International Furniture Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1462 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
constituted misstatements as well as his failure to investigate the Em-
ployer's objection that the Geneva leaflet contained other misstate-
ments besides those enumerated'by the Employer. In view of the fact
that we have found merit in the objections enumerated above and the
additional objections and exceptions, at least to some extent, raise
issues of fact that cannot be resolved upon the present record, we find
it unnecessary to consider further the remaining objections and ex-
ceptions of the Employer.
[The Board set aside the election held on November 6, 1957.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
by the Employer and repeated by the petitioner before constituting cause to set aside the
election We do not agree In the Horder case, the Board declined to set aside an elec-
tion where there was an actu et denial by the Employer and the misstatements were not
repeated Howevei, where, as in the instant case and the above-cited cases, there is not
even an opportunity for a denial, no such requirement exists
International Furniture Company and Upholsterers Local 15A
and Carpenters Local 1959 , AFL-CIO, Joint Petitioner
International Furniture Company and Teamsters Local 196,'
Petitioner
International Furniture Company and Local 1010, United Furni-
ture Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.2 Cases Nos.
21-RC-4949, 21-RC-4950, and 21-RC-4951. February 6, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section. 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held in these consolidated
cases before Berl Grodsky, hearing officer.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Bean].
At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss the petitions on
grounds pertaining to the sufficiency of the Petitioners' showing of
interest, alleging in substance that the authorization cards submitted
in support of the petitions did not comply with the provisions of the
Board's Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure. In
support of its motion the Employer adduced and the hearing officer,
over the objection of the Petitioners involved, received in evidence
certain documents and testimony relating to the showing of interest
I The Board having been notified by the AFI-CIO that it deems the Teamsters' certifi-
cate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of this Union is hereby
amended
$ Petitioners in Case No 21-RC-4949 are referred to as Upholstereis and Carpenters
respectively Petitioner in Case No 21-RC-4950 is referred to as Teamsters and Peti-
tioner in Case No 21-RC-4951 is referred to as Furniture Workers
119 NLRB No. i 87.
INTERNATIONAL FURNITURE COMPANY 1463
submitted in support of the petitions in Cases Nos. 21-RC-4949 and
21-RC-4950.3 As the Board has consistently held, the sufficiency of
it petitioner's showing of interest, including questions relating to the
nature of the authorization cards submitted, is an administrative mat-
ter not subject to litigation.4 The hearing officer's rulings admitting
such evidence into the record were therefore erroneous. Such rulings
are accordingly reversed and the evidence erroneously admitted into
the record is hereby stricken therefrom.
Moreover, we are administratively satisfied that the authorization
cards submitted herein comply with the Board's showing of interest
requirements, and that each of the petitions is supported by an ade-
quate and sufficient showing of interest. The Employer's motion to
dismiss the petitions is accordingly denied. The hearing officer's other
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. Questions affecting commerce exist 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 Upholsterers and Carpenters, Petitioners in Case No.
21-RC-4949, jointly seek to represent the Employer's production and
maintenance employees, excluding the shipping department and re-
ceiving department clerks, loaders and warehousemen, truckdrivers,
and the truck mechanic. The Furniture Workers, Petitioner in Case
No. 21-RC-4951, separately seeks to represent the same group of em-
ployees; alteratively, it would participate in an election in an over-
all unit, including those employees sought by Teamsters, if such unit
is found appropriate by the Board. The Teamsters, Petitioner in
Case No. 21-RC-4950, seeks to represent a unit limited to shipping de-
partment and receiving department clerks, loaders and warehouse-
men, the truckdrivers, and truck mechanic. The Independent took
no affirmative unit position at the hearing, but indicated that it de-
sired to participate in any election directed by the Board, including
an election in an overall unit comprising all the employees of the
Employer. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is
one consisting of production and maintenance employees, including
3 No evidence was adduced relating to the showing of interest submitted in support
of the petition in Case No. 21-RC-4951.
10. D. Jennings J Company, 68 NLRB 516; Potomac Electric Power Company, 111
NL11B 553, 554.
At the 'hearing Furniture Workers, Upholsterers and Wood Workers Union , Local 123
(Independent ), herein called independent , was allowed to intervene on the basis of a card
showing.
I
1464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
those employees sought to be separately represented by the Teamsters,
certain alleged plant clerical employees, leadmen, and watchmen.
There is no history of bargaining at this plant of the Employer.
The Employer manufactures furniture at its Corona, California,
plant which is alone involved herein. Its production operations are
carried on in a building which consists of a large room 200 feet wide
and 500 feet long. The office is separately located. At one end of the
building there is a receiving dock, and the area of the plant proximate
to this dock is called the receiving department. There are two re-
ceiving department employees and a leadman who unload raw mate-
rials which are stored in the receiving department until used in the
production processes. Adjacent to the receiving department are three
production assembly lines which run the length of the building and
terminate at the shipping department area, which is located at the
opposite end of the building from the receiving department. The
shipping department employees, consisting of 3 truckdrvers, 2
packers and loaders and 1 auto mechanic, receive the Employer's fin-
ished products which they pack for shipment and ship to customers.
The record discloses that production employees, on occasion, are as-
signed to the shipping department and that employees are inter-
changed between the shipping and receiving departments. The auto
mechanic performs maintenance duties in the plant as the Employer's
needs require. The truckdrivers spend their time loading and unload-
ing their trucks and delivering furniture to customers. There is no
interchange of truckdrivers with other shipping and receiving depart-
ment employees. From the foregoing, it is clear that, except for the
truckdrivers, the receiving, production, and shipping operations of
the Employer are integrated, with employee interchange among the
departments as required. It is also clear that the unit sought by the
Teamsters constitutes an artificial grouping of employees with insuffi-
cient community of interests to warrant their representation on a
separate basis. The truckdrivers, alone, do, however, comprise a dis-
tinct, well-defined, homogeneous group of employees of the type which
the Board has traditionally established as a separate unit in the ab-
sence of a bargaining history, and we therefore find that the truck-
drivers may constitute a separate'appropriate unit.' The production
and maintenance unit, excluding truckdrivers, is also appropriate, as
is an overall unit of production and maintenance employees including
'the truckdrivers.
There remains for determination the supervisory status of Leadman
Morris, and the unit placement of 4 alleged plant clerical employees
and 3 watchmen, all of whom the Employer would include in the
overall production and maintenance unit.
6Vanadinm Corporation of America, 117 NLRB 1390; Interehemieal Corporation, 116
NLRB 1443 . As the Teamsters did not indicate whether it desires an election in a vot-
inr group limited to truckdrivers . It may withdraw its netition on notice to the Regional
Director within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Direction of Election in which
event the truckdrivers will be included in the production and maintenance unit.
INTERNATIONAL FURNITURE COMPANY 1465
The record discloses that 2 days prior to the hearing Morris was
appointed leadman in the receiving department; however, receiving
department tasks are routine, and Morris has no authority to hire,
discharge , or otherwise affect the status of the two receiving depart-
ment employees with whom he works. We find that he is not a super-
visor and shall include him in the plantwide unit.
The Employer would include the inventory control clerk, the inven-
tory clerk , the production control clerk and payroll clerk in the overall
unit as plant clerical employees because they work under the direction
of the foreman of the receiving department and the plant manager
rather than office supervisors , and are hourly paid. The record dis-
closes that these employees together with admitted office clerical em-
ployees, work in the main office which is physically separate from the
plant and there is no evidence that these employees perform any tasks
in the production department or plant proper or have any contact with
production workers. In addition the foreman of the receiving depart-
ment is in charge of the accounting aspects as well as the manual
aspects of the material control function . In these circumstances we
find that these employees do not have sufficient interest in common
with the production and maintenance employees to warrant their in-
clusion in the same unit, and we shall , therefore , exclude them.
The Employer employs three watchmen who make plant rounds,
punch clocks , and keep unauthorized individuals from entering plant
property . They also do janitorial work. As it is clear that the watch-
men perform guard duties some of the time, we shall exclude them?
Accordingly, we shall direct separate elections by secret ballot among
the following groups of employees at the Employer's Corona, Cali-
fornia, plant , excluding from each voting group the inventory control
clerk, the inventory clerk, the production control clerk, the payroll
clerk, all office clerical employees, guards, watchmen , and supervisors
as defined in the Act :
(a) All truckdrivers.
(b) All production and maintenance employees including shipping
and receiving department clerks, leadman in the receiving department,
loaders and warehousemen , and the truck mechanic.
If a majority of employees in voting group ( a) select the Teamsters,
that group will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute
a separate bargaining unit, which the Board , in these circumstances
finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining and the
Regional Director conducting the elections is hereby instructed to issue
a certification of representatives to such union for such unit. In that
event, if a majority of the employees in voting group ( b) also elect
to be represented by a union , then the Regional Director is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to such union for a separate
7 Walterboro Manufacturing Corporation, 106 NLRB 1383.
1466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit of production and maintenance employees, which the Board in
such circumstances finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining.
However, if a majority of the employees in voting group (a) do not
vote for the Teamsters, such group will be appropriately included in
the same unit with the employees in voting group (b) and their votes
will be pooled with those in voting group (b). The Regional Director
conducting the Elections is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the union selected by a majority of employees in the
pooled group, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Local Union No. 1, Bricklayers , Masons & Plasterers Interna-
tional Union of America , AFL-CIO and J. Hilbert Sapp, Inc.
Local Union No. 1685, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and J. Hilbert Sapp, Inc.
Local No. 402, International Association of Bridge , Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO and J. Hilbert
Sapp, Inc.
Brevard County Building and Construction Trades Council and
J. Hilbert Sapp, Inc.
Local 1287, Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paperhang-
ers of America , AFL-CIO and J. Hilbert Sapp, Inc.
Local No. 295 , United Association of Journeymen & Appren-
tices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States & Canada , AFL-CIO and J . Hilbert Sapp, Inc.
Local Union No. 130, Sheet Metal Workers International Asso-
ciation, AFL-CIO and J. Hilbert Sapp, Inc.
Local 1010 , Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhang-
ers of America , AFL-CIO and A. C. West
Local 1010 , Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhang-
ers of America, AFL-CIO and J. Hilbert Sapp , Inc. Cases
Nos. 12-CC-4, 12-CB-4, 12-CC-5, 12-CB-5, 12-CC-6, 12-CB-6,
12-CC-7, 12-CB-7, 12-CC-8, 12-CB-8, 12-CC-9, 12-CB-9, 12-
CC-10, 12-CB-10, 12-CC-11, 12-CB-11, 12-CC-12, and 12-CB-
12. February 7,1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 18, 1957, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
119 NLRB No. 188.