Stow and Davis Furniture Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 80 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

Ili the Matter of STOW AND DAMS Fr tNITURE Co., EMPLOYER c ild
UNITED FURNITURE VPORgERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 7-RC--:1048.-Decided November 15; 1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Jerome H.
Brooks, hearing' officer. The heaiing officer's rulings made at the
hearirig,are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.1
PliFsuarit to the provisions of Section 3 (b) Of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case, t6 a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and
Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. Thd Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
'At the hearing, the Employer. moved to dismiss this proceeding on the grounds that :
(1) The denial to the Employer of a sufficient postponement prevented the Employer from
preparing properly for the hearing; (2) pending charges filed by the Petitioner against
the Employer precluded the possibility of a "free and fair election" ; (3) the resignation
of the General Counsel before the adjourned hearing, and his instructions to the regional
officers not to proceed in certain matters until his successor was appointed, rendered it
improper to proceed with this representation proceeding; and (4) the unit requested by
the Petitioner is inappropriate.
We find no merit in the Employer's position for the following reasons: (1) The Em-
ployer was given sufficient notice of the pendency of the petition, and of the date of
hearing, which was once postponed at the Employer's request. A member of counsel for
the Employer appeared on the date originally set for hearing and consented, on behalf
of his firm, to the date to which the hearing was adjourned. The Employer's counsel
"thereafter appeared at the adjourned hearing and participated fully in it. Upon careful
examination of then record, we are convinced that the.Employer was afforded sufficient
opportunity to prepare for the hearing, and did, in fact, fully develop the facts and
its.. position in the record. (2) The Petitioner. bas-waived the matters contained in its
charges as a basis for objection to any election that might be directed in this case. In
these circumstances; it is Board practice not to delay a representation proceeding. . Victor
Chemical Works, 85 NLRB 495. (3) This ground of the Employer's motion is based in
part upon the fact that unfair labor practices were pending against the Employer. As
set forth above, the Petitioner has waived such charges. We see nothing in the fact of
pending charges, in themselves or in connection with the former General Counsel's instruc-
tions above referred to, that rendered it improper to proceed with this hearing. (4) For
reasons given in paragraph numbered 4, below, we fi nd that the unit sought to be repre-
sented by the Petitioner is appropriate. The Employer's motion to dismiss is hereby denied.
92 NLRB No. 28. .
80
STOW AND - DAVIS FURNITURE CO. - 8t
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 requests a unit of all employees at the Employer's
plant,No. 2 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Employer opposes the
Petitioner's request, contending that only a unit which also includes
the employees of its plant No. 1 is appropriate.
The Employer manufactures wood and upholstered office furniture
and hardware at its plants in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Its plant
No. 1 is devoted to woodworking and assembling operations? In
plant No. 2,3 located approximately three-fourths of a mile from plant
No. 1, it manufactures. locking devices, drawer partition retainers,
and other special hardware items, including a patented mechanism for
holding a typewriter to the desk 4
The two plants are operated by the Employer as a single enterprise,
and the office functions of both plants, including purchasing, selling,
accounting, keeping personnel records, and other office functions, are
carried on as part of the executive department located in the plant
No. 1 building. There is a single personnel policy for the employees
of both plants, including similar employee benefits for all employees.
While there is some integration in the operation of the two plants,
in that a portion of the finished products in plant No. 2 is used in
assembling the end product of plant No. 1,5 there is likewise substan-
tial separation between the two divisions of the Employer's business.
Thus, the two plants are physically separated and are engaged in the
production of substantially different products. Because of the differ-
ence in operations, there is little contact or interchange between the
employees. A foreman has immediate charge of the operations of
plant No. 2, and exercises the function of hiring and discharging the
employees who work there.
Although a unit of both plants might be appropriate, it does not
thereby follow that a unit of the employees of plant No. 2 alone is
inappropriate. Here the plant is separately supervised, produces
different products; 'there is an absence of employee interchange, and
neither petitioner nor any other labor organization seeks to represent
2 About 120 employees work in this plant.
About 35 employees work in this plant , involved herein.
"A third plant, where upholstering is performed, is operated by an independent con-
tractor , and is not involved in this proceeding.
5 Approximately 75 percent of the production in plant No. 2 consists of the patented
typewriter device. About 20 percent of this device produced in plant No. 2 is attached
to the Employer ' s desks produced and assembled in plant No. 1. The other 80 percent
is sold and shipped directly to other customers from plant No. 2.
929979-51-vol. 02 7
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the employees of both plants in a single unite In these circumstances,
we find that the employees in plant No. 2 may appropriately constitute
a separate unit.
We find that all employees employed at the Employer's Grand
Rapids, Michigan, plant No. 2, including machine operators, welders,
and finishers, but excluding office and clerical employees, guards, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
6 Although the extent of the Petitioner ' s organization is thus partly involved , the Board
is not precluded from taking this factor into consideration where, as here, it is not
controlling , and other cogent factors also impel the finding of a separate unit. Waldensian
Hosiery Mills, Inc., 83 NLRB 742 ; Telechron, Inc., 90 NLRB 931. See also Southwestern
Electric Service Company, 89 NLRB 114.