Tappan Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 989 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

TAPPAN DIV. OF TAPPAN INC. 989
Tappan Division of Tappan Incorporated and Freight
Checkers, Clerical Employees, and Helpers Union,
Local No. 856, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Petitioner. Cases 20-RC-10076 and
20-RC- 10077
October 27, 1971
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On July 20, 1971, the Regional Director for Region
20 issued his Decision and Direction of Elections in
the above-entitled proceedings, in which he found
appropriate, in accord with the Petitioner's request,
two units of employees at the Employer's distribution
center in Redwood City, California: one of all office
clerical employees and the other of all of the
employees of the service and warehouse divisions,
excluding the servicemen of the service division.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a
timely request for review of the Regional Director's
Decision in which it asserted that he made factual
findings which were clearly erroneous and departed
from established precedent.
On August 23, 1971, by telegraphic order, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the request
for review and stayed the election pending decision on
review. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this
proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
proceeding with respect to the issues under review,
including the briefs on review, and hereby affirms the
Regional Director's Decision, with the following
additions.'
The Employer argued that separate units should be
appropriate for the warehouse and service divisions,
and that the servicemen should be included in the
service division unit. The Employer contended that
the case of Sears, Roebuck & Co., 160 NLRB 1435, is
controlling with respect to these two issues.2
As to the issue raised concerning unit scope, we are
satisfied that the employees of the service division and
the warehouse division share a community of interest
sufficient to warrant their inclusion in the same unit,
as requested by the Petitioner.3
As to the exclusion of the servicemen, who work
principally away from the distribution center, we are
satisfied, upon review of the record, that they have a
separate community of interest apart from other
employees of the service division. The servicemen
make repairs on large appliances, such as cooking
ranges and dishwashers, generally in the customer's
home, and their contacts with other service division
employees are normally limited to telephone conver-
sations. The servicemen do not report for work on a
daily basis at the distribution center. Parts needed to
complete repair orders are sent to the servicemen by
mail. Although there is an area within the distribution
center which has tools for making repairs, it is rarely
utilized by the servicemen. Indeed, where an appli-
ance requires shop work, it may be done at the
Redwood City distribution center or at another
distribution center maintained by the Employer in the
area. The Sears case is clearly distinguishable inas-
much as it involved a group of servicemen who
worked on a variety of appliances of the type sold at
the employer's retail department stores, the service-
men reported for work at the service center on a daily
basis, the outside servicemen spent only part of their
day away from the center, and there were frequent
contacts among all service department employees.
Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the
Regional Director for the purpose of holding elections
pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Elections,
except that the eligibility date for the elections shall be
that immediately preceding the date of issuance?
i The Employer contends that the Petitioner 's showing of interest
among the office clericals is inadequate on the grounds that the
authorization cards were solicited by its sister local, Local 655, which
subsequently withdrew from the proceedings Questions relating to showing
of interest are not litigable in representation proceedings 0 D Jennings &
Company, 68 NLRB 516 Moreover, we are administratively satisfied that
the Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest among the clerical
employees.
2 The Employer also contends that the Regional Director erred in
including the parts department and warehouse division supervisors in the
unit of service and warehouse division employees We find, in agreement
with the Regional Director, that these two individuals do no more than
follow routine instructions and have no power to affect the status of any
employee within their respective division Consequently, we affirm the
Regional Director 's finding that they are not supervisors as defined in the
Act
3 McCoy Co, 151 NLRB 383. We note especially that the three
warehouse division employees , including the warehouse division supervisor
who was found not to have any of the statutory indicia of supervision, are
subject to the immediate supervision of the manager of the distnbution
center, to whom the service division manager reports.
4 An amended 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 20 within 7 days after the date of this
Decision on Review 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
193 NLRB No. 154