McCulloch Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 23, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 1020 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
McCulloch Corporation 1 and Miscellaneous Warehousemen,
Drivers & Helpers, Local 986, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-9104. November 23, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer I. W.
Ein. 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 McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer .2
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation 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
reasons:
Early in 1963, the UAW filed a petition 3 seeking a unit of the
production and maintenance employees of the Employer, which was
engaged in the manufacture of outboard motors and chain saws in
Los Angeles. In June 1963, pursuant to a decision of the Regional
Director for Region 21, an election was held in a unit of all the
Employer's production and maintenance employees, including ship-
ping and receiving employees, printshop employees, and truckdrivers.
Following the election, which the UAW lost, the UAW filed objec-
tions . After the Regional Director overruled the objections, the
UAW filed a request for review with the Board; this request for
review is currently before the Board for consideration.
In July 1963, about a month after the election was held, the
Employer began operations at Redondo Beach, approximately 6 miles
from Los Angeles. The Employer transferred to the Redondo Beach
facility its shipping, service stores, and printshop operations, form-
erly performed at Los Angeles, and transferred to the new location a
number of employees who had performed these functions at the old
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
2 International Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America , UAW, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as UAW , intervened for the purpose of
moving that the petition be dismissed.
3 Case No. 21-RC-8228.
149 NLRB No. 95.
McCULLOCH CORPORATION 1021
location . The Petitioner herein seeks a unit of the Employer's ware-
house employees at the Redondo Beach facility .4 The Employer and
the UAW moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit
sought is inappropriate.
Practically all the employees in the job classifications sought by the
Petitioner had transferred to Redondo Beach from Los Angeles,
where they had been similarly classified and performed similar duties.
Two of the employees who transferred to Redondo Beach later trans-
ferred back to Los Angeles. There are also frequent temporary
transfers of employees in various categories from Los Angeles to do
warehouse work at Redondo Beach. In addition, the Employer has
continued to employ personnel at Los Angeles in the same job classi-
fications performing the same kind of work as those at Redondo
Beach sought by the Petitioner. In fact, some employees who are
normally assigned to Redondo Beach actually work at Los Angeles.
Employee benefits, wage scales , and labor relations policy are the
same for both locations, seniority for promotions and layoffs is on a
companywide basis within job classifications, and an employee
retains his seniority within a prior classification after being placed in
a new classification at either location. Overall supervision of ware-
housing functions at both locations is centralized in Los Angeles.
General supervision of the Redondo Beach operation is performed by
the supervisor of service stores and the traffic manager, both of whom
perform supervisory duties in Los Angeles as well. There are also
four assistant foremen attached to Redondo Beach, one of whom
spends part of his time at Los Angeles, where he supervises the
employees assigned to Redondo Beach but who actually work at Los
Angeles, as well as employees who drive trucks between the two
locations.
The employees at Redondo Beach who are sought by the Peti-
tioner are essentially the same employees who were included in the
overall production and maintenance unit. In view of all the circum-
stances, including the integration between the Los Angeles and
Redondo Beach facilities, the transfers between the two locations, the
employee benefits, wage scales, supervision, and labor relations poli-
cies common to both locations, and the pendency of the prior pro-
ceeding, we find that the petitions seeking a separate unit at the
Redondo Beach operation does not raise a question concerning repre-
sentation in an appropriate unit. Accordingly, under all the circum-
stances of this case, we shall grant the motions of the Employer and
the UAW to dismiss the petition herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
4 The Petitioner alternatively requested a unit of employees in the designated ware-
house classifications at both Redondo Beach and Los Angeles, but it did not present an
adequate showing of interest for such a unit.