Hygienic Sanitation Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 15, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1030 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the shipping and receiving department located in the plant area.
There are also 20 to 25 shipping and receiving checkers who oversee
the loading and checking of the finished parts and products in the
various plant departments. They have no supervisory authority.
There are 6 to 10 scheduling clerks who spend 50 percent of their time
on the production floor and 50 percent of their time in the plant's
scheduling office located in the plant. They keep production and
parts records and expedite and coordinate the work among the various
departments. The shop office clerks work in the various production
offices located throughout the plant. They maintain records, files, and
perform general clerical duties for the production department fore-
man and superintendent, who are their direct supervisors. The em-
ployees in all of these categories are hourly paid and receive the same
benefits as the production and maintenance employees. In view of
these facts, we find that these employees are plant clericals and in
accord with established Board policy, shall include them in the unit.
Inspectors: At the hearing the Employer took no position as to the
inspectors whom the Petitioner would include in the unit. In its
brief, the Employer agreed to the inclusion of the inspectors in the
unit. As it appears from the record that these employees have in-
terests closely allied to those of the production and maintenance em-
ployees, we shall, in accordance with the agreement of the parties,
include them in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the Employer's
Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, manufacturing plant, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees, including timekeepers,
cafeteria employees, the dispensary clerk, inspectors, leadmen, the
matron, shipping and receiving clerks, shipping and receiving check-
ers, scheduling clerks, and shop office clerks; but excluding office
clerical employees, the first-aid attendant, the draftsman trainee, pro-
fessional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Hygienic Sanitation Company, Petitioner and Warehouse Em-
ployees Union Local 169, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL-CIO. Case No.4-RM-234. August 15, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Seymour X. Alsher, hearing
118 NLRB No. 134.
HYGIENIC SANITATION COMPANY 1031
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 Leedom and Members Murdock and Bean].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in the extermination and sanitation
business, approximately 50 percent of which is nonretail in nature.
Its main office, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is involved in
this proceeding. In 1955 its direct outflow of services and sales from
its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, office to points without the State of
Pennsylvania exceeded $50,000. In 1956, the Employer's direct out-
flow from the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, office was approximately
$45,000. The record shows, however, that during that year the Em-
ployer's interstate activities were substantially curtailed by a strike
called by the Union in August 1956 which lasted throughout the re-
maining part of 1956. Absent the strike it was estimated that the
direct outflow from the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, office would have
exceeded $50,000. On these facts we find that the Employer is en-
gaged in interstate commerce and that it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.2
2. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the 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:
In 1954 the Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in a unit consisting of all servicemen at the
Employer's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, office, which is the unit de-
scribed in the petition filed herein. The last collective-bargaining
agreement between the Union and the Employer expired in the summer
of 1956. The parties were unable to agree on the terms of a new con-
tract and, because of this disagreement, the Union, on August 21, 1956,
called a strike and commenced picketing the Employer's Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, office, which picketing was still in progress as of the
date of the hearing in this case.
I Between the first and second days of hearing in the case a subpoena daces tecum
was issued to obtain additional information concerning the Employer's activities in inter-
state commerce . During the course of the second day of hearing the hearing officer
sustained the Employer's petition to revoke the subpena on the ground that the record
sufficiently set forth the Employer's interstate commerce activities. As we are satisfied
that the Employer's petition to revoke was filed in compliance with the Act and the Board's
Rules and Regulations and as the evidence ( as discussed hereinafter) establishes that
the Employer is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act, we hereby
adopt the hearing officer's ruling revoking the subpena. See Rules and Regulations, Sec.
102.58 ( c) and International Broadcasting Corporation (KWKH), 102 NLRB 1434.
2 See The T. H. Rogers Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732 , and Essex County and Vicinity
District Council of Carpenters , AFL, etc. (Fairmont Construction Company ), 95 NLRB
969.
1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After the strike began the Employer permanently replaced a number
of the strikers and as of the date of the hearing was apparently
operating with a full complement of employees.
In its argument that the petition should be dismissed 'the Union
takes the position that it does not claim to represent the employees
presently employed but only the individuals who joined the strike.
The Board's certification of the Union in 1954 served to designate
the Union as the representative not only of those employees who were
in the unit as of the date of the certification, but also those persons
whose subsequent employment placed them within the unit regardless
of their specific identity. As the persons who replaced the strikers
became permanent employees within the unit for which the Union
was certified, we construe the Union's position that it does not claim
to represent employees presently employed to mean that the Union is
no longer interested in representing the employees in the unit for
which it was certified, and therefore the Union has disavowed its
claim to majority status. For this reason we find that there now
exists no question concerning the representation of the Employer's
employees. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. Further, in
view of the Union's disavowal of its status as majority representative,
it is evident that it would be inconsistent with good practice to permit
the Union's certification to remain in existence. Our Order herein
shall therefore revoke the certification that was granted the Union in
'Case No. 4-RC-2409.1
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 4-RM-234, and
revoked the certification of June 21, 1954, in Case No. 4-RC-2409.]
3 See Nathan Warren & Sons, Inc., 116 NLRB 1662.
The Bassick Company and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
2-RC-8736. August 15,1957
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 Max Dauber, hearing 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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
118 NLRB No. 139.