Reda Pump Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 3, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1176 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during said period.16 Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum
equal to that which he would normally have earned for each quarter or portion
thereof, his net earnings , if any, in other employment during that period. Earn-
ings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for
any other quarter. The quarterly periods described herein shall begin with the first
day of January, April, July, and October.I7
It is recommended further that Respondent make available to the Board upon
request payroll and other records, in order to facilitate the checking of the amount
of back pay due.18
Because of Respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose and tend-
ency, I find that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to other
unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger of their commission in the future
is to be anticipated from the course of the Respondent's conduct in the past. The
preventative purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is coextensive
with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantee
of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby to mini-
mize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate
the policies of the Act, I will recommend that Respondent cease and desist from
in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sears Roebuck and Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Sears Roebuck Employees Council Local 1635, Retail Clerks International
Association, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Roy W.
Webber because of his union activities thereby discouraging membership in the
Union named in paragraph numbered 2 above, and because he gave testimony under
the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (4) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not violated the Act by discharging Bernice R. King.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
16 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-8; Republic Steel Corporation v
N.L R.B,311U S.7.
17F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
1B Ibid
REDA PUMP COMPANY and THE EMPLOYEES FEDERATION OF THE REDA
PUMP COMPANY, PETITIONER . Case No. 16-RC-1527. December 3,
1954
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before J. Howard Stark,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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.'
'International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 641, intervened at the
hearing on the basis of a contract interest.
110 NLRB No. 186.
REDA PUMP COMPANY 1177
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties agree, and we so find, that a production and lnain-
tenance unit with the usual exclusions is appropriate. The status,
however, of 11 employees who perform clerical duties in the plant
proper is in dispute. These employees have not been included in the
production and maintenance unit heretofore represented by the Inter-
venor. The Petitioner now seeks to include them in the unit as plant
clericals; while the Employer contends that they should be excluded
as office clericals. Ten of these employees work in offices located in
the plant areas of the departments to which they are assigned.2 They
are not interchanged with the office clerical employees and are, for
the most part, under the immediate supervision of their departmental
foremen. Their work generally involves regular timekeeping duties,
requisitioning materials, and assigning to employees work requested
by the sales department. It is not contended, and there is no evidence,
that any of these clerical employees responsibly direct the work of
other employees or otherwise possess or exercise supervisory powers.
Accordingly, we find that these employees are plant clericals and may
appropriately be included in the established production and main-
tenance unit.
The 11th employee, whom the Petitioner would include as a plant
clerical, is the secretary to the foundry superintendent. Her office is
located in the foundry. She handles primarily the superintendent's
correspondence. She also deals with job tickets but does not do the
timekeeping. There is no evidence that she handles confidential labor
relations data in the ordinary course of her work. Accordingly, we
find that the secretary is a plant clerical and that she, too, may appro-
priately be included in the established production and maintenance
unit.
We will, however, make no final unit determination at this time for
we believe that the employees found above to be plant clericals, should
be given an opportunity by a self-determination election to express
their desires with respect to being included in the existing bargain-
ing unit.3 Accordingly, we 4 shall direct that separate elections by
secret ballot be held among the employees in the following groups of
employees at the Employer's Bartlesville, Oklahoma, plant, excluding
3 There are 2 in the machine shop, 3 in assembly No 1, 1 in assembly No. 2, 2 in elec-
trical , and 2 in inspection.
3 The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134.
4 Member Murdock agrees that a production and maintenance unit including the plant
clerical employees is appropriate , and he would direct an election in the unit. However,
although he deems himself bound by the majority decision in the Zia case from which he
dissented , he would not direct a separate election for the plant clericals in this case
inasmuch as the Petitioner has made no separate showing of interest as to them He,
therefore , agrees with the decision herein only insofar as it directs an election in the
historical production and maintenance unit, excluding the plant clerical employees.
1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from both groups all management personnel, office clerical workers,
guards, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisors as defined
in the Act: Group (a) : All production and maintenance employees
(excluding the plant clerical employees in voting group (b) ). Group
(b) : All plant clerical employees (excluding those plant clericals,
if any, represented in the past as a part of the established production
and maintenance unit, voting group (a) ).
If a majority of the employees in voting group (b) vote against
both the Petitioner and Intervenor, they will be taken to have indi-
cated their desire to remain outside the existing unit, and the Re-
gional Director will issue a certificate of results of election to that
effect. If under these circumstances, the employees in voting group
(a) also vote for no union the Regional Director will issue a certifi-
cate of results of election to that effect. However, if, under these cir-
cumstances, the majority of the employees in voting group (a) vote
for either the Petitioner or Intervenor, the Regional Director is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to such union for a
production and maintenance unit, excluding the employees in voting
group (b), which unit the Board, under the circumstances, finds to
be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
If, however, a majority of the employees in voting group (b) cast
their ballots for the Petitioner or Intervenor, they will be taken to
have indicated their desire to constitute a part of the existing produc-
tion and maintenance unit and will appropriately be included in the
same unit with the employees in voting group (a.) and their votes will
be pooled with those in voting group (a). If a majority of the em-
ployees in the pooled voting group vote for either the Petitioner or the
Intervenor, the Regional Director conducting the elections is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organi-
zation selected by the majority in the pooled group, which the Board,
under such circumstances, finds to be a single unit appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining. However, if a majority of employees
in the pooled group vote for no union, the Regional Director will issue
a certificate of results of elections to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
CLAUSON'S GARAGE COMPANY and LOCAL 841, INTERNATIONAL BROTH-
ERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF
AMERICA , AFL, LODGE 1898 OF DISTRICT 38, INTERNATIONAL Asso-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL. Case No. 1-CA-1682. December 6,
1954
Decision and Order
On May 27, 1954, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman, issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
110 NLRB No. 184.