McDowell Maytag

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 770 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the absence of the shipping clerks at night or on week ends, the
operators and occasionally the truck drivers do the work of the ship-
ping department when customers call to pick up supplies. It also
appears that there have been some transfers between the shipping and
operating departments.7
It is clear that the shipping clerk and the assistant shipping clerk
do not exercise distinctive craft skills. Nor does it appear that their
duties and interests are otherwise so clearly distinguishable from
those of other employees in the plant to warrant the establishment of
an appropriate unit limited to the shipping clerks alone. Such a
finding would require the Board to accord controlling weight to the
Petitioner's extent of organization among the employees at the Ein-
ployer's plant. However, Section 9 (c) (5) of the amended Act
forbids this result 8 As the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappro-
priate, we shall dismiss the petition herein.9
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
7 The record also discloses the transfer of a truck driver to the shipping department.
Rene P. Wasserman and Marie Rose Wasserman , Co-Partners, d/b/a Alpine Metals
Manufacturing Company, 95 NLRB 1190; Arnold Hoffman & Co., Incorporated , 91 NLRB
1371.
a In view of this conclusion , Ai e find it unnecessary to decide whether the contract
between the Employer and the Intervenors constitutes a bar to this proceeding.
P. R. MCDOWELL D/B/A MCDOwELL MAYTAG 1 and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , PETITIONER . Case No. 21-RC-2531.
August 26,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Ben Grodsky, 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of
the Employer.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
100 NLRB No. 122.
SIMPLOT FERTILIZER COMPANY 771
2. 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
reasons:
The Employer is the sole proprietor of an appliance store located
at Phoenix, Arizona. The Employer purchases between $40,000 and
$50,000 in value of appliances each year, all of which are delivered to
the Employer from a Phoenix warehouse and are sold within the.
State of Arizona. The Employer currently operates under a fran-
chise agreement with the Maytag Rocky Mountain Company, Colorado
Springs, Colorado, providing for the sale and advertisement of May-
tag products by the Employer under various restrictions exercised
by the distributing Maytag Company.
Although the Employer's operations are not unrelated to com-
merce, the interstate aspects of these operations are not of sufficient
magnitude to justify the assertion of jurisdiction under the Board's
announced jurisdictional policy.2 Accordingly, we shall grant the
motion of the Employer, made at the hearing, to dismiss the petition
filed herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
2 See Reiley's Stores, Inc., 96 NLRB 516, and cases cited therein . Cf. Avedie Baxter and
Ben Baxter d/b/a Baxter Bros., 91 NLRB 1480.
J. R. SIMPLOT COMPANY , D/B/A SIMPLOT FERTILIZER COMPANY 1 and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL No. 370,
AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 19-RC-1045. August 26, 1952
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 Howard E. Hilbun,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The hearing officer . referred to the Board the Employer ' s motion to dismiss this pro-.
ceeding cn the following grounds: ( 1) Its operations are not subject to the jurisdiction
of the Board; ( 2) the Petitioner has failed to make an adequate showing of interest as the
Petitioner 's showing was based upon the number of employees working at the time the
petition was filed and when the Employer was operating on an off -season basis ; and (3)
the. Bard should not direct an election before the start of the Employer 's mining . season..
The Employer 's motion to dismiss is hereby denied . For the reasons stated in paragraph
numbered 1, infra, we find no merit in the Employer 's first contention . With respect to.
100 NLRB No. 115.
2272 60-53-r o 1. 100--50