J. Segari & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 16, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1159 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

J. SEGARI & CO. 1159
J. Segari & Co. and United Packinghouse Workers of America,
CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 15-RC-1312. November 16, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a,hearing was,held b6fore William W. Fox, hearingoffi-
cer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 operates a wholesale produce business at two
warehouses in New Orleans. The Petitioner requests a production
and maintenance unit, including truckdrivers. As production em-
ployees the Petitioner would include boxmen, who work in the refrig-
eration boxes, repackers, and warehousemen. The truckdrivers also
act as warehousemen when not driving trucks. These production em-
ployees, including truckdrivers, are paid $1 an hour and punch the
time clock on the loading platform. Work is available for them 7 days
a week. They have no established weekly holiday, although many
of them take off on Saturday when work is light, and they get no
paid vacation. Other hourly paid employees here involved are paid
a higher wage, except one salesman, have an established weekly holi-
day, sick leave and a paid-vacation,-and keep their own time records.
The Employer would include, in :the unit certain salesmen or order
takers whose pay ranges as high as $1.61 an hour and who were, at
one time, paid on a salary basis. These employees take orders from
customers, many of whom come in personally, and orders which come
in by telephone are given them to fill. After they get an order, they
ask the warehouse foreman for a man to help fill it, and, if the customer
does not have his own truck, a truck in which to deliver it. They then
tell the warehouseman or boxman.,assigned•to the job what to load.
In case of a rush of business these salesmen may also load things them-
selves, but their duties consist essentially of waiting upon customers,
and they do not wear rough work clothes such as the warehouse em-
ployees and truckdrivers do. In addition to this group of 6 or 7 "sales-
men," none of whom testified, there is 1 salesman, Cavignac, who
solicits orders by telephone and who, both parties agree, is not ap-
114 NLRB No. 169.
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, -RELATIONS BOARD
propriately a member of the unit. Apparently the, salesmen order-,
takers do not spend all their time in the warehouse, as the record shows
that one of them was in the office and took down employment data on
an applicant for a warehouseman's job. On 'this record, however, it
appears that they spend a substantial part of their time in the ware-
house. Like the plant clericals next herein mentioned, they are essen-
tially plant employees. We find that they have a substantial, com-
munity of interest with the other warehouse employees, and shall'
include them in the unit.' The Petitioner contends that they have
supervisory authority, and the record does show that until recently,
Chaupetta, the highest paid of the group, did have some supervisory
authority in the warehouse. However, Rosso, hereinafter mentioned,
was foreman of the warehouse at the time of hearing and the record
shows that directions given to warehouse employees by salesmen are
routine. Hence we do not exclude the salesmen order-takers from the
unit because of supervisory authority.
The Employer would include three clerical employees who, it con-
tends, are inventory clerks. These employees work in the plant office
rather than the main office. They post sales made by the billing clerk
and maintain a perpetual inventory. One of them goes into the ware=
house to make physical checks in case of discrepancy. Although these
employees like the salemen order-takers have holiday, vacation, and
similar benefits which the warehouse group does not enjoy, they are
essentially plant clerical employees and we shall include them in the
unit as we customarily do.2
The parties agree that Valentine Rosso, 'who is in charge' of the
"entire operation" at the main warehouse; and Tony Segari, who is
in charge of the smaller warehouse, are supervisors. They disagree
as to Chris Hyland, the manager of the citrus department, Harry
Rau, whom the Employer describes as a receiving clerk, and James
McEntee, who works in the citrus department. These employees are
paid $1.64, $1.44, and $1.26 an hour, respectively. Hyland we shall
exclude from the unit as a managerial employee because, as the record
shows, he buys all citrus fruit for the Employer and sets the prices
for selling.' The other two we shall include in the unit. Rau checks
incoming shipments with the mainfest after Rosso assigns him an
employee to do the unloading. For citrus shipments, McEntee does
the same work as Rau. He also makes merchandise checks and reports
to Hyland. If more than two trucks are to be unloaded at a time,
the salesmen or order-takers may do this work also, or Turegano, the
truck dispatcher, may do some of it. We find that Rau and McEntee
are, in effect, receiving clerks and, as the record does not establish
'See Hennaford Bros. Co., , 78 NLRB 869, 871; Central Cigar cE Tobacco Co., 112
NLRB 1094
2 See The Russell Company, 107 NLRB 668, 669.
3 See Bljer Co., 108 NLRB 1417, 1422.
V. PATURZO, BRO. & SON, -INC. 1161
that they have "supervisory functions as contended by the Petitioner;
are properly in the unit 4 ' - -
The Petitioner- would exclude and the Employer include Vincent
Bonomo, a •truckdriver ,who is paid $1.19 an hour, drives a pickup
truck, and buys `small items` like shallots and parsley-at the French
market when the Employer is out of them: However, other truck-
drivetsalso do this at times, although Bonomo does it "primarily."
On this iecbrd'we conclude that Bonomo's discretion in buying is not
such:as to make -him a managerial employee. We shall include him in
the unit as a truckdriver.
., Also; the Petitioner would exclude and the Employer include Ture-
gapo,-the truck dispatcher, who is paid $1.26 an hour. He keeps track
of the movements .of the various trucks and reports to management
when 'mechanical 'difficulties occur. His authority over the truck-
drivers appears to be routine and he makes no effective recommenda-
tions as to their status; hence he is not a supervisor and we shall in-
clude him in the-unit.
The platform' truck maintenance man regularly works 12 to 14
hours a week on Saturdays and. Sundays, repairing equipment. In-
asmuch as he is a regular, part-time employee, no reason appears to
exclude him from the unit as contended by the Petitioner.'
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employees
of the Employer at its New Orleans, Louisiana, warehouses, including
bozc-men, repackers;' warehousemen, truckdrivers, the truck dispatcher,
inventory, clerk's, receiving clerks, refrigeration men, the platform
truck, maintenance man, and salesmen, order-takers but excluding the
telephone salesman,- the manager of the citrus department, office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no, part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.,
4 See Eagle Iron and Brass Company, 110 NLRB 747, footnote 2.
5 See Dependable Parts, Inc., 112 NLRB 581.
V. Paturzo , Bro. &. Son , Inc. and Material and Residential Con-
struction- Laborers Local Union #912, and Laborers District
Council I. H. C. B. & C. L. U. of A., AFL; Petitioner . Case No.
5-RC-1775. November 16,1955 .
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 C. Humphrey, hear-
114 NLRB No. 170,