National Perishable Inspection Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 779 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

NATIONAL PERISHABLE INSPECTION SERVICE, INC. 779
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A 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.
4. We find that all bus drivers, and relief drivers employed by the
Columbus-Celina Coach Company and the Columbus-Marysville Bus
Company excluding mechanics, clerical and office employees, guards,
watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
a Although the Petitioner alternatively indicated its willingness to include the mechanics,
the parties agree that a unit confined to the drivers is, as the Board has often found,
an appropriate one. One of the bus drivers involved herein spends half of his time as a
mechanic . He is included in the unit and is eligible to vote. Ocola Star Banner, 97 NLRB
384.
NATIONAL PERISHABLE INSPECTION SERVICE, INC., and LODGE 840,
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGIIT HAN-
DLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES, AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 1-RC-2388. December 28, 19.51
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 Robert S. Fuchs, hear-
ing 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 Employer is a Massachusetts corporation engaged in the
business of inspecting fruits and vegetables shipped to the Boston
Market Terminal via railway and truck. During the calendar year
1950, the Employer received over $57,000 in revenue for these serv-
ices. The Employer does business with a total of 82 companies, some
of which are members or associate members of the Boston Market
Terminal, and others independent operators. Subsequent to the
hearing the parties stipulated for the record that during the year
1950 the Employer performed services valued at $54,996 for 31 com-
panies, each of which annually sells at least $25,000 worth of merchan-
97 NLRB No. 139.
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dise directly to customers located outside the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. We therefore find, contrary to the Employer's con-
tention, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.-
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A 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.
4. The Petitioner seeks a'unit comprising all perishable inspectors,
excluding office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards,
close relatives of officers of the Employer, and all supervisors. The
Employer contends that the unit sought is inappropriate on the
ground that its perishable, inspectors are professional employees
within the meaning of the amended Act.
In addition to its president and treasurer, the Employer employs
six perishable inspectors. These employees inspect loaded railway
cars or trucks for the Employer's customers. They determine the
quality and condition of the various perishable products and also
inspect the equipment and refrigeration of the carrier. Upon com-
pletion of their inspection, their findings are reported to the con-
signee. The president of the Employer testified that an employee
may become qualified as a perishable inspector after 3 years of
on-the-job training. Only the two above officers of the Employer
have received college training in their specialty.' While the perish-
able inspectors exercise independent judgment and discretion in the
performance of their duties, it is clear that they are not professional
employees within the meaning of Section 2 (12) of the amended Act.
Moreover, the unit requested includes only perishable inspectors
similarly trained and performing similar duties. As no union seeks
to represent these employees in the same unit with other categories
of employees, the Employer's contention is, in any event, without
merit.
Relatives of management; The Employer would include two em-
ployees who are brothers of the president or the Employer. The
Petitioner would exclude them. In accordance with the Board's
established policy of excluding close relatives of management from
bargaining units, we shall exclude Peter and George Bucuvalas?
The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act :
' Hollow Tree Lumber Co ., 91 NLRB 635.
2 Greater Erie Broadcasting Company, 92 NLRB 270.
THE FILTRON CO., INC. 781
All perishable inspectors employed at the Employer' s Boston,
Massachusetts, place of business, excluding office and clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume,]
THE FILTRON CO., INC. and FILTER WORKERS GROUP, PETITIONER.
Cases Nos. 2-RC-3605 and 2-RC-3606. December 28,1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Lloyd
C. Greenidge, 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, Reynolds, and Styles].
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 2 involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A 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.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance
employees, including draftsmen, in Case No. 2-RC-3605, and a unit
of all office clerical, secretarial, and accounting employees in Case No.
2-RC-3606. The Intervenor, intervening only in Case No. 2-RC-
3605, agrees with the unit request of the Petitioner, but would
exclude the draftsmen from the production and maintenance unit and
include them in the office clerical unit. The Employer agrees with the
1 The hearing officer denied the motion of Local 463, International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, hereinafter called the Intervenor, to adjourn the hearing
for 1 or 2 days until its attorney could be present. The record shows that the Intervenor's
business agent participated fully in the proceeding, examined and cross -examined witnesses,
and was afforded full opportunity to introduce evidence . Under these circumstances, and
in view of two previous postponements of the hearing, one at the request of the Intervenor,
we find that the hearing officer's refusal to adjourn the hearing was not an abuse of his
discretion , and we hereby affirm the ruling.
2 The record shows that both the Petitioner and the Intervenor exist for the purpose of
engaging in collective bargaining on matters of wages, hours, and working conditions of
employment and that each admits to membership employees of the Employer. Accord-
ingly, we find that the Petitioner and the Intervenor are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act. Peerless X-ray Laboratories Manufacturing Corp., 89 NLRB 1432;
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 88 NLRB 600.
97 NLRB No. 140.