Tarter, Webster & Johnson, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 15, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 579 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

TARTER, WEBSTER & JOHNSON, INC . 579
Tarter, Webster & Johnson, Inc. and General Teamsters, Local
No. 431, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America , Petitioner. Case No.
20-RC-3554. August 15,1958
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 James S. Jenson,
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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers herein to a three member panel [Chairman
Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
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 em-
ployees 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 Employer is engaged in the wholesale distribution of lum-
ber products. In its operations, the Employer maintains a direct
sales force and a distribution force which presently consists of 2
truckdrivers who make deliveries to customers from an adjacent mill,
1 truckdriver who makes deliveries to customers from the company
yard, 1 fork lift operator, 1 lumber handler, 1 assistant yard superin-
tendent, and 1 yard superintendent. The Petitioner currently rep-
resents the three truckdrivers and requests a single unit 2 composed
of these truckdrivers and of the yard employees, who are currently
represented by the Intervenor. The Employer and the Intervenor
contend that the separate established units are alone appropriate. We
disagree, as the unit sought by the Petitioner is essentially a plant-
wide production and maintenance unit, which is inherently appro-
priate s Accordingly, we find that an overall unit of truckdrivers and
yard employees may be appropriate. However, established Board
1 Lumber and Sawmill Workers, Local 3184, AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene on
the basis of its recently expired contract covering the employees in question.
2 The Petitioner also suggests as appropriate a unit composed of yard employees and
the yard-to-customer truckdriver, but excluding the mill-to-customer truckdrivers. Al-
though the yard-to-customer truckdriver occasionally performs yard work, he is hired
primarily as a truckdriver, possesses skills and has duties in common with the other
truckdrivers, and has been represented in the Petitioner's unit of truckdrivers for the
past 2 years. Considering these circumstances, we find that the yard-to-customer truck-
driver may not, in effect, be severed from the established truckdriver unit and included in
a unit of yard employees
8 See San Joaquin Compress and Warehouse Company, 95 NLRB 279.
121 NLRB No. 70.
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
policy precludes the -inclusion of a group of employees, who have
previously enjoyed separate representation, into a broader unit with-
out first ascertaining their desires, especially where, as here, -the past
bargaining agent desires to continue to represent them in a separate
unit,4 which, in view of the bargaining history, may also be appro-
priate. Accordingly, we shall direct a separate election among em-
ployees in the following voting group: I
All yard employees at the Employer's Fresno, California, operation
including fork lift operators, and lumber handlers, but excluding
direct sales employees, office clerical employees, truckdrivers currently
represented by the Petitioner, the assistant yard superintendent,' the
yard superintendent and other supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. If a majority of employees in the voting group vote for the
Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be
represented as a part of the unit currently represented by the Peti-
tioner and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of
election to that effect. The Petitioner may then bargain for them as
a part of that unit. If, however, a majority vote for the Intervenor,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be represented as
a separate unit and Regional Director will issue a certification of
representatives to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 Long Electric Sign Co, et al , 109 NLRB 770
It does not appear that the Petitioner desires a separate election among the truck-
drivers which it currently represents.
6 The Intervenor seeks to include the assistant yard superintendent in the voting group,
while the Employer would exclude him as a supervisor The Petitioner takes no position
in the matter . As the record indicates that the assistant'yard superintendent has not
been represented by the Intervenor as a part of its established unit of yard employees, it
is contrary to Board policy to include him in the unit without first ascertaining his
desires. Memphis Cotton Oil Mill, 115 NLRB 515, 517, 518 However, since the
Intervenor . as the only union seeking to represent the assistant yard superintendent, has
made no showing of interest with respect to him, a self-determination election would, in
his case, be inappropriate , even were we to find him an employee and not a supervisor,
an issue we need not now resolve See Swift & Company Refinery, 117 NLRB 945 and
The Enterprise Co., 106 NLRB 779 In view of the foregoing, we have excluded the
assistant yard superintendent from the voting group and are not directing a separate
election as to him
Meenan Oil Co., Inc. and Walter J. Wolny and Local 553, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America , Party to the Contract
Local 553, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Walter J. Wolny
and Meenan Oil Co ., Inc., Party to the Contract. Cases Nos.
2-CA-5189, 2-CA-5376, ?-CB-1870, and 2-CB-1960. August 19,
1958
DECISION AND' ORDER
On February 17, 1958, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
121 NLRB No. 71.