The Moore Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 499 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

MOORE COMPANY 499
The Moore Company , Inc. and General Drivers &
Helpers Local Union No. 823 , affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner.
Case 26-RC-4947
September 22, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
On March 18, 1975, the Acting Regional Director
for Region 26 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which
he found appropriate a unit of all office clerical and
technical employees, and rejected the Petitioner's re-
quest for a unit of all clerical (plant as well as office)
and technical employees; he also rejected the
Petitioner's alternative request for a separate unit of
plant clerical employees on the basis that the Em-
ployer did not agree to a separate unit of such em-
ployees and that the incumbent Union does not seek
to add them to its existing unit of production and
maintenance employees.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed with the
National Labor Relations Board a timely request for
review on the ground, inter alia, that the Acting Re-
gional Director erred in rejecting its alternative unit
request. The Employer also filed a request for review
as to certain findings , as well as a statement in oppo-
sition to Petitioner 's request for review.
On April 17, 1975, the Board by telegraphic order
denied the Employer's request for review, granted the
Petitioner's request for review with respect to its al-
ternative unit request for a unit of plant clericals;
and authorized the Regional Director to proceed
with the election in the unit of office clerical and
technical employees found appropriate by the Acting
Regional Director.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record with
respect to the issues under review and makes the fol-
lowing findings:
In denying Petitioner's alternative request, the
Acting Regional Director stated that a separate unit
of plant clericals is appropriate only when the union
seeking to represent them is also the representative of
the production and maintenance unit I and only
when all the parties agree to it. The Petitioner con-
tends that this is contrary to Board precedent. We
agree.
Although plant clerical employees are included in
a requested unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees if their unit placement is in dispute, it is clear
that, where, as here, they constitute a residual unrep-
resented group historically excluded from an estab-
lished production and maintenance unit, they may be
represented as a residual unit at the request of a la-
bor organization other than the incumbent represen-
tative of the production and maintenance employ-
ees.2
We find, therefore, contrary to the Acting Region-
al Director, that the plant clerical employees here in-
volved constitute a separate appropriate unit.
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of
certain employees of the Employer, and that the unit,
as described below, is appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All plant clericals employed by the Employer at
its Springdale, Arkansas, location, including
production control clerks, timekeeper expediters
and timekeepers, but excluding office clerical
employees, confidential employees, all produc-
tion and maintenance employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
1 United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO-CLC, is the incumbent rep-
resentative of the production and maintenance employees. It has not sought
to intervene.
2 See Mosier Safe Company, 188 NLRB 650 (1971)
220 NLRB No. 94