The Coleman Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 1, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 667 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC. 667
desk in the store building. Five service men, headquartered at the
store building, work at both locations and in customers ' homes. A
furniture refinisher, assigned to the warehouse, likewise works at both
locations and in customers' homes. Temporary assignments and trans-
fers from one location to the other are frequently made. Personnel
matters for all employees are handled by one office located in the
store building. The same vacation and holiday policy, hospitalization
benefits, profit-sharing plan, and discount privileges apply alike to all
employees. All new employees are hired under the same procedure
and are subjected to the same training program.
In view of the foregoing, particularly the integration between the
warehouse activities and the store, the similarity of functions per-
formed at both locations, the mutuality of interests of all the employees
in the terms and conditions of employment, we find that the requested
unit is too limited to constitute a separate appropriate unit .3 Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petition. .
Order
IT Is HEREBY oRZrnRm that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
a Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Company , 99 NLRB 380 and 80 NLRB 1442 ; Miller and Rhoads,
86 NLRB 625 ; Marshall Field & Company, 90 NLRB 1 ; J. L. Brandeis & Sons, 82 NLRB
806.
THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC. and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF
AMERICA, PETITIONER. Case No. 17-RC-1330. December 1, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before David Kruger, hear-
ing 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 in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
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.
101 NLRB No. 123.
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of lithographic production employees
at the Employer's Wichita, Kansas, nonelectrical home-heating ap-
paratus manufacturing plant, excluding all other employees and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer and National Inde-
pendent Union Council, Independent Appliance Workers' Union, the
Intervenor herein, contend that the appropriate unit for these em-
ployees is a unit of the Employer's printing shop employees, including
lithographic production employees, but excluding supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
The printing department at the Employer's plant prepares ad-
vertising material and displays for the Employer's own products
exclusively. Of the 11 persons employed in the printing department,
3 are lithographic production employees who, although they fre-
quently spend minor portions of their time in the performance of
printing work other than lithography, are primarily responsible for
the operation of the Employer's lithographic machines, including 2
multilith presses and a Webb offset press. Except in emergencies,
no other printing department employees operate these machines.
Printing department employees other than lithographic production
employees include a duplicating machines operator, a bindery girl,
2 veritypists, and 3 artists, the latter engaged in the production of
mechanical and engineering drawings and layout. The employees
in this department work separate and apart from the production and
maintenance employees and are separately supervised. Since 1948,
the Intervenor has bargained with the Employer for production and
maintenance employees, and all printing department employees have
been excluded from their bargaining unit.
Under these circumstances, we shall hold separate elections for
lithographic production employees and other employees in the print-
ing department.
The parties disagree respecting the status of Floyd Ashley, Harold
Eaton, and Neva Hood. Ashley performs some lithographic produc-
tion work, but spends 60 percent of his time managing the printing
department in the absence of the sales production manager, and can
effectively recommend wage increases and transfers outside the print-
ing department. We find, contrary to the Petitioner's contention;
that Ashley is a supervisor as defined in the Act , and we shall there-
fore exclude him from participation in both elections herein directed.
Eaton, a lithographic production employee, is responsible for the work
performed on his machine whenever it is occasionally operated on a
multishift basis. For sporadic periods totaling 30 days in a year, his
is in charge of the printing department in the absence of the sales
production manager and Ashley. - We find, contrary to the • Em=
ployer's contention, that Eaton is not-a supervisor; but rather a: tnoro
MARS OIL COMPANY 669
experienced employee engaged in routine direction, and as such,
eligible to participate in the election for lithographic production em-
ployees herein directed. Hood, in charge of the bindery, spends 65
percent of her time in bindery work and the remainder in the opera-
tion of the bindery, including work assignments to, and the instruction
of, 2 to 15 bindery employees; she also recommends the hire and dis-
charge of employees, and her recommendations, although separately
investigated, are generally followed. We find, contrary to the In-
tervenor's contention, that Hood is a supervisor as defined in the Act,
and therefore not eligible to vote in the elections for printing depart-
ment employees herein directed.
The following employees constitute the voting groups :
(a) All lithographic production employees, including Harold
Eaton, but excluding Floyd Ashley and other supervisors as defined
in the Act.
(b) All printing department employees, excluding lithographic
production employees and Neva Hood, Floyd Ashley, and other super-
visors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) vote for the
Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con-
stitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for
that unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds appro-
priate." If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) and a
majority of employees in voting group (b) vote for the Intervenor,
the Regional Director is directed to issue a certification of representa-
tives to the Intervenor for a unit which includes the employees in both
voting groups and which the Board, under such circumstances, finds
appropriate.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
I Danner Pree8 of Canton , Inc., 91 NLRB 237.
MARS OIL COMPANY AND LUNAR OIL _ COMPANY and OIL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER . Cases Nos . 30-RC-739,
and SO-RC-750. December 1, 1952
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
On June 13, 1952, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of `Electic n'
issued by the Board herein on May 26, 1952,1 an election by secret
' Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
101 NLRB No. 134.