King City Warehouse Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 29, 1952

97 N.L.R.B. 1336 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that the machine shop
employees constitute a traditional craft group who may, if they so,
desire, properly constitute a separate bargaining unit, notwithstanding
their prior inclusion in an over-all unit of production and maintenance
employees 5 We shall, moreover, include the tool crib attendants
in the voting group because of their close association with the skilled
employees in the machine shop.
However, we shall make no final determination with respect to
the appropriate unit until a voting group consisting of all machine
shop employees at the Employer's Chicago, Illinois, plant, including
experimental machinists, sheet metal model and layout men, model
shop trainee, and tool crib attendants, excluding all other employees,
office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors, express their desires in a self-determination election.
If a majority of the Employees in the voting group select the Peti-
tioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute
a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the
election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the Petitioner for the unit above which the Board, under
such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the
Board finds that they may continue to be represented as part of the
existing production and maintenance unit, and the Regional Director
will issue a certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.].
o The Carborundum Company, 96 NLRB No. 108.
L. A. HEARNE, D/B/A KING CITY WAREHOUSE COMPANY 1 and GENERAL
TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, LOCAL 890, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN &
HELPERS or AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 20-RC-1434.
January 29, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition and amended petition duly filed under Section 9
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before
Robert V. Magor, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
1 As we do not find infra that L. A. Hearne , d/b/a King City Warehouse Company, and
L. A. Hearne and J. J. Barbree, d/b/a San Lucas Warehouse Company, constitute a single
Employer , we are amending the name of the Employer to conform to th1g fading.
97 NLRB No. 207.
KING CITY WAREHOUSE' COMPANY 1337
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2
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, composed of the undersigned [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The King City Warehouse Company, which consists of a retail
feed store and three warehouses, is engaged in the business of selling
feed and storing and handling beans and grain. The San Lucas
Warehouse Company is located about 9 miles away and deals with
grain only. Except for about two carloads of grain valued at $6,000,
which were shipped indirectly to King City from outside the State,
these commodities were hauled to the warehouses by local farmers and
growers. During the year 1950, King City shipped beans valued in
excess of $100,000, at the direction of the holders of warehouse receipts,
to points outside the State of California. During the same period,
San Lucas stored grain valued at $175,000, all of which was pur-
chased within the State of California. No grain was shipped outside
the State.
The King City Warehouse Company is owned by L. A. Hearne, who
is also coowner with J. J. Barbree of the San Lucas Warehouse Com-
pany. Hearne directs the activities of both Companies and is sta-
tioned at King City. He is in daily telephonic communication with
the manager of San Lucas and travels there from one to four times a
week. Financial records for both enterprises are maintained at King
City where Hearne prepares semimonthly pay checks on the basis of
payrolls which are separately prepared by King City and San Lucas.
Hiring at San Lucas is done by its manager. There is no attempt
to correlate the wage scales of the two Companies. Except for the
visit of the San Lucas warehouseman to King City once each week
to pick up feed, which is purchased from King City, there is no
regular contact between the employees of the two Companies. And
although a King City foreman was acting manager of San Lucas for
a 30-day period in 1950, and one employee was employed at King City
after being laid off at San Lucas, there is little interchange of em-
ployees between the two Companies. Moreover, the Companies do
not have occasion to use each other's facilities.
' The hearing officer reserved for the Board the Companies' motion to dismiss the proceed-
ing with regard to the San Lucas Company on the following grounds : The petition made
no separate showing for San Lucas ; San Lucas has one regular employee and hence cannot
constitute a separate unit ; there is no basis for finding a two-plant unit. As is indicated in
our finding infra that only King City employees constitute an appropriate unit, we find
merit in the Companies ' position However, we deny the motion as our unit finding does
not require a formal severance of the San Lucas Company from the instant proceeding.
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of our decision hereinafter, finding that the unit should be
confined to the employees of King City, it is unnecessary to determine
whether these two Companies, in fact, constitute a single Employer
and whether, as a consequence, it would effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction over the San Lucas Company, which makes
no shipments outside the State of California and receives grain for
storage solely from sources within the State.
As the shipments from King City to points outside the State of
California exceeded $25,000 in value, we find that King City is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that contrary to King
City's contention in its brief; it will effectuate the purposes of the Act
to assert jurisdiction over that Company.3
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of King City and San Lucas.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of King City within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit 4 of all warehouse employees at King
City and San Lucas, including the feed store clerk and the mill fore-
man, and excluding all seasonal employees,' the part-time warehouse-
man-feed store clerk, office employees, outside salesmen, and super-
visors as defined in the Act. However, the Petitioner is willing to
represent a King City unit in the event that the Board finds that it
is the only appropriate unit. King City contends that the unit should
be confined to that Company and should include the part-time ware-
houseman-feed store clerk and exclude the feed store clerk and the
mill foreman.6 There is no history of collective bargaining affecting
employees involved herein.
As indicated above, in addition to the geographical separation of
King City and San Lucas, the two Companies operate as separate
entities with no interchange of facilities and little contact between
their employees. Accordingly, assuming, without deciding, a single-
employer relationship between the two Companies, we find that the
King City and San Lucas plants, in any event, would not constitute
an appropriate multiplant unit. Only one regular employee is em-
ployed at the San Lucas warehouse.' It is the Board's established
policy not to direct an election for a bargaining unit consisting of a
single employee.7 - We find therefore that a single unit confined to
s Tarke Warehouse Company, 95 NLRB 1133; Federal Compress & Warehouse Co., 95
NLRB 899; Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Limited , 91 NLRB 618.
4 The description of the unit sought by the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
5 The parties stipulated to the exclusion of this category.
Although King City took no position at the hearing concerning . the unit placement of
the mill foreman , it appears from its brief that it desires the exclusion of the mill foreman
as a supervisor.
7 Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, Inc., 89 NLRB 799.
KING CITY WAREHOUSE COMPANY 1339
the employees at the King City Warehouse Company is appropriate
in this case.'
There remains for consideration the unit placement of the following
employees :
The part-time'warehouseman-feed store clerk.-This King City em-
ployee is the son of L. A. Hearne. We shall, in accordance with the
Board's established policy of excluding close relatives of management
from bargaining units, exclude this employee."
The feed store clerk is a regular employee who works in the feed
store where he is engaged in the sale of feed to retail customers. When
necessary he handles large orders by lift truck. As he appears to be
under the same over-all supervision as the warehousemen and would
otherwise be unrepresented, we shall include him in the unit.
The cleanup man at King City is a regular employee who cleans
bags and sweeps the warehouses. He receives his orders from the
warehouse foreman or the superintendent and is paid only 5 cents
less per hour than the warehousemen. Although there is no specific
request for the inclusion of the cleanup man, we are including him in
the unit because his interests are related to those of the other employees
in the unit.
The mill foreman.-During October and November of each year,
Poole, a King City warehouseman, is in charge of a group of seasonal
employees who compose the mill crew that is on the night shift. As
mill foreman Poole directs the operations of these employees, makes
assignments, and has the authority to make effective recommendations
concerning hiring and firing. Although he ordinarily is not em-
powered to do so, Poole recently discharged a disobedient employee
on the spot.10 We therefore find that when Poole serves as mill fore-
man he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and as such
he may not be included in the unit for the period during which he
is acting as a supervisor. However, during the period of the year
that he is engaged in nonsupervisory work he is properly a part of
the unit found appropriate herein, and we shall include him for the
period in which he is engaged in a nonsupervisory capacity."
We find that the following employees at King City, California, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
8 As both parties agree to the exclusion of the seasonal employees , we find no merit in
King City 's contention in its brief that the full time warehouseman constitute only a
segment of its employees
Member Houston would find that the facts herein warrant a finding that the two Com-
panies constitute a single Employer and that a multiplant unit is appropriate.
'Leon Wyszaticki , an individual d/b/a Greater Erie Broadcasting Company (Radso
Station WWOL ). 92 NLRB 270.
33 The employee was reinstated the following day upon agreeing to cause Poole no further
trouble.
11 Bear Creek Orchards , 87 NLRB 1348.
1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All warehousemen
including the feed store clerk, the mill foreman'12 cleanup man, and
excluding the seasonal employees,the regular part-time warehouseman-
feed store clerk '13 office employees, outside salesmen, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
5. As noted above, Poole spends about 10 months each year a
rank-and-file employee. We find that he has a sufficiently substantial.
interest in the election hereinafter directed to entitle him to vote in it.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
12 During the time he is not engaged in supervisory duties.
11 L. A. Hearne's son.
PORTLAND BOLTS MANUFACTURING Co. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE No. 24, AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 36-IBC-659. January 29, 1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before E. G. Strumpf,
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 Herzog and Members Houston and Mur-
dock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer 2 manufactures bolts, nuts, and other steel prod-
ucts. Its annual purchases are valued in excess of $100,000 of which
approximately 75 percent is received directly from sources outside the
State. Its annual sales are in excess of $200,000 of which approxi-
mately 30 percent is sold and shipped directly to points outside the
State.
1 International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers, Local No. 37,
AFL, the Intervenor, moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that: (a) a subsisting
collective bargaining contract between it and the Employer is a bar to this proceeding;
and (b) the unit requested by the Petitioner is inappropriate. For reasons given in para-
graphs numbered 3 and 4 below, this motion is hereby denied.
2 The Employer, although duly served with notice of hearing, did not appear. Through
one of the participants at the hearing, the Employer advised the hearing officer that it
did not intend to participate in this hearing, on the ground that it believed that the matter
before the Board was one in which the Petitioner and Intervenor alone were concerned,
and that whatever action was directed by the Board would be acceptable to the Employer.
The commerce facts herein relied on had been previously submitted to the Regional
Office by the Employer in earlier cases, Both parties at the bearing hale sUpuiated t9
these facts.
97 NLRB No. 208.