Richmond Engineering Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1659 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

RICHMOND ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. 1659
The majority gives weight to the fact (1) that the truckdrivers
were largely recruited from production jobs, (2) that some of
them are transferred to other work during slack seasons,
(3) that they share common employee benefits, and (4) that
they are a part of a larger shipping department. I regard fac-
tors (1) (recruitment from production) and (3) (common bene-
fits) of no significance in a severance case for the reason that
they are customarily present in a plant where a group such as
this has been previously included in an overall unit. Factor
(4) (inclusion of truckdrivers in a shipping department) will,
if treated as a bar to truckdriver severance, operate to deny
severance in a great many cases, for I am sure employers
frequently write their table of organization so as to include their
truckdrivers in an overall warehouse and shipping department.
While American Potash speaks in terms of departmental units,
I did not assume that this meant that the Board would consider
the employer's organization chart as controlling. In sum, the
factors here relied upon by the Board, if applied singly or in
combination, would probably put an effective end to the sever-
ance of truckdriver units.
The truckdriver unit sought by the AFL Teamsters Union
constitutes a functionally distinct and separate departmental
group entitled to separate representation, if the employees
so desire, despite its past inclusion in the overall bargaining
unit. And, as unquestionably the petitioner is the traditional
bargaining agent for such a unit, a severance election should
be directed for the truckdrivers on the present petition.
RICHMOND ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. and TRUCK
DRIVERS & HELPERS LOCAL NO. 592, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 5-RC-1390. June 30, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Sidney Smith,
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
employees of the Employer.
3. No 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,
for the following reasons:
108 NLRB No. 235.
1660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer is engaged in fabricating and erecting steel
tanks used as receptacles. The Petitioner seeks the severance
of the Employer's truckdrivers from an existing production
and maintenance unit represented by the Intervenor, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL, Local 526. The Inter-
venor and the Employer oppose the severance.
The Intervenor has represented the Employer's production
and maintenance employees continuously since 1945. There
are approximately 225 employees in the production and main-
tenance unit, including 10 truckdrivers. The Employer has 15
departments. The 10 truckdrivers are a part of the shipping
and receiving department, which includes a total of 20 em-
ployees and is separately supervised.
"Probably sixty percent" of the truckdrivers' time is spent
driving on the road. The truckdrivers are required to load and
unload material. Occasionally they do production work in the
Employer's fabricating shop, moving equipment. Some of the
trucks driven by the drivers are equipped with winches. The
drivers operate the winches and assist in erecting tanks at
customers' job sites. Within the last 2 years, approximately
10 truckdrivers have moved to better paying jobs with pro-
duction and maintenance classifications; and 10 truckdrivers
previously had different classifications. Such interchanges are
of both a temporary and permanent nature. Approximately 5
employees who are not classified as truckdrivers occasionally
drive trucks when a regular driver may be ill. Truckdrivers
are presently accorded plantwide job seniority.
In the recent American Potash case,' the Board reexamined
the question of severing employees from existing plantwide
units. The Board there announced a new rule to control the
severance of craft groups. It also recognized the equities of
certain other minority groups which, though lacking the hall-
mark of craft skills, might nevertheless be considered as
qualified for severance. These were described as "function-
ally distinct departments containing employees identified with
traditional trades or occupations distinct from that of other
employees and who have common special interests in collec-
tive bargaining for that reason." The Board warned however,
that this departmental concept was strictly limited in character
and extent, and noted that it did not purpose to allow the depart-
mental concept to serve as a basis for "fragmentizing"
plantwide units into departments wherever craft severance
cannot be established. In addition, the Board noted that, like
the case where severance is sought on a craft basis, the burden
of establishing the facts to justify severance ona departmental
basis rests on the petitioning union.
We find that the Petitioner has not established facts sufficient
to warrant the severance of the Employer's truckdrivers.
'American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
RICHMOND ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. 1661
Because these truckdrivers do production work, because they
move to permanent production and maintenance jobs , because
production and maintenance employees become permanent
truckdrivers , and because other employees replace them tem-
porarily, the truckdrivers do not appear to constitute a "func-
tionally distinct" group with special interests essentially dif-
ferent from those of the Employer's other employees. Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Chairman Farmer dissenting:
I do not agree with the dismissal of the petition in this case
because I believe that, as in the American Can Company case,
issued today,' the majority has misapplied the Board's newly
announced severance rules. ' They have erroneously applied
craft severance criteria to a traditionally severable department.
To support the unit request of the AFL Truck Drivers Local
No. 592 in this case , the rule of American Potash requires only
that the employees sought constitute a "functionally distinct and
separate " group to be represented by its traditional bargaining
agent . In my opinion , the following record facts fully satisfy
this requirement . Ten employees are involved , and all are
classified as truckdrivers, they all drive trucks, and are on the
road 60 percent of their time. Almost all of the remaining
portion of their time is spent in duties incidental to their
regular responsibilities of delivering the employer ' s products.
Thus they help load and unload their trucks, they operate
winches on the trucks used to unload the trucks as part of the
delivery , and they assist in putting the equipment in position
at customer locations . These are clearly the traditional duties
of truckdriver deliverymen.
In refusing to this petitioner, which is unquestionably the
traditional representative of truckdrivers , the severance
which American Potash announced it could henceforth have,
the majority relies on further facts which I consider irrelevant
to the functional distinction of the truckdriver group. I cannot
understand how the fact that some of these truckdrivers did
other types of work before entering upon this work, or may
later choose to turn to other occupations , alters the inherent
distinctiveness of the ever - existent truckdriver group of this
employer. Regardless of individual turnover, the group is
always separately supervised in the shipping department. Its
work never changes . Half of the drivers are paid on a mileage
basis, a method of payment obviously inapplicable to any of
the employer ' s other workmen. The occasional assignment of
a production employee to drive a truck no more affects the
appropriateness of this truckdriver unit than occasional inter-
2 American Can Company 108 NLRB 1657.
3 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
1662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
change in or out of any other bargaining unit has been deemed
to impair its appropriateness.4
In the light of the above facts, the status of truckdrivers as
a traditional departmental group, and this petitioner ' s tradi-
tional function as their bargaining representative, Iam satisfied
that the conditions for severance defined in American Potash
have been proved here. I would, accordingly, grant the election
sought.
4The testimony of two witnesses to the effect that trucks stand idle when regular drivers
are sick emphasizes the infrequency of any interchange between employees in the truckdriver
unit and plant workers.
KENNEDY VAN SAUN MANUFACTURING AND ENGINEERING
CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERI-
CA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-2180. June 30,, 1954
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 Herbert B.
Mintz, 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 employees of the Employer.
3. On January 2, 1952, the Employer and the Intervenor,
Foundrymen, Machinists and Erectors Union, executed a con-
tract to run until December 31, 1953, and for "like periods"
thereafter absent 30 days' notice in writing of intent to termi-
nate. On October 5, 1953, the parties terminated the existing
contract and'executed a new contract, to run from September 1,
1953, until August 31, 1955. The petition herein was filed on
October 15, 1953.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the current
contract is a bar to the present proceeding. The Petitioner
contends that the contractisnotabarbecause it is a premature
extension of the prior contract between the parties. The
Employer and Intervenor assert, however, that the Board's
premature extension doctrine should not be applied here be-
cause of the alleged special circumstances existing in the
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Petitioner 's motion to incorporate the
proceedings of a prior case involving the same parties, Kennedy Van Saun Manufacturing
and Engineering Corporation, 11-RC-514 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions
and Orders ). The motion is hereby granted.
108 NLRB No. 226.