San Antonio Machine & Supply Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 143 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of SAN ANTONIO MACHINE & SUPPLY COMPANY,
EMPLOYER and DISTRICT LODGE No. 177, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 39-RC-77.-Decided July 11, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this matter was held before
James P. Wolf, hearing officer. 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 [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and
Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. San Antonio Machine & Supply Company, a Texas corporation,
is a distributor of industrial and water-works supplies, heavy hard-
ware, contractors' equipment, and other kinds of merchandise. Its
home office and principal plant is in San Antonio, Texas. It has
branches in Corpus Christi, Waco, and Harlingen, Texas, and ware-
houses in Borger and Crystal City, Texas. In addition, it conducts,
on a small scale, foundry and machine shop operations in its San
Antonio plant.
During 1948, the Employer's purchase of supplies and equipment
amounted to approximately $8,000,000, of which about 90 percent was
received from points outside the State of Texas. Approximately 95
percent of such merchandise and supplies was obtained for purposes
of resale. During the same period, the Employer's gross sales totaled
approximately $11,000,000; of these, sales having a value of about
$250,000 were made to customers in Mexico and a balance was made
to customers within the State of Texas. Many of the Employer's
Texas customers are engaged in interstate commerce. Contrary to
the contention of the Employer, we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.' Accord-
I Matter of DeMay's, Inc ., 81 N. L. R. B. 1374; Matter of Binns Passaic Iron & Brass
Foundry, 77 N. L. R. B. 380.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 24.
143
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ingly, the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground
that the Board does not have jurisdiction in this case-is hereby denied.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion 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 certification as the bargaining representative
of a unit of production and maintenance employees in the machine
shop, brass shop, pipe shop, pump shop, babbitt shop, and garage at the
Employer's San Antonio plant, excluding outside erection employees.
The Employer generally agrees that the proposed unit is appropriate,
but contends that the employees engaged in outside erection work
should also be included in the unit.
There are approximately 31 employees in the proposed unit, who
work in the Employer's shops, and 10 outside erectors, who the Em-
ployer contends also should be included in the unit. The inside em-
ployees perform the usual functions and tasks of machine shop em-
ployees, which includes assembling and repairing water pumps and
fabricating parts for such pumps. The outside erectors primarily
install water pumps in locations designated by the purchasers of such
equipment. Seven of the 10 employees designated as outside erectors
maintain their homes at Crystal City, Texas, which is approximately
100 miles from San Antonio. Two of the employees, designated as
outside erectors, maintain their residence in San Antonio, but perform
most of their work in the area surrounding El Campo, Texas, which is
about 175 miles from San Antonio, or in Bexer County in which county
San Antonio is located. When there are no installations to be made or
adverse weather conditions prevent the erectors from working in the
field, the crews are recalled to San Antonio and work in the shop. It
is estimated that they spend approximately 20 percent of their time in
the shop.
The Petitioner contends that because the outside erectors spend so
much time away from the plant, their interests in the terms and condi-
tions of their employment differ from those of the inside employees.
The record shows that the outside erectors are hired generally by the
chief engineer, whereas the inside employees are hired by the plant
superintendent. The outside erectors, when working in the field, are
under separate supervision. However, when they work in the shop,
they are subject to the same direction as the inside employees. Fur-
thermore, the outside erectors exercise the same skills as do the shop
SAN ANTONIO MACHINE & SUPPLY COMPANY 145
employees and are paid on the same basis. We have occasionally
found that employees who work away from the plant do not have a
community of interest with employees who work in the plant and, in
such instances, we have excluded the former from bargaining units of
inside employees.2 However, in these cases we did not rely solely
upon the geographical separation of the outside employees from the
inside employees. The difference in situs of employment of two
groups of employees does not necessarily determine that they do not
have a community of interest in their employment 3 Where condi-
tions of employment among plant employees and outside workers are
similar and both groups have substantially the same relationship to
management, we generally find that the two groups together may con-
stitute a single appropriate unit.' Upon the entire record in the pres-
ent case, including the fact that the outside erectors spend about 20
percent of their time working in the shops, we believe that there is
sufficient community of interest among the inside machinists and the
outside erectors to warrant finding that both groups together consti-
tute a single appropriate unit.
We find that the following employees of the Employer at its San
Antonio plant constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: all
production and maintenance employees in the Employer's machine
shop, pipe shop, pump shop, brass shop, babbitt shop, and garage,
including employees engaged in erecting, installing, dismantling,
maintaining and repairing machinery in these shops, the foreman of
the babbitt shop 5 and also including outside erection employees, but
excluding office, clerical, technical, sales and service employees, guards,
and supervisors 6 as defined in the Act.
2 Matter of Dixie Spindle and Flyer Company, Inc., 84 N. L. R. B. 109 ; Matter of
Foremost Dairies, Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 764; Matter of Willamette National Lumber Company,
74 N. L. R. B. 569; Matter of Continental Motors Corporation, 73 N. L. R. B. 885.
a Matter of Textile Machine Works, Inc., 72 N. L. R. B. 56, 59.
4 Matter of Hunt Tool Company, 82 N. L. R. B. 399; Matter of Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, 81 N. L. R. B. 619; Matter of Shell Oil Company, Incorporated, 79 N. L. R. B.
618 ; Matter of Textile Machine Works, Inc., 72 N. L. R. B. 56.
6 The Petitioner contends that the foreman of the babbitt shop is a supervisor. However,
the record reveals that no employees work under his direction. Accordingly, we find that
the foreman of the babbitt shop is not a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2 (11)
of the Act.
G The Petitioner contends that working foremen are supervisors and requests their
exclusion from the unit, whereas the Employer urges. that they are not supervisors and
requests their inclusion. with the exception of the foreman of the babbitt shop, the
record is inadequate to determine the supervisory status of the working foremen. For
this reason, we shall make no determination at this time with respect to the exclusion or
inclusion of these employees from the unit. If they possess supervisory powers within
the meaning of Section 2 (7.1) of the Act, they are to be excluded from the unit; otherwise
they are to he included. Cf. Matter of Chrysler Corporation, 80 N. L. R. B. 334.
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 7
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes 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 su-
pervision 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
-vho 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 excluding em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented for purposes of collective
bargaining by District Lodge No., 177, International Association of
Machinists.
7If. the Petitioner does not wish to participate in an election for the unit herein found
appropriate, it may withdraw its petition filed in this proceeding upon notice to that effect
given to the Regional Director in writing within 10 days from the date of the Direction
of Election herein.