Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 6, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 961 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY 96::
As the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast; we
shall certify the Petitioner as representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Independent Sheet Metal Fabricators and
Allied Trades of America, Local No. 1, as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees of the Employer in the appropriate.
unit described in paragraph 4.]
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company and Teamsters, Chauffeurs
Warehousemen & Helpers Local #453 ( I. B. of T. C. W. & H..
of A.), AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-2192. August 6,,
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 Sidney Smith, hearing of-
fieer. 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 Leedom and Members.
Murdock and Rodgers].
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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor raised contract-bar conten--
tions, but each maintained that a different document represented the,
prevailing agreement. The Petitioner also contended that it had a _
contract with the Employer which constituted a bar with respect ton
the truckdriver.
(A) A printed document was placed in evidence by the Intervenor,.
which, with certain oral amendments, it claims constitutes the contract..
currently in effect. The document purports to be an agreement be-,
tween the Employer and the Intervenor effective from September 1,.
1956, until August 31, 1958, and, by its terms, to cover work done by-
the Employer within the territorial jurisdiction of the Intervenor..
i The hearing officer permitted Glaziers ' Local Union 751, affiliate of the Brotherhood
of Painters , Decorators, Paperhangers and Glaziers of America , AFL-CIO, to intervene
on the basis of a claim to represent employees in the unit which the Employer claimed
to be appropriate . The Petitioner objected to this ruling on the ground that Local 751
was not in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act at the time the proceeding
began . As it was in compliance at the time of the hearing, however, the hearing officer's _
ruling granting intervention is hereby affirmed.
118 NLRB No. 121.
450553-58-vol. 118-62
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This geographical area would include the Employer's Cumberland
merchandising branch, the only one here involved. The Employer
maintained, however, and the Intervenor conceded, that when the
contract in question was signed, the parties agreed orally that it was
applicable only to particular branches, not including the Cumberland
branch. It was established, furthermore, that some provisions of this
agreement, including the wage scale, were not followed at Cumberland.
Under all the circumstances, we find that the agreement relied upon
by the Intervenor, which the parties agreed did not, despite its terms,
cover the operation here involved, cannot constitute a bar to this
proceeding.'
(B) In February 1956, the Intervenor called a strike in an effort to
bring the Cumberland wage rates up to the Pittsburgh scale. The
Petitioner joined in the strike. The Employer met with represent-
atives of both unions on February 21, 1956, and certain agreements
were reached. The Employer thereupon prepared a document setting
forth the terms of the oral agreements reached with the Intervenor;
it is this document which the Employer raises as a bar.' The Inter-
venor's representatives, however, notified the Employer that the
agreement had to be submitted for approval to the executive board
of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, Paperhangers and
Glaziers of America, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Brother-
hood 4 Such approval was never forthcoming as the executive board
found the wage rates therein unacceptable. The document which the
Employer introduced in evidence contains no signatures and is un-
dated. The Employer maintained that it carried out some provisions
of this agreement, but it appears that others were not effectuated.
We find that this contract, unsigned, undated, unratified, and carried
out only in part, cannot constitute a bar to this proceeding.'
(C) Following the February 21 meeting, the Employer sent a
letter to the Petitioner confirming the understanding that the
Employer would
compensate its delivery truck driver employee, represented by
Teamsters' Local Union No. 453, at a rate of $1.80 per hour. When
the employee is used on work within the Plant, such work shall
be compensated at a rate of $1.50 per hour.
The Petitioner maintains that this letter bars consideration of the
unit placement of the truckdriver. We find that the letter, signed
O
z Red Dot Foods, Inc., 114 NLRB 145.
3 At the hearing, the Intervenor and the Petitioner objected to the admission in evidence
of this document. The hearing officer admitted it "only insofar as it purports to be a writ-
ten memorandum of an oral understanding which is supposed to have been reached" between
the Employer and the Intervenor.
4 The Brotherhood constitution requires that agreements be submitted to the executive
board, and that wage rates are subject to its approval, and it has been the practice to sub-
mit all glazier contracts for executive board approval.
5 Kcnn cbec Mills Corporation, 115 NLRB 1483; Cadillac Motor Car Division, 114 NLRB
181; Mt. Clemens Metal Products Company, 110 NLRB 931.
PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY 963
only by the Employer, and having reference to only one employee,
cannot serve as a bar.6
The parties stipulated that the Petitioner requested recognition- as
representative of certain employees on March 20, 1957, that the Em-
ployer refused to grant such recognition until the Petitioner was
certified, and that the Petitioner filed its petition on.April 1. Ac-
cording to. the Petitioner, it filed the petition with the understanding
that the Intervenor would not seek to participate in the proceeding.
When it learned that intervention would be sought, the Petitioner, on
April 18, requested permission to withdraw its petition without
prejudice. The Regional Director, on the basis of information that
the Petitioner was planning to picket for recognition, denied the re-
quest for withdrawal. Picketing for recognition began on April 23,
and was still going on at the time of the hearing. The Petitioner
reasserted at the hearing the desire to withdraw its petition. In view
of the continued picketing for recognition, however, this request is
hereby denied.?
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
4. The petition describes the unit sought as clerks , warehousemen,
and helpers on hourly rates, excluding glaziers , truckdrivers, office
personnel , and supervisors. - The Intervenor maintained that a unit
of 6 glaziers and 2 warehousemen should be found appropriate. The
Employer urged that an election be directed in a unit of all its em-
ployees, including glaziers , glaziers ' helpers, glaziers' apprentices,8
warehousemen, and the truckdriver, but excluding clerks, salesmen,
guards,' and supervisors. The parties were in agreement that there
was no controlling pattern of bargaining in this case,10 and, further,
9 Cutter Laboratories, 116 NLRB 260; Sharon Wire Company , 115 NLRB 372; Mt.
Clemens Metal Products Company , supra; Indianapolis Power & Light Company, 76 NLRB
136.
s See Standard Furniture Company, 118 NLRB 35; Sec. 102.52 of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations.
8 The Employer has no glaziers' apprentices at present. It stated that it may have at
some time in the future , but, in view of the indefiniteness of the statement, we shall not
include apprentices in the unit found below to be appropriate.
0 The Employer employs no guards, but contracts with another company for guard service.
10 The parties agreed that the bargaining history has been too heterogeneous to be con-
trolling here. The Employer has about 200 operations similar to the one here involved,
as well as a number of other types of operations. There has been multiplant and multi-
employer bargaining at some of the locations in the Intervenor's jurisdictional area, but
none of the parties sought to apply such a pattern in this case. They stipulated further that
"As a result of the informal recognition, consent election agreements approved by the Re-
gional Directors . . . and by Board decisions, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company has con-
tracts with the Teamsters and Glaziers , in some instances the outside glaziers are in a
separate unit and the inside glassworkers are in a separate unit, and there are various
combinations of the above separate units. In some instances the Glaziers Union represents
the inside. workers, outside workers, and truckdrivers ; in some instances the Teamsters
Union represents all three groups in one contract."
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD)
that any unit or units found appropriate should be limited to the
Cumberland merchandising branch located at 317 Henderson Avenue,,
where the Employer is engaged in the sale and installation of plate
glass windows and other glass products."
The unit sought by the Petitioner is comprised of four individuals
(Bucy, Dick, Thomas, and Frame). All the parties agreed that two,
of these individuals (Bucy and Dick) should be included in the ap
propriate unit. Bucy and Dick are warehousemen, Bucy handling
the glass warehouse and Dick the paint warehouse." In addition to
their regular duties, the two warehousemen, as well as certain other
categories, sometimes assist in glaziers' work. Bucy, in fact, spends
practically all his work time handling glass. He cuts and edges glass,
repairs it, puts mirrors in frames, installs automobile windshields,, .
loads and unloads glass, and assists on outside glaziers' work. The
branch manager testified that Bucy, who has been employed by the
Employer about 2 years, is more skilled and can perform more of the
various glazier functions than the 4 painter-glaziers, described below,
and is about 85 percent as skilled as the regular glaziers.13
Dick, who has been employed 4 to 5 years, does less glaziers' work
than he otherwise would in his job because of his age (about 57) and
physical infirmities. He goes out with the glaziers infrequently and,
when he does, is "used as a stick man to balance large plates of glass."
Among his various regular duties, he helps other employees put plate
glass on the plate glass cutting table, helps Bucy install automobile
windshields, helps the glaziers with their inside work, and helps load
and unload trucks. Both Bucy and Dick receive the same wage rate,
which is $1.60 or $1.65 an hour except when doing glaziers' work,
under which circumstances all employees now receive the glaziers'
rate of $2.70 an hour. In view of their mutual employment interests,
we find, as the parties agree, that the two warehousemen should be
in the same collective-bargaining unit.
The parties agreed to the exclusion of 2 office clerical employees
(Mrs. Tipton and Mrs. Clark) and 2 salesmen (Wells and Flynn).
The Petitioner would include in its proposed unit the store clerk
(Thomas) while the Employer and the Intervenor would exclude him
as a clerical employee and a salesman-trainee. Thomas services cus-
tomers who come into the store to buy materials. The Employer has
been teaching him how to do billing, and he has been doing this work
since the first of the year. The Employer is also training him in the
11 The Employer also has a manufacturing plant in Cumberland. Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company, 117 NLRB 1728.
12 The glass warehouse is located in the basement and on the first floor , and the paint
warehouse is on the third floor, of the Employer's building.
13 The manager also testified that Bucy was not promoted to a glazier's job when less
qualified men were hired because he "was not a member of the union, and he was ais
inside glassworizer."
PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY 965
knowledge and use of its materials, and in the techniques of glass esti-
mating and how to make quotations, as he was originally hired to be
trained as a replacement for a salesman who is going to retire. The
2 salesmen, one of whom is over 60 and the other close to 60 years old,
work outside the shop most of the time, but sometimes help Thomas
in the store.
Thomas' duties do not include working in the warehouse, although
he has assisted there in an emergency situation."' He does no glaziers'
work, and does not drive the truck. Like the salesmen, the office
clerical employees, and Frame, who is found below to be a supervisor,
Thomas is salaried, while all the other employees are hourly paid.
'The Employer has different hospitalization, insurance, and other bene-
fit plans available, depending upon whether the individual is salaried
or hourly paid. As Thomas' employment interests in his present job
differ so substantially from those of the other employees here involved,
.and as the job of salesman for which he is being trained is excluded
by agreement of the parties, we shall exclude Thomas from the unit
found below to be appropriate.
The fourth individual sought by the Petitioner (Frame) is in charge
of both the paint and glass warehouse operations. He directs em-
ployees in filling, loading, and shipping orders; is authorized to re-
commend hire, discharge, promotion, or discipline of employees; and
is in charge of the entire operation when the branch manager is away
from the shop, which the manager estimated to be about half the
time. Occasionally Frame goes out with one or more glaziers, works
as a glazier, and supervises the other glaziers while doing so. Frame
is paid $80 a week plus overtime, and receives $2.70 an hour, the rate
for glaziers, when he is working as a glazier. The Employer contend-
ed, and the Intervenor agreed, that Frame is a supervisor, whereas the
Petitioner contested his supervisory status and also argued that Frame
should be included in the unit it seeks as he has become a member of
the Petitioner.15 We find, on all the evidence, that Frame is a super-
visor within the meaning of the Act, and he will, therefore, be excluded
from the unit found below to be appropriate.
The Employer has 2 regular glaziers (Evans and Healy) as well
as 4 painters (Atkinson, Rule, Hillebracht, and Tresize) who, because
of the unavailability of qualified glaziers, work as glaziers and are
classified by the Employer as glaziers. The glaziers' work was de-
scribed by the branch manager as follows :
To install or glaze glass in openings such as steel sash or alumi-
num sash casing; to install store front metal; install glass on
interiors and exteriors; to assemble doorframe assemblers; adjust
14 The Petitioner maintained that all four men it sought were warehousemen.
is The record indicates that Frame is participating in the Petitioner's current strike.
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
such things as hinges; hang mirrors, anything you usually do that
is connected with the glasswork-I mean of any of the products
that we sell.
Most of this work is performed outside the Employer's shop, but
when the glaziers are not busy with such duties they assist the em-
ployees in the warehouse. They also, at times, drive the truck which
has a glazing rig, and work from the truck.
The Employer and the Intervenor would include all six glaziers in
the same unit as the warehousemen. The Petitioner would exclude
all 6 from the unit it seeks, and also maintained that the 6 should not
be in the same unit on the grounds that Evans and Healy were already
represented by the Intervenor,'5 and the 4 painter-glaziers were not
regular employees. The Employer stated, however, that these four
employees were permanent as long as there was work for them to do,
and that there was "plenty of work" for glaziers. They do the same
kind of work in general as the glaziers, and are paid at the same rate
for such work, receive the same benefits, are entitled to the same
transportation allowance when they use their cars in their work, and
are given wage increases at the same time, as Evans and Healy. Under
these circumstances, we find that the six glaziers should be included
in the same unit. Moreover, in view of the extent to which the ware-
housemen work with the glaziers, and as the glaziers spend some of
their time assisting in the warehouse, we shall, in accord with the
contentions of the Employer and the Intervenor, include both
categories in the same unit.
There is one truckdriver (Bell)" at the operation here involved.
The Employer maintained that as Bell cannot alone constitute a unit,
he should be included in the overall unit. The Petitioner contended,
and the Intervenor agreed, that the truckdriver's unit placement was
not in issue as he was covered by an agreement. The agreement to
which they had reference, however, is the letter from the Employer
to the Petitioner, found above not to be a bar.
The Employer has 2 trucks, a large 21/2-ton glazing rig and a three-
quarter ton truck with a glazing rig on the side. If the glaziers need
the large glazing rig, they drive it to the job and work off the truck,
and then Bell uses the smaller truck for deliveries. He drives the
larger truck when the glaziers are not using it. In addition to driving
the trucks and seeing that they are serviced from time to time, Bell's
10 Evans and Healy are members of the Intervenor, while the other four employees classi-
fied as glaziers are members of a different local of the Brotherhood, and have been repre-
sented by the Intervenor only "when they are working for us at our trade." In any event,
however, there is no merit in the contention, raised at different times by both the Peti-
tioner and the Intervenor, that unit placement should be determined on the basis of union
membership. Abbotts Dairies, Inc., 97 NLRB 1064, 1069 ; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
pany, 111 NLRB 1210.
17 Bell was out on strike at the time of the hearing.
CAMPBELL & McLEAN, INC. 967
duties include making deliveries, collecting money at times for mate-
rials delivered, picking up merchandise at the company depot in
Pittsburgh, helping unload glass and paint in the warehouse, and
working as an assistant glazier. The manager testified that Bell is a
semi-skilled glazier, and has done considerably more glaziers' work
than both Bucy and Dick. Bell gets the $2.70 rate when he is glazing,.
and $1.80 an hour for his truck-driving duties, which is a higher rate
than that paid Bucy and Dick for their warehouse duties. He is
entitled to $1.50 an hour when he is helping in the warehouse, but
spends such short intervals in this work that the Employer does not
break down his rate for these periods. Under all these circumstances,
particularly the extent to which the glaziers and other employees
doing glaziers' work drive a truck, and the extent to which Bell does
both warehouse and glaziers' work,18 we shall include him in the unit
with the warehousemen and glaziers.19
We find that the following employees of the Employer at its Cumber-
land, Maryland, warehouse and sales operation, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: all hourly paid employees, in-
cluding glaziers, glaziers' helpers, warehousemen, and the truckdriver,
but excluding all office clerical employees, the store clerk, salesmen,.
the warehouse supervisor, and all other supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
38 The Employer and the Intervenor agreed, at the strike-settlement conference in Febru-
ary 1956, that the practice of permitting glaziers on occasion to drive a truck and the truck-
driver, on occasion, to assist the glaziers, would continue.
w Sharon Wire Company, Inc., 115 NLRB 372 ; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, 111
NLRB 1210.
Campbell & McLean, Inc. and International Woodworkers of
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 36-CA-745. August 7, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 14, 1957, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent 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 Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
118 NLRB No. 127.