Jamco Mfg. Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 18, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 943 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

JAMCO MFG. CORP.
Jamco Mfg. Corp. and Local 485, International Union
of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case 29 RC 4191
April 18, 1979
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPHY, AND TRUESDAL.E
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election executed by the parties and ap-
proved by the Regional Director for Region 29 on
May 15, 1978, an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted in the above-entitled proceeding on June 2,
1978. The tally of ballots showed that, of approxi-
mately 21 eligible voters, 17 cast ballots, of which 10
were for, and 6 were against, the Petitioner, and I was
challenged. The challenged ballot was insufficient in
number to affect the results of the election. There-
after, Jamco Mfg. Corp. (hereinafter referred to as
Jamco), filed a timely objection to that election.
Subsequently, pursuant to the National Labor Re-
lations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Regional Director conducted an inves-
tigation and, on July 21, 1978. issued a Report on
Objection and notice of hearing in which he found
that the objection to the election was without merit.
He further found, however, that the investigation had
disclosed conflicting evidence concerning the scope of
the unit and the employer to be named in the certifi-
cation of representative. The Regional Director found
these issues could best be resolved by a hearing.' Pur-
suant to appropriate notice, a hearing was thereafter
held on August 15, 1978. before Hearing Officer Sar-
ah Siskind. All parties appeared at, and participated
in, the hearing and were afforded a full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce relevant evidence.
On September 19, 1978, the Hearing Officer issued
her Report and Recommendations on Objections in
which she recommended, inter alia, that a certifica-
tion of representative issue, naming Jamco, Safeguard
Mfg. Corp. (hereinafter referred to as Safeguard),
Guardian Steel Products, Inc. (hereinafter referred to
as Safeguard), and CGM Holding Corp. (hereinafter
referred to as CGM), as the Employer. Thereafter,
Jamco filed timely exceptions to the Hearing Officer's
report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
I No exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's report b either
party.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists containing
the representation of certain employees within the
meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
4. The record establishes that, on May 15, 1978,
representatives of Petitioner and Jamco signed a
Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election.
The parties stipulated therein that the appropriate
unit consisted of:
All production and maintenance and shipping
and receiving employees and all drivers em-
ployed by the employer at its premises located at
255-47th St., and at 266-47th Street, Brook-
lyn, New York, excluding all office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
In an earlier section of the parties' stipulation, only
Jamco had been designated as the Employer. As
noted, however, in his investigation of Jamco's objec-
tion to the election, the Regional Director uncovered
evidence he deemed as conflicting regarding the scope
of the unit and the employer to be named in the cer-
tification. Particularly, the Regional Director noted
that employees of both Jamco, and of another corpo-
ration, Safeguard, had voted in the election and that a
question was raised as to whether the two corpora-
tions might be joint employers. Accordingly, the Re-
gional Director sent to hearing the issues of the scope
of the unit and the employer to be named in the cer-
tification.
Upon the evidence presented to her, the Hearing
Officer concluded that Jamco and Safeguard consti-
tuted a single employer. The Hearing Officer further
found that the interests of two other corporations, i.e.,
Guardian and CGM, were so inextricable from those
of Jamco and Safeguard that the four corporations
together constituted a single integrated enterprise and
that all four corporations should accordingly be listed
as the Employer in the certification. Jamco has ex-
cepted only to the inclusion of Guardian and CGM in
the certification and, upon review of the record, we
reverse the Hearing Officer's inclusion of these two
corporations in the certification. 2 As a touchstone to
our reversal, we note that we are here dealing with a
unit that was stipulated to by the parties. It is well
2 In the ahsence of exceptions we adopt pro f;irma the Hearing Officer's
recommended inclusion of' Safeguard in the designation of emploser in the
certification.
241 NLRB No. 121
943
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
established that in stipulated unit cases the Board's
function is first to ascertain the parties' expressed in-
tent with regard to the stipulation, and then to deter-
mine whether such intent is inconsistent with any
statutory provision or established Board policy.3 If it
is not, it is not function of the Board to apply its own
views or make its own findings with regard to the
various parts of the stipulation.
The unit in this proceeding was stipulated as con-
sisting of the employees of Jamco, and the Hearing
Officer gives no reason for departing from the de-
scription as agreed to by the parties, other than her
finding that the four corporations together constitute
a single, integrated enterprise. But, assuming argu-
endo that they are an integrated enterprise, this does
not justify rejection of the stipulated unit unless the
unit was contrary to the statute or the policy of the
Board. In fact, the stipulation here was approved by
the Regional Director and is not, on its face, in con-
flict with any statutory provision or the Board's pol-
icy. Accordingly, we will not include Guardian or
3See The Tribune Company, 190 NLRB 398 (1971).
CGM in the certification, but instead we issue the
certification below. 4
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for Local 485, International
Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, and that pursuant to Section 9(a) of the
Act, as amended, the said labor organization is the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the
unit found appropriate herein for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment:
All production and maintenance and shipping
and receiving employees and all drivers em-
ployed by Jamco Mfg. Corp., and Safeguard
Mfg. Corp., at 255-47th St., and at 266-47th
Street, Brooklyn, New York, excluding all office
clerical employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4 As provided in the stipulation of the parties, the unit covers two loca-
tions; i.e., 255-47 Street, and 266-47 Street, Brooklyn, New York.
944