J. Heber Lewis Oil Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 13, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 1115 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

J. HEBER LEWIS OIL COMPANY, INC. 1115
Ultimate Findings and Conclusions
In summary, the Trial Examiner finds and concludes:
1. The evidence adduced in these proceedings satisfies the Board 's requirements
for the assertion of jurisdiction herein.14
2. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of the Act.
3. The evidence adduced establishes that Respondent interfered with, restrained,
or coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act, and thereby
violated Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act.
4. The evidence adduced establishes that Respondent discriminated against Mary
Fogg because she gave testimony under the Act, and thereby violated Section 8(a) (4)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid activities are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The evidence adduced does not establish that Respondent discriminated against
Loretta Gould, Nancy Auger, Nellie Demers, Gloria LeTourneau, Alice Marcotte,
Gertrude Berthiaume , Therese Porrell, Olive Doiron , Irene Cookson, or Pauline
Paradise.
7. The evidence adduced does not establish that Respondent discriminated against
Doris Demers.15
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
14 Respondent engages in Sanford , Maine, in the manufacture of dresses and annually
causes large quantities of materials and supplies to be transported in interstate commerce.
' The Trial Examiner has considered the findings of fact and conclusions of law pro-
posed by counsel for Respondent and hereby adopts them only to the extent that they are
consistent with the findings of fact and conclusions of law herein made. In its brief to
the Trial Examiner , Respondent renews its motion to sever , made at the hearing herein
The Trial Examiner adheres to the rulings previously made with respect to this matter.
The Trial Examiner also adheres to the rulings previously made concerning "compliance."
J. Heber Lewis Oil Company, Inc. and Southeastern Tank Lines,
Inc. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local Union No. 779,
Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-3503. May 13, 1959
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 Arthur P. West,
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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. Southeastern Tank Lines, Inc., transports petroleum products
exclusively for J. Heber Lewis Oil Company, Inc. These two opera-
tions, herein referred to jointly as the Employer, are commonly
owned and directed. The Employer, which contends that the Board
lacks jurisdiction in this case, has bulk plants at Burnside, Danville,
and Campbellsville, Kentucky.' During 1958 the Employer purchased
goods valued at over $150,000 which were shipped to it from outside
1 The Employer owns but does not operate another bulk plant at Tompkinsville , Kentucky.
123 NLRB No. 137.
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the State of Kentucky. Accordingly, we find that the Employer's
operations meet the jurisdictional standards of the Board.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees 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 Petitioner seeks to represent employees at the Employer's
Burnside operation only, but the Employer contends that the unit
should include all its operations. Its bulk plants at Burnside, Dan-
ville, and Campbellsville, Kentucky, perform the same kind of work
under common supervision, are highly integrated, and there is some
interchange of employees. The main office at Burnside determines
policies for all the operations. We find, therefore, that all these
plants comprise an appropriate unit,' and that the unit sought by
the Petitioner is inappropriate.
The Petitioner would exclude as office clericals, while the Employer
would include as plant clericals, the employees at Burnside who work
in the office under the supervision of the office manager, and an
employee at the Danville office. The Burnside employees do general
clerical work, maintain inventory and payroll records, and do secre-
tarial work. The Danville employee does general office clerical work 4
We find that these employees are office clerical employees such as
the Board customarily excludes from production and maintenance
units. We shall therefore exclude them.5
The Employer contends that Cleo Routen, a credit manager, should
be included, but the Petitioner would exclude him as a supervisor.
Routen works at the Burnside office. His principal job is to check
the credit- of the Employer's customers. For a short period of time,
he functioned in a managerial capacity, but, at his request, he was
relieved of this responsibility about July 1958. Since then Routen
has performed no supervisory functions. We find, however, that he
is an office clerical employee, and, therefore, shall exclude him.
The Employer would include a janitress who cleans the office at
Burnside. As her employment interests differ from those of the
employees in the unit, we shall exclude her.'
The Petitioner contends that George Lewis, a dispatcher and ware-
houseman, is a supervisor. Lewis merely transmits routine direc-
2 Siernons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81.
8 Southern Truck Line , 107 NLRB 615.
The Petitioner would exclude , while the Employer would include Alvin Parrott, who
lives in and works at Campbellsville and comes to Burnside less frequently than other
drivers. As he performs the same duties as the other drivers , under the same super-
vision , he is included in the unit.
4 This employee also, on occasion , drives a truck , but appears to be primarily engaged
in work as an office employee.
5 Tide Water Associated Oil Company, 107 NLRB 39, 46.
G Helms Motor Express, Inc ., 107 NLRB 132 , 135.
J. MITCHKO, INC. 1117
tions, and does not responsibly direct any employees nor possess power
to make effective recommendations as to their status. We find, as the
Employer contends, that Lewis is not a supervisor, and we shall,
therefore, include him.'
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All truckdrivers, route salesmen,
mechanics and helpers, and maintenance employees employed at the
Employer's operations at Burnside, Danville, and Campbellsville,
Kentucky, excluding all office clerical employees, guards, professional
employees, all other employees, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act.
5. The record indicates that the employment of Lee Vaughn, Arlus
Bradshaw, Roy Dick, and A. D. Freeman was terminated during
1958. The Petitioner maintains that Vaughn, Bradshaw, and Dick
were temporarily laid off and should therefore be permitted to par-
ticipate in the election, while the Employer contends that they are
ineligible. As the record shows that there is no reasonable expectancy
that any of the three will be recalled in the near future, we find that
they are ineligible to vote.'
Freeman, who was previously employed as a maintenance man, has
been recalled for a special job of checking one of the Employer's oil
leases. The category in which Freeman is now employed is not cov-
ered by the unit, and the Employer maintains that there is no
reasonable expectancy of his recall as an employee in one of the emit
categories. The Employer nevertheless contends that Freeman is
eligible to vote, while the Petitioner would exclude him. In view of
the unlikelihood of his reemployment in one of the unit categories, we
find that Freeman is not eligible to vote.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7 A.meriean Radiator d Standard Sanitary Corp., 119 NLRB 1715, 1718.
8 F. B. Rogers Silver Company, 95 NLRB 1430, 1432.
J. Mitchko , Inc. and Dairy Transportation Drivers, Helpers
and Terminal Employees, Local Union No. 770, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America. Case No. 22-CA.-167. May 14, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 26, 1959, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
123 NLRB No. 134.