M & M Terminal Warehouse Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 14, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1026 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
M & M Terminal Warehouse Company and Laney & Duke Storage
Warehouse Company and Truck Drivers , Warehousemen &
Helpers Local Union No. 512 , International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner
M & M Terminal Warehouse Company and Laney & Duke Storage
Warehouse Company and Local 1408-A, International Long-
shoremen 's Association , Independent , Petitioner. Cases Nos.1 2-
RC-80 and 12-RC-113. August 14,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed a consolidated hearing was held before
H. C. Thompson , Jr., 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 Leedom and Members Murdock and Bean].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. As has been noted in footnote 1, supra, the Employers refused to
submit any information concerning their business prior to the hearing,
nor did they appear at the hearing although served with notice. The
hearing officer therefore placed in the record correspondence between
the Board's Regional Office and several customers of the Employers.
This uncontradicted evidence establishes that the Employers' ware-
house operations constitute a link in the chain of commerce and their
annual incomes for these services exceed $100,000, for each. We there-
1 After the hearing , counsel representing both Employers filed a telegraphic motion
requesting that these cases be remanded for a further hearing on the ground that the Re-
gional Director had arbitrarily set the hearing on a date when counsel could not be present,
thus depriving the parties of the right to a hearing at their convenience , as provided in
the Administrative Procedure Act, and that material facts were not developed at the
hearing.
In considering the Regional Director 's refusal to grant the Employer 's counsel a con-
tinuance , we note that the petition in Case No. 12-RC-80 was filed March 15, 1957, and
that normally the prehearing investigation would have been completed and the case set
for hearing within a short time thereafter. However, the Employers declined , upon request,
to furnish the Regional Director with any information as to the nature and extent of
their operations, from which it could be determined , initially, whether they were subject to
the jurisdiction of the Board. This made it necessary for the Regional Director to seek
such information from customers of the Employers. Further precluding the timely
processing of the instant petitions , the Employers requested such customers not to supply
the information sought by the Regional Director unless they were subpenaed to do so.
Because of this conduct of the Employers, although the petition had been filed in March, it
was not possible for the Regional Director to schedule a hearing until the latter part of
June. In these circumstances, we can not say that the Regional Director, in an effort to
expedite an already long delayed hearing , abused his discretion in denying the motion
for a continuance . Nor can the Employers rely on the Administrative Procedure Act,
as representation proceedings are specifically exempted from Section 5 thereof. Accord-
ingly, and as the record as made appears adequate and the Employer has made no offer of
proof , we hereby deny the motion to remand.
118 NLRB No. 131.
MURRAY OHIO MANUFACTURING CO. 1027
fore find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction over the Employers 2
2. The labor organizations named above claim to represent certain
employees of the Employers.
3. Questions. affecting commerce exist concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employers, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Each Petitioner seeks, essentially, a unit of truckdrivers and
warehousemen excluding all other employees and supervisors, at both
Employers. Alternatively the Petitioners seek units of the same
composition but limited to each Employer. The Employers are en-
gaged in the furnishing of warehouse and trucking services. There
is no bargaining history.
A unit limited to the employees of one employer is presumptively
appropriate. The record in these cases does not contain sufficient
evidence of integration between these two Employers to warrant our
.granting the Petitioner's primary request for a two-employer unit.
We therefore find appropriate the following units :
1. All truckdrivers, helpers, checkers, dockmen, loaders, unloaders,
tow motor operators, and all workers performing warehouse work
employed at M & M Terminal Warehouse in Jacksonville, Florida,
but excluding all office and clerical employees, mechanics, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. All truckdrivers, helpers, checkers, dockmen, loaders, unloaders,
tow motor operators, and all workers performing warehouse work
employed at Laney & Duke Storage Warehouse Company in Jackson-
ville, Florida, but excluding all office and clerical employees, mechanics,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
2 United Warehouse and Terminal Corporation, 112 NLRB 959; Plant City Welding and
Tank Company, 118 NLRB 280.
Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co., Lawrenceburg , Tennessee, Di-
vision 1 and International Union , United Automobile, Aircraft
& Agricultural Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO.
Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-3871. August 1.¢,1957
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 11. Stephen Gordon,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
118 NLRB No. 136.