Rankin Equipment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 18, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 1439 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of RANKIN EQUIPMENT Co.,' EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, Lorx. No. 1531 (IND.),
PETITIONER
Case No. 19-RC-136.-Decided October 18, 1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer
of the National Labor Relations Board. 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner claims to represent employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer contends that the instant proceeding is barred by
its contracts with its Main Shop and Pump Shop employees. The
Petitioner is seeking a unit comprising employees in both shops.
The contract with the Main Shop employees, dated September 3,
1947, was negotiated by the Employer and three employees. There
is no evidence in the record as to how these employees were designated.
The contract covers only those employees who have affixed their names
thereto as parties to the contract. The contract provides, inter alia,
as follows :
... This agreement shall continue in effect from September 1,
1947 and continue thereafter until either party hereto shall give
to the other party thirty (30) days notice in writing prior to the
first day of any month of a desire to change any part of this agree-
ment....
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
* Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock.
79 N. L. R. B., No. 196.
1439
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The contract with the Pump Shop employees was executed on Au-
gust 26, 1948, the date of the hearing herein, after negotiations by the
Employer and a shop committee. The record does not reveal the
method by which this committee was selected 2 Like the contract of
September 3, 1947, it covers only those employees whose names appear
thereon as parties to the contract.
These contracts cannot constitute a bar to a present determination
of representatives for several reasons, including the facts that: (1)
they are for "members only"; 3 (2) the contract of September 3, 1947,
is terminable at will; 4 and (3) the filing of the petition preceded the
execution of the August 26, 1948, contract.5
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning 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 Petitioner seeks a single unit composed of all employees at
the Employer's Main Shop and Pump Shop, excluding office employ-
ees, truck and equipment salesmen, guards, and supervisors.6 The
Employer contends that the employees at the two shops do not have
sufficient community of interest to constitute a single unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining.?
The Employer is engaged in selling, assembling, repairing, and
servicing trucks, tractors, farm equipment, and various types of water
pump and irrigation equipment. Until 1947, the Employer's entire
operations were carried on at the Main Shop. On March 1, 1947, it
relocated its water pump and irrigation equipment activities at the
Pump Shop, which is located 1 mile from the Main Shop. Of the
employees covered by the instant petition, 14 are employed at the
Main Shop and 6 at the Pump Shop. The Employer treated all its
employees as a single unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
2 Although given an opportunity to do so, both the Main Shop and the Pump Shop com-
mittees failed to intervene herein.
3 Matter of Reo Motors, Inc., 61 N. L. R B. 1579; Matter of Tennessee Coal, Iron & Rail.
road Company, 65 N. L. R. B. 1416; Matter of J. F. Johnson Lumber Company, 73
N. L R. B. 320.
4 Matter of Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Company, supra , footnote 3 ; Matter of The
Beach Company, 72 N. L. R. B. 510; Matter of Potosi Tie if Lumber Company, 73
N. L. R. B. 590.
5 Matter of Hawley & Hoops, 72 N. L R. B. 1431.
6 At the hearing the Petitioner, without objection, amended the petition with respect to
the description of the unit it seeks herein.
7 The Employer also questions the competency of the Petitioner to represent the Pump
Shop employees , apparently on the ground that the Petitioner is not authorized by its
constitution to represent them. Although we are unable to determine the extent of the
Peitioner's constitutional jurisdiction from the present record, we nevertheless find the
Employer's contention to be without merit. The Board has uniformly rejected such conten-
tions where , as in the instant case, the Petitioner seeks to represent the employees involved
and there is no showing that the Petitioner will not accord them adequate representation.
See Matter of Conroe Creosoting Company , 78 N. L . R. B. 821.
RANKIN EQUIPMENT CO. 1441
for approximately 10 years prior to the severance of its operations in
1947. Furthermore, despite their separate locations, frequent trans-
fers of employees between the 2 shops have been made. And while
each shop operates under the supervision of a separate foreman, prac-
tically identical working conditions and labor policies, commonly de-
termined, prevail at both shops. Moreover, it would appear that sepa-
rate offices are not maintained, but that all the Employer's office and
clerical work is performed in the office located at the Main Shop.
The Employer stated at the hearing that it plans to discontinue some
of its operations and consolidate its remaining operations at a single
establishment. Under all the circumstances, and upon the entire
record, it is clear that employees at both the shops involved herein have
sufficient community of interest to constitute a single appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
We find that all employees at the Employer's Main Shop and Pump
Shop, excluding office employees, truck and equipment salesmen,
guards, and all supervisors," constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered
4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or
on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also exclud-
ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of
collective bargaining, by International Association of Machinists,
Lodge No. 1531 (Ind.).
8 We shall also exclude, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, the janitor em-
ployed at the Pump Shop who resides on the premises and whose interests are not aligned
with those of the employees herein involved.