeding; (2) the record contains sufficient evidence upon which the-
Board may make a determination of the Petitioner' s status; and (3) the hearing officer's
restrictions on the right of cross-examination did not, in any event, constitute a violation
of the procedural rights afforded the Employer in a proceeding of this nature. See-
0 E McIntyre, Inc, 118 NLRB 1290; cf Salvino Geannasca, d/b/a Imperial Reed &,
Rattan Furniture Co , 117 NLRB 495 ; Awning Research Institute, 116 NLRB 505 . ILnyai.
Jet, Incorporated, 113 NLRB 1064
127 NLRB No. 139.
560940-61-vol. 127-70
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Bean and Jenkins].
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 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 Employer is engaged in the wholesale distribution of build-
ing material and the manufacture of millwork at its plant and ware-
houses in Houston , Texas.
,The Petitioner and the Employer agree to a unit composed of all of
-the Employer's production and maintenance employees, including
will-call men and shipping department employees, but excluding sales-
men, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watch-
men, salesmen , and supervisors as defined in the Act. However, the
parties disagree as to the unit placement of the following classifica-
tions of employees :
Material takeoff men and detail men: These employees work under
the supervision of the plant superintendent in an office in the mill
-area. Their functions are directly related to the production process
and their duties bring them into almost constant contact with the
-mill and/or warehouse employees. Thus, the material takeoff men
-prepare from plans or layouts the lists of materials needed for produc-
-tion of the items in such plans, and write up the mill tickets or pro-
,duction tickets used by the mill and warehouse employees in the
performance of their respective duties. Material takeoff men come
into constant personal contact with mill employees in checking on
-the availability of materials and the progress of work. Detail men
-make drawings and layouts for special millwork orders and also
occasionally prepare mill or production tickets from which the pro-
duction employees work. They come into personal contact with pro-
-duction employees in discussing particular jobs in progress with them.
While both of these classifications of employees are salaried,' they have
the same hours and fringe benefits as the hourly paid production and
maintenance employees. They have 'no supervisory authority, and
there is no evidence that they are required to have any special edu-
3 Contrary to the Employer 's suggestion , the record establishes that the Petitioner is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act And, as the Employer's
contention that the Petitioner will not function as the bargaining agent if it should be
certified is conjectural and premature , it affords no grounds for dismissal of the petition.
We therefore find that the Petitioner is a labor organization and deny the motions to
dismiss the petition . See Up -To-Date Laundry , Inc., 124 NLRB 247.
A See Armour and Company , 119 NLRB 122.
HOUSTON SASH & DOOR COMPANY, INC. 1091
cational qualifications or technical training of any kind. We find,
accordingly, that contrary to the Petitioner's contention, detail men
are not professional employees, and that they, as well as material
takeoff men have a sufficient community of interest with production
and maintenance workers to warrant their inclusion in the unit.5
Order takers, price clerks, and the shipping clerk : The Petitioner
would exclude all of these employees on the ground that they are
office clerical employees. The record shows that order takers perform
certain clerical functions in connection with the processing of incom-
ing customer orders. They break such orders down into work tickets
subsequently routed to shipping department employees. The latter
then use the work orders to make up invoices which are in turn routed
to the price clerks for the inclusion of the prices on the invoice forms
going eventually to the customers ordering the materials in question.
The shipping clerk is part of the shipping department and works with
the employees there located. While the Petitioner suggests that he
has some supervisory authority, the record does not support such a
contention. Order takers and price clerks work in the city sales
office in an area adjacent to the loading dock of the warehouse.
Shipping department employees including the shipping clerks work
in the warehouse area. All such employees work the same hours and
enjoy the same benefits as production and warehouse employees.
The employees whom all parties agree to be office clerical employees,
however, work in the Employer's offices which are located on a dif-
ferent floor from the plant and warehouse, under different super-
vision, and have a different working day schedule. While order
takers, price clerks, and shipping clerks have frequent contact with
other production and maintenance employees included in the unit,
in the performance of their tasks, they have little or no contact with
office clerical employees. We find, in these circumstances, that order
clerks, price clerks, and the shipping clerk perform, essentially, plant
clerical functions, and that their interests are closely allied to those
of the employees whom all parties agree to include in the unit. We
shall accordingly include order takers, price clerks, and the shipping
clerk in the unit.'
Leadmen: These employees work in the mill with crews of four
to six employees. They spend about 25 percent of their time perform-
ing manual production work together with their respective crews, and
approximately 75 percent of their time lining up the materials for the
production work of their respective crews. There is no evidence that
leadmen either have or exercise any supervisory authority within the
meaning of the statutory definition of such authority. In these cir-
5 Cf Westbrook Manafactvrtng Company, 118 NLRB 127.
9 See Westinghouse Electrw Corporation , 106 NLRB 1218; Esso Standard Oil Company,
124 NLRB 1383 ; Haleyville Textile Mills , Inc, 117 NLRB 973, 974
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cumstances, and as their relationship to their respective crews appears
to be no more than that of highly skilled workers to less skilled em-
ployees, we find, contrary to the Petitioner's contention, that they are
not supervisory employees. We shall therefore include them in the
unit. See Southern Steel & Stove Company, Inc., et al., 124 NLRB
577.
Foremen: While the Petitioner contends that foremen are super-
visors and adduced some evidence in support of this position, the
state of the record is not sufficiently clear to permit a definitive deter-
mination of their status at this time. We shall therefore permit
foremen to vote subject to challenge.
Salesmen: The Employer employs two groups of salesmen-city
salesmen and country salesmen. The Petitioner would exclude both
groups from the unit. The Employer agrees that country salesmen
should be excluded, but would include the city salesmen. The record
shows that both groups of salesmen perform similar functions and
have substantially similar working conditions. City salesmen work
in the Houston area contacting and calling on the Employer's cus-
tomers and promoting sales, while country salesmen travel outside
the city doing similar work. While city salesmen have more contact
with employees in the mill than do the country salesmen, we do not
regard this to be sufficient reason in and of itself for differentiating
between the two groups of employees in determining their unit
placement. We find, consistent with the Petitioner's contention, that.
outside salesmen considered as a group lack a sufficient community
of interest with production and maintenance employees to be included
in the unit. We shall therefore exclude all outside salesmen from
the unit.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]'
7 See Allen U. Bevier, Inc., 118 NLRB 1335.
New Hotel Monteleone 1 and New Orleans Hotel Employees.
Trades & Crafts Council , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No..
15-RC-92016. June 10, 1960
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 William W. Fox, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing..
2 As showing of interest is an administrative matter, not litigable by the parties,.
Member Jenkins is of the opinion that the hearing officer erred in admitting evidence
relating to the labor organizations designated on the showing-of-interest cards.
127 NLRB No. 135.