Valley Tractor and Equipment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 27, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 240 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of HAROLD G. HILTON AND EMMETT C. CRANDALL D/B/A
VALLEY TRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY,1 EMPLOYER and OPER-
ATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION # 3, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPER-
ATING ENGINEERS , A. F. L., PETITIONER
Case No. 20-RC-1025.-Decided November 27, 1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Nathan R.
Berke, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.2
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer-
tain employees 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 appropriate unit :
The. Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all repairmen, mechanics,
welders, and helpers at the Modesto and Turlock, California, shops of
the Employer, excluding parts department employees, receiving clerks,
office and clerical employees, truck driver, guards, and supervisors as
defined by the Act. In general, this unit embraces the Employer's
service personnel. The Employer contends that the parts department.
employees and truck driver should be included in the appropriate unit.
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
As its annual purchases received from points outside the State of California exceed.
$500,000 we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction . Dunlap
Chevrolet Company, 91 NLRB 1115 ; Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638. Accord-
ingly, the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds is denied.
92 NLRB No. 60.
240
VALLEY TRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY 241
Parts department employees: At each of its locations, the Employer
operates a service department where customers' equipment is repaired,
and a parts department which is engaged in the sale of parts over
the counter and provides the parts needed for repairs made by the
service department.3 In Modesto, the two departments are housed in
separate buildings and parts are brought to the service department
by a parts runner, an employee of the parts department. In Turlock,
the two departments are housed in adjoining rooms in the same build-
ing and the mechanics there generally pick out the parts they need
for themselves.
Although there is no transfer or interchange of employees between
the departments and the departments operate under separate immedi-
ate supervision, the parts men work the same number of hours as the
service personnel, are in frequent personal contact with the latter
employees, and enjoy substantially the same conditions of employ-
ment. Under all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the
interests of the parts department employees are closely related to those
of the service department employees and, accordingly, we shall include
them in the Unit .4
Truck driver: One of the Employer's employees is referred to as
a truck driver. He spends over 50 percent of his time on one of the
Employer's two trucks making local deliveries. During the rest of
his time, he works as a mechanic. In rush periods, any of the other
mechanics may have to drive the second truck to make deliveries. The
truck driver works the same hours and under the same supervision as
the other mechanics, and is also hourly paid. Under these circum-
stances, we find that the interests and duties of the truck driver are
similar to and closely allied with those of the service personnel. We
shall therefore include him in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that all repairmen, mechanics, welders, help-
ers, parts department employees, and truck driver at the Employer's
Modesto and Turlock, California, shops, excluding receiving clerks,
office and clerical employees, guard' S,5 working foremen ,6 and all other
8 There are approximately six parts men at Modesto, and two at Turlock. At the latter
location, one of the parts men is classified as a parts manager. However, he is not clothed
with any supervisory authority and we find that he is not a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act.
4 Valley Truck and Tractor Co., 80 NLRB 444; Rowan Motor Company, 90 NLRB No. 156.
In agreement with the parties, we shall exclude, as a guard, the Employer's janitor-
night watchman who spends more than 50 percent of his time performing watchman duties.
6 There is one working foreman in each of the service shops at Modesto and Turlock.
Unlike the other service employees, who are hourly paid, these foremen receive a salary.
They direct the work of the mechanics under them and the foreman at Modesto also assigns
the work. While they cannot hire and discharge employees, they can effectively recommend
the discharge of employees for infraction of company rules. We find that the working
foremen are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and have therefore excluded them
from the unit.
242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]