Leslie Metal Arts Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 6, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 693 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

LESLIE METAL ARTS CO, INC. 693
Leslie Metal Arts Company, Incorporated and
General Teamsters Union , Local No. 406, Af-
filiated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America. ' Petitioner . Case 7-RC-7974
October 6, 1967
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On April 28, 1967, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 7 dismissed a petition for election in the above-
entitled proceeding. In accordance with Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the
Petitioner filed a timely request for review of the
Regional Director's Decision, which was con-
sidered together with a statement in opposition filed
by the Employer. Thereafter on June 12, 1967, the
Board granted review and remanded the
proceedings to the Regional Director for issuance
of a notice of hearing and/or other appropriate ac-
tion. Subsequently, a hearing was held before
Theodore C. Niforos, a duly designated Hearing
Officer. After the hearing was closed, the Regional
Director transferred the case to the Board in ac-
cordance with Section 102.67(h) of the Board Rules
and Regulations due to the apparent uniqueness of
the issue involving Section 9(c)(3) of the Act. The
parties have timely filed briefs in support of their
respective positions.
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks an election in a unit com-
prising all truckdrivers of the Employer at its plant
No. 1, 3225 32nd Street, SE.; plant No. 2, 549
Ionia Avenue, SW., both in Grand Rapids,
Michigan; and plant No. 3, Middleville, Michigan,
excluding office clerical employees, guards, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act, and all other em-
ployees.
The Employer is a Michigan corporation engaged
in the manufacture of automotive parts (sheet metal
stampings) with its principal office, plant No. 1,
located at 3225 32nd Street, SE., Grand Rapids,
Michigan. The Employer has two other plants in
Grand Rapids, Nos. 2 and 4. Plant No. 3 is located
in Middleville, Michigan. The Company employs
six truckdrivers: four at plant No. 1, and one each
at plants Nos. 2 and 3.
On November 10, 1966, an election2 pursuant to
stipulation of the parties was conducted at plant
No. I in a unit composed of all production and
maintenance employees, including, inter alia, the
four truckdrivers at plant No. 1. The two
truckdrivers stationed at plants Nos. 2 and 3 were
not eligible to vote. The United Automobile Work-
ers (UAW), the only labor organization involved,
lost that election and the results have been certified.
Subsequently, on April 3, 1967, the IBT filed the
present petition.
The Employer contends that the proposed unit
should properly be viewed as a subdivision of the
unit in which the previous election was held and
that, consequently, Section 9(c)(3) of the Act bars
a second election within 12 months.3 Alternatively,
the Employer contends that the petition describes
an inappropriate unit.
In previous cases involving the application of
Section 9(c)(3), the Board has held that an election
conducted in a craft or departmental unit does not
bar a subsequent election in a larger overall unit.4
Similarly, the Board has held that participation in an
election by the production and maintenance em-
ployees at one of an Employer's 10 locations did
not preclude their participation within 12 months in
an election conducted in a multiplant unit. s
A multiplant unit is broader in scope than a
single-plant unit. The fact that the truckdrivers at
one of the Employer's four plants were eligible to
vote in an election within the preceding 12 months
in an overall production and maintenance unit does
not bring the election petitioned for here within the
ambit of Section 9(c)(3), for the election directed
The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
z Case 7-RC-7746, not published in N LRB volumes
Section 9(c)(3) of the Act provides in pertinent part that
No election shall be directed in any bargaining unit or any subdivi-
sion within which, in the preceding twelve-month period, a valid elec-
tion shall have been held
Thiokol Chemical Corporation, 123 N LRB 888, Pacific Maritime As-
sociation , 110 NLRB 1647, 1651
5 Vacuum Cooling Company, 105 NLRB 794
167 NLRB No. 96
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
herein is in a unit which is not the unit or a subdivi-
sion of the unit in which the prior election was con-
ducted. Accordingly, we find that Section 9(c)(3)
does not bar an election in the unit sought.
We also find that the truckdrivers may constitute
a separate appropriate multiplant unit.
Blower, the truckdriver assigned to plant No. 2,
testified at the hearing that approximately 90 per-
cent of his time was spent driving, loading, and un-
loading his truck. Savara, the Employer's traffic
manager and the only other witness, testified that
the main duty of the truckdrivers is driving.6 Duties
performed by truckdrivers other than those which
normally form a routine part of a truckdriver's du-
ties are apparently subsidiary to their main job.
Other than in an emergency situation, when a
foreman may drive, only truckdrivers drive trucks.
A chauffeur's license is required.
Employer's exhibits,' containing a tabulation of
"driving time out" and "total hours worked," show
that during the period from March 26, 1967, to June
18, 1967, the drivers, as a group, spent approxi-
mately 50 percent of their time driving away from
their home plants. The exhibits, however, neither
indicate what portion of their time is spent at their
home plant in loading and unloading trucks nor how
much in waiting or other downtime. The Board has
held that loading and unloading trucks is a normal
part of a driver's duty8 and, for that portion of their
time as well as time spent in waiting for loads, the
drivers are engaged in duties normally performed
by truckdrivers.
From the foregoing, we find that the truckdrivers,
as a group, regularly spend a preponderance of their
time in typical truckdriving and associated duties.
The Board has traditionally held that truckdrivers,
such as those involved in this case, forming a func-
tionally distinct and homogeneous group, may con-
stitute a separate appropriate unit in the absence of
a bargaining history, where a union seeks to
represent them separately and no other labor or-
ganization seeks to represent them in a larger unit.9
6 Savara additionally testified that the drivers at plant No I load and
unload trucks, do routine packaging of goods, yard work, weight counting,
and degreasing , have been loaned to the production department , and have
been used in taking inventory His testimony , however, was general and
not specific With one exception (that of one driver who participated to
some undefined extent in an inventory 6 months before ) he did not name
the drivers involved , did not indicate that such work was performed by
drivers on any regular schedule, and did not testify with respect to the
amount of time spent by drivers performing such nondriving duties.
r Exh. 1(g) was submitted after the close of the hearing pursuant to
stipulation of counsel and is hereby received into evidence and made a
part of the record in this case
"Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation, 116 N LRB 1784.
"St Johns Associates, Inc , 166 NLRB 287, Ballentine Packing
Company, 132 NLRB 923.
10 The rate varies from $2 45 to $2.80 an hour
11 National By-Products Company, 122 NLRB 334. The company
operated meat processing plants at three cities in Colorado and pickup sta-
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We further find that a multiplant unit of these
truckdrivers is appropriate. All four of the Em-
ployer's plants are located within a 30-mile radius.
Centralized master records are kept at plant No. 1
and the payroll for all four plants is prepared at
Plant No. 1. Although there is testimony that the in-
dividual plant managers determine the rate for each
driver, the drivers at all of the plants are paid at an
hourly rate and receive similar rates of pay. 10 There
is no interchange of employees between the plants,
but this alone has been held not to be determinative
of the appropriateness of a multiplant unit." Most
of the driving is done between the Employer's
plants, and the drivers come into contact with one
another while making pickups and deliveries at the
various plants.
The Company employs a traffic manager,
Raymond Savara, who is located at plant No. 1.
Savara is the immediate supervisor of the shipping
and receiving foreman, who supervises the
truckdrivers at plant No. 1. According to his
testimony, Savara acts only as an adviser to the
managers of the other plants. He has, however,
visited all of the plants for periods of up to 6 weeks
in this capacity, and as a "corporate observer" has
made "suggestions" to the other plant managers.
We are convinced that Savara at least coordinates
the traffic operations of the Employer at and
between the other plants and plant No. 1, where he
has direct responsibility for truck operations.
Accordingly, we find that the following em-
ployees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All truckdrivers of the Employer at its plant No.
1, 3225 32nd Street, SE.; plant No. 2, 549 Ionia
Avenue, SW., both in Grand Rapids, Michigan; and
plant No. 3, Middleville, Michigan, excluding office
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors12 as
defined in the Act, and all other employees.
[Direction of Election13 omitted from publica-
tion.)
tions at two other locations . While there was no employee interchange
between the drivers at the pickup stations and they serviced different ci-
ties, the Board held that since the manager at Denver had overall supervi-
sion , assigning routes and pickup areas, and since both stations serviced
the same geographical area, the drivers at both stations had a sufficient
community of interest to form an appropriate unit
11 It was stipulated that the shipping and receiving foremen are super-
visors, and we therefore exclude them from the unit.
19 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all
the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional
Director for Region 7 within 7 days after the date of this Decision on
Review and Direction of Election. The Regional Director shall make the
list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this
list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary cir-
cumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for
setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed. Excelsior
Underwear Inc., 156NLRB 1236