National Welders Supply Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1960

129 N.L.R.B. 514 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
elusive bargaining representative of the employees of the Respondent in the appro-
priate unit of production and maintenance employees , it will be recommended that
the Respondent , upon request, bargain collectively with said Union as such
representative.
In the opinion of the Trial Examiner , the unfair labor practices committed by the
Respondent in the instant case are such as to indicate an attitude of opposition to the
purposes of the Act generally. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdepend-
ent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, thereby minimizing industrial strife which
burdens and obstructs commerce, and to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be
recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District,
Marine Allied Workers Division, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discharging Booker T. Washington and Aaron Harvin, thus discriminating
in regard to their hire and tenure of employment because each of them became a
member of the Union and engaged in union activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing on, and at all times after, November 6, 1959, to bargain
collectively with Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf
District, Marine Allied Workers Division, AFL-CIO, as the certified exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is
now engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and
(1) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
rational Welders Supply Company, Inc.' and International
Union of Operating Engineers Local 465, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 11-RC-1354. October 31, 1960
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 Jerold B. Sindler, 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 Rodgers 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.
1 The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
129 NLRB No. 58.
NATIONAL WELDERS SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. 515
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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 Employer has three installations in the Charlotte, North
Carolina, area, where it is engaged in the manufacture of commercial
gases and cylinder trucks, and the sale and repair of welding equip-
ment. The Employer also has sales and distribution employees in
Charlotte and in branch office warehouses in Asheville, Fayetteville,
and Salisbury, North Carolina; and Greenville, Columbia, Charleston,
and Florence, South Carolina. The branch warehouses are located
from 40 to 200 miles from Charlotte. The products manufactured at
Charlotte are transported on the Employer's trucks to the branches
and are then distributed by driver-salesmen to the customers.
Petitioner seeks a unit limited to the production and maintenance
employees in the three Charlotte area installations. The Employer
contends that such a unit is inappropriate because it excludes the
over-the-road drivers who operate between Charlotte and the branches,
and the warehousemen and driver-salesmen who are based at the
branches. There is no history of collective bargaining for any of the
employees involved.'
The Employer's general offices, production facilities, main ware-
house, and distribution center are located in the Charlotte area. It
also has a warehousing installation attached to its general offices,
where' a number of driver-salesmen are engaged in making local
deliveries in the Charlotte area, in the same manner employed at the
other six warehouses. The over-the-road trucks, which are all based
at Charlotte, make daily trips to the branches. At Charlotte, the
trucks are loaded and unloaded by platform men, while the same
function is performed at the branches by warehousemen. The latter
also load and unload the driver-salesmen's trucks, act as storekeepers,
wait on customers, and keep records.
The unit requested by the Petitioner includes production and main-
tenance employees, supply clerks, and platform men, all of whom are
located at the various Charlotte installations. It would, however, ex-
clude the remaining employees, based at Charlotte, who are engaged
in distribution work-the truckdrivers and the driver-salesmen. As
their work is closely integrated with production and as no labor or-
S We note that in 1954 the Board found appropriate a unit of production , maintenance,
and delivery employees at Charlotte and at the other three installations in the Carolinas
which the Employer then operated , and in 1959 , the Board found appropriate a unit,
agreed to by this Petitioner and the Employer , of production and maintenance employees,
including drivers , at Charlotte and at the other six installations which were then being
operated
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ganization seeks to represent them separately, we believe that they
should also be included as part of the appropriate unit .3
The remaining question with respect to the scope of the appropri-
ate unit is whether the driver-salesmen and warehousemen at the
branch warehouses should also be included. Each branch is supervised
by a combination salesman-manager who spends a considerable
amount of time in outside selling activities. All of the branch ware-
houses are dependent on daily deliveries of gas cylinders originating
from Charlotte, while production in Charlotte requires a continuous
return of empty cylinders to be refilled. Because of the limited num-
ber of cylinders and restricted space at the warehouses, it is necessary
for the dispatcher at Charlotte to be in daily communication with the
branches in order to determine the most efficient use of production
and warehouse facilities. As a result, work schedules and deliveries
are coordinated and supervised to a great extent by the general office
at Charlotte. In order to cope with emergency needs, personnel are
transferred for short periods between branches or from Charlotte
to one of the branches. There is also frequent interchange within
the branches between the warehousemen and the driver-salesmen.
Warehousemen frequently make local deliveries while driver-salesmen
spend approximately a quarter of their time at the warehouse itself.
The duties of the platform men and supply clerks at Charlotte are
similar to those of the branch warehousemen, and all employees,
wherever located, are covered by the same pay structure and are gov-
erned by the same operating instructions.
On the basis of the above facts, particularly the overlapping work
and duties of the warehousemen and driver-salesmen at the branches,
and the similarity of their duties and working conditions with those
of the driver-salesmen, supply clerks, and platform men at Charlotte,
we believe that all employees engaged in distribution work at the
branches, including the driver-salesmen, should be included. We
therefore find that only a unit of production, maintenance, and dis-
tribution employees at all the Employer's installations is appropriate
here.
The parties are in disagreement as to the unit placement of Newman
and Hoffman. The Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, would
exclude both as supervisors. Newman is classified as senior supply
clerk in the shipping and receiving department in the main office.
There are four other employees classified as supply clerks in the de-
partment. Newman, as the senior man in the department, directs and
assigns the work of the supply clerks in a routine manner or in ac-
cordance with instructions from the general manager. There is no
evidence that he has any of the indicia of supervisory authority. We
shall therefore include him in the unit. Hoffman is the dispatcher
3 Foremost Dairies , Inc., 118 NLRB 1424 , and The Valley of Virginia Cooperative Milk
Producers Association, 127 NLRB 785.
MIAMI VALLEY CARPENTERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC . 517
for the over-the-road drivers and coordinates deliveries to the
branches. He assigns routes to the over-the-road drivers and directs
the loading and unloading of the trucks. While he does not have the
authority to hire or discharge employees he does have the authority
to discipline and adjust grievances of employees. Accordingly, upon
the record as a whole, we find that Hoffman is a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act, and we shall therefore exclude him from
the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of the Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All of the Employer's production, maintenance, and distribution
employees in Charlotte, Asheville, Fayetteville, and Salisbury, North
Carolina; and Greenville, Columbia, Charleston, and Florence, South
Carolina, excluding office clerical employees, branch managers, the
dispatcher, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
Although the unit found appropriate is broader than that initially
sought by the Petitioner, the Petitioner has indicated its ability to
make a showing in such a unit. Accordingly, we instruct the Regional
Director not to proceed with the election herein directed until he shall
have first determined that the Petitioner has made an adequate and
timely showing of interest among the employees in the appropriate
unit .4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
* Foremost Dairies, Inc ., 118 NLRB 1424 , 1428, footnote 7.
Miami Valley Carpenters ' District Council of Dayton, Ohio,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO [B. G. Danis Company , Inc.] and C . H. Chester.
Case No. 9-CB-83?. November 1, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 4, 1960, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
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 Leedom and Members
Rodgers and Jenkins].
129 NLRB No. 65.