Redman Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 1065 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

REDMAN INDUSTRIES INC.
Redman Industries , Inc. and International Union of
Operating Engineers , Local 660, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Case 10-RC-7504
March 7, 1969
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before H Carlton Bryan, Jr ,
Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer's rulings made
at the hearing are tree from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. Following the hearing, the case
was transferred to the National Labor Relations
Board in Washington, D C., pursuant to Section
102 67 of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended Thereafter, the Employer filed
a brief which has been duly considered
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds-
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations' involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer
3. 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.
Petitioner requests that an immediate election be
directed among all production and maintenance
employees in the Employer's Bear Creek facility. At
the hearing, the Employer moved that the petition
be dismissed as premature because a substantial and
representative complement of employees was not
then employed, or in the alternative, that the
petition be held in abeyance until such time as a
substantial and representative work force is engaged.
For the reasons stated hereinafter the motion to
dismiss is hereby denied.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of
mobile homes On July 15, 1968, it purchased the
Bear Creek facility in Florence, Alabama, intending
to use such facility for the manufacture of a new
line of mobile homes called the "Hallmark" line.
The Bear Creek facility consists of two separate
buildings, known respectively as plant I and plant 2.
'Aluminum Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, was permitted to
intervene at the hearing on the basis of a showing of interest
1065
At the time of the hearing on September 6, 1968,
plant 2 was in operation producing a type of home
known as "Argus " At that time, Plant 1 was shut
down and in the process of being converted for
Hallmark Production When the conversion is
completed and production of Hallmark homes
begins in plant I, the Employer plans to shut down
plant 2 and prepare that facility for the production
of Hallmark units The employer estimated that
production in plant I would begin in December and
that both plants would be engaged in Hallmark
production by March 1969.
At the time of the hearing, there were 60-65
production employees working in plant 2.1
According to the Employer's testimony, however,
the number of employees working in each plant will
increase significantly once Hallmark production
begins Plans now call for "in excess of two
hundred" production and maintenance employees
when both plants become operational
It is well established that an immediate election
will be directed in an expanding unit if the
employees working at the date of the election are a
"representative and substantial" segment of the
anticipated work force 3 As noted above, the
Employer contended that at the time of the hearing
the number of employees at work was neither
substantial nor representative.
Witnesses called by the Employer testified that in
excess of 200 employees will be employed once
Hallmark production begins. They also testified that
Hallmark production was scheduled to begin in
plant I in early December In other words, if an
immediate election is directed, such election,
according to the Employer's schedule, would occur
after Hallmark production had begun in plant 1.
Since, according to the Employer's figures, more
employees will be required for Hallmark than for
Argus production, we assume that the number of
employees actually working at the Bear Creek
facility on the date of an election occurring within
the next 30 days would be greater than the number
employed at the time of the hearing Moreover, on
the date of the election, employees working in plant
2 will have been laid off Although no definite plans
had been made for such employees at the time of
the hearing, the Employer indicated in its brief that
plant 2 employees will probably be laid off for the
duration of the transition period We assume,
therefore, that at least some of the plant 2
employees will be eligible to vote in an election
under standaids governing eligibility of temporarily
laid-off employees. We conclude, therefore, that the
employees voting in an immediate election will
constitute a substantial segment of the ultimate
work force.
'In its brief, Employer states that the number of employees engaged in
production in plant 2 had increased to approximately 70 This figure,
however , includes 15 leadmen who are alleged to be supervisors
'Douglas Motors Corp, 128 NLRB 307, Brown & Root Caribe, Inc,
119 NLRB 815
174 NLRB No. 155
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As noted above, the Employer also contended
that, in terms of job classifications, the employees
working at the time of the hearing were not
representative of the ultimate work force. This
contention was based on the assumption that the
nature of the skills required for Argus production
differed significantly from the skills required for
Hallmark production. Since the election will occur
after Argus production has been discontinued and
Hallmark units are being produced in plant 1, this
contention is not now meritorious. Accordingly, we
shall direct an immediate election
4. Petitioner requests that an election be directed
in the following unit
All production and maintenance employees in the
Bear Creek facility, including leadmen, but
excluding office clericals, professional and
technical employees, guards and supervisors.
The Employer does not disagree with Petitioner's
description of the unit, except that it contends that
the 15 leadmen should be excluded from the unit as
supervisors Witnesses called by the Employer
testified that leadmen assign work: train new
employees; transfer employees; select employees for
overtime work and make effective recommendations
regarding hiring and firing. Witnesses called by
Petitioner, however, testified that leadmen are "part
of production team" spend almost all of their time
engaging in manual labor and do not train or
discipline employees. These witnesses cited several
instances in which the leadman's recommendation as
to transfer of employees, hiring, granting of wage
increase,, etc was overruled by higher management.
On the basis of the record presented to us, we are
unable to resolve these conflicting contentions since
resolution could hinge upon credibility
determinations. Accordingly, we shall permit the
leadmen to vote challenged ballots. If their votes are
determinative, such credibility resolutions can be
made at a hearing on challenged ballots."
We find that the following employees constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective-bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees in the
Employer's Bear Creek facility, excluding office
clerical, professional and technical employees,
guards and supervisors within the meaning of the
Act.
[Text Direction of Elections omitted from
,publication.]
'On September 9, 1968, the Employer filed with the Regional Director a
motion to dismiss the petition herein, alleging inter alia , that certain of its
supervisory personnel had engaged in conduct which impaired "the
showing of interest made by Petitioner and intervenor, thus making the
showing inadequate so that the petition should be dismissed " The
Regional Director referred the motion to the Board for ruling The motion
is hereby denied without prejudice to its renewal as objections to the
election in the event the Employer desires to file the same
'An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the
eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director
for Region 10 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction
of Election The Regional Director shall make the list available to all
parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted
by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to
comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever proper objections are filed Excelsior Underwear Inc , 156 NLRB
1236