Tappan Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 27, 1971193 N.L.R.B. 989 (N.L.R.B. 1971) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation