Launderepair Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 6, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 778 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of BETRAM F. ROLAND, D/B/A LAUNDEREPAIR COMPANY,
EMPLOYER and FEDERATION OF GLASS, CERAMIC & SILICA SAND
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 4-RC-628.-Decided July 6, 1950
DECISON AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before E. Don Wilson,
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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. Betram F. Roland is the sole owner and operator of the subject
company and of another company known as the Arnold Company.
Both companies are located at the same premises in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. The subject company repairs and services washing
machines in private homes, launderettes, and in its shop, and also sells
washing machine parts and soaps. The Arnold Company repairs and
services electrical appliances, and in addition, sells parts, and does
electrical repair and installation work in factories.
Prior to June 20, 1949, the Arnold Company repaired and serviced
washing machines in private homes. At that time, however, Betram
F. Roland, as sole proprietor of the Arnold Company, was offered an
exclusive franchise to service and repair Launderall machines in the
Philadelphia area. In order to accept the exclusive franchise from
the Launderall Company, Roland organized the Launderepair Com-
pany on June 20, 1949.2
Betram F. Roland is the general manager of both companies. The
dispatcher, on the payroll of Launderepair Company, also routes the
i The petition and other papers were amended at the hearing to show the correct name
of the subject company.
2 There is some indication in the record that the subject company was established for
bookkeeping purposes and that the Employer also wished to guard against any reflection
on the Arnold Company should there be any adverse criticism of Launderepair Company.
90 NLRB No. 127.
778
LAUNDEREPAIR COMPANY 779
'trucks of the Arnold Company. Several clerical employees perform
considerable work for both companies. Although each company has
its own set of books and its own payroll, all social security reports, un-
employment compensation reports, and city wage tax reports, for both
companies, are filed under the name of Arnold Company. The with-
holding tax reports are filed by each company. Both companies use
the same storage space, and the same repair shop area. The offices of
both companies are in the same room. So far as appears, the same labor
policy, as formulated by Roland, is applicable to the employees of both
companies.
In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that both companies are
engaged in a single integrated enterprise and that they constitute, for
the purposes of this proceeding, a single Employer. We shall accord-
ingly predicate assertion of jurisdiction over the Employer on the com-
merce facts applicable to both companies.
The Launderepair Company purchased electrical supplies and parts
valued in excess of $33,000 during the period between June 20, 1949,
and December 31, 1949, approximately 95 percent of which represented
purchases made outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
Launderepair Company received in excess of $100,000 for services
rendered and parts sold during the same period. Approximately 95
percent of the services was rendered within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. During the year 1949, the Arnold Company purchased
supplies and parts valued in excess of $73,000, of which approximately
50 percent represented shipments from outside the Commonwealth.
During 1949, the Arnold Company received approximately $196,000
for services rendered and parts sold. Approximately 95 percent of
its services was rendered within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Launderepair Company performs repair work on Horton ma-
chines, Dexter machines, and Automatic machines. It has exclusive
repair franchises for the Dexter machines and the Automatic machines,
and approximately 10 percent of this company's business is derived
from the repair of Bendix machines for John Wanamaker Company,
a department store in Philadelphia.
The Arnold Company has exclusive repair franchises from 35 manu-
facturers for 48 brands of electrical appliances. Approximately 45
percent of the services performed by this company consists of the
repair of electrical appliances. The remaining 55 percent of the work
consists of installing lighting and power equipment, repairing motors.
and performing other types of industrial maintenance for manu-
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR "RELATIONS BOARD
facturing concerns in the Philadelphia area, many of whom are en-
gaged in interstate commerce.'
It therefore appears that, in addition to the substantial amount of
out-of-State purchases, a large portion of the operating revenue re-
ferred to above represents industrial maintenance work performed for-
customers directly engaged in interstate commerce, and that the serv-
ices performed for these customers contribute to their production
processes. Furthermore, another substantial portion represents work
done pursuant to numerous exclusive repair franchises on machines
distributed in this area by many firms whom we have found to be.
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.4
In view of the foregoing and on the entire record in the case, we find,
contrary to the contentions of the Employer, that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.5
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following rea-
sons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of service and shopmen on the payroll of
the Launderepair Company, excluding office and clerical employees,
guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The Em-
ployer contends that the appropriate unit should include the shop and;
servicemen of both Launderepair Company and Arnold Company.
There are 12 "street" mechanics and 2 shop mechanics on the Laun-
derepair Company payroll. The "street" mechanics repair washing
machines in private homes and launderettes, and the shop mechanics
repair washing machines in the Employer's shop. The "street"
mechanics drive their own cars, and are paid a daily rate of $8.50 per
day for their work, and $3 per day for the use of their cars. They also
receive commissions for selling soap and conversion shifts for the
8 Those companies for whom the Arnold Company performs industrial maintenance work,
and over whom the Board has exercised jurisdiction are : Blumenthal Brothers, 4-UA-46,
4-UA-117, 4-UA-155, Board certifications on January 21, 1948 (unpublished ) ; Whiting-
Patterson, 4-RC-676, consent election directed on March 14 , 1950 ( unpublished ) ; Wilson d-
Company, 4-RC-477, election ordered September 8, 1949 (unpublished).
4 Sunbeam Corporation, 74 NLRB 976 ; Knapp-Monarch Company, 14-UA-1472, cer-
tification June 27, 1948 ( unpublished ) ; Lionel Corporation, 2-UA-4930, certification
March 4, 1949 ( unpublished ) ; Rival Manufacturing, 17-UA-770, certification May 26,
1948 ( unpublished) ; Siles Corporation, 1-R-3]90 , consent election directed ( unpublished) ;
Chicago Electric Manufacturing Company, 13-RC-101, Board directed election ( unpub-
lished).
'Earl McMillian Company, 81 NLRB 639; cf . Dome Tractor Company, 80 NLRB 24;
Valley Truck and Tractor Co., 80 NLRB 444.
LAUNDEREPAIR COMPANY 781
Launderall machine. The shop mechanics receive $8 . 25 per day. Al-
though skilled washing machine mechanics have been hired in the
past, the record indicates that 4 or 5 weeks' training is sufficient to
qualify any mechanically minded man to perform this type of work.
The Arnold Company has approximately 40 employees , 15 to 20 of
whom are office employees . The remainder of the employees are serv-
icemen. There are 3 servicemen performing motor repair work; 6
servicemen are engaged in repairing electrical appliances; and 8
mechanics , 2 helpers , and 1 truck driver perform industrial mainte-
nance work.
The electric appliance repairmen spend all their time repairing elec-
tric appliances at the shop . The record shows that the appliance
repairmen are not highly skilled employees , and that they receive little
training in preparation for their job. This work requires only a basic
knowledge of electrical circuits and a certain amount of mechanical-
mindedness . The electric appliance repairmen are paid 90 cents per
hour for the hours actually worked and receive no guarantee as to
earnings per week.
The industrial maintenance mechanics install lighting and power
equipment , and perform other types of maintenance work in various
manufacturing plants in the Philadelphia area. They are paid from
$1.10 to $1.60 per hour, and are guaranteed 35 hours work per week.
The record does not show where most of their work is performed, but
from the nature of the work , it would appear that they work outside
the shop.
The motor repair mechanics spend all of their time repairing all
types of motors for which they receive $1 .35 to $1 .40 per hour with 35
hours work per week guaranteed . As in the case of the industrial
mechanics , the record does not reflect the skill of the motor repair
mechanics nor does it indicate where the motor repair work is per-
formed.
The electric appliance repairmen of the Arnold Company, and the
shop mechanics of the Launderepair Company work in the same shop.
They use the same tools and machines . All the service mechanics of
both Launderepair Company and the Arnold Company are under the
ultimate supervision of Betram F. Roland. They use the same office
facilities , washroom , and parking lot. Furthermore , the skill required
of the "street" mechanics , shop mechanics , and the electric appliance
mechanics is comparable.
It is clear from the integrated nature of the operations of Laundere-
pair Company and Arnold Company that the employees of both com-
panies pooled form the basis of the appropriate unit. However, as the
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proposed unit is neither a craft group nor a functionally distinct de-
partmental group, and as it would exclude employees who perform.
comparable tasks and who have interests in common with the em-
ployees sought, we conclude that it is inappropriate for collective bar-
gaining purposes. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.