Walton-Young Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 51 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

WALTON-YOUNG CORP. 51
basis." Accordingly, we find that the Association contact is no bar
to this proceeding."
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The parties agreed as to the composition of the unit except that
the Petitioner would include the shipping and receiving employees,
while the Union would exclude them on the ground that the area prac-
tice in the industry is to exclude these clerks at the specific request
of the employers. The evidence shows there are two shipping and
receiving clerks whose duties are to check in bundles of piece goods
and check out all finished products. 'They are supervised by the part-
ners of the Petitioner in contrast to the production employees who
are under separate immediate supervision. These clerks are paid on a
straight hourly basis. On the basis of the above, we find that these
shipping and receiving clerks are plant clericals such as those we
customarily include in the unit, unless the parties agree to their
exclusion. Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit.
We find that the following employees at the Employer-Petitioner's
San Fernando, California, plantj constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 -(b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees including the receiving
and shipping employees, but excluding executives, office clerical em-
ployees, administrative employees, salesmen, designers, watchmen,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 Vaughn & Taylor Construction Co., Inc., 115 NLRB 1404 , 1405 , footnote 4.
6 Everett Auto Company, 107 NLRB 1449.
7In view of the withdrawal of the Employer-Petitioner from the Association bargaining
as indicated by the filing of the present petition , we find a single-employer unit appropri-
ate. Economy Shade Company, 91 NLRB 1552, 1553 ; Owens-Illinois Glass Company, 112
NLRB 172, 177.
Walton-Young Corp . and International Association of Machin-
ists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 3-RC-1771. January 9,
1957
-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 John M. Shea, Jr.,
117 NLRB No. 13.
52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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 organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.2
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. All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Walton, New York, bowling equipment and sporting goods manufac-
turing plant, excluding office clerical and professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.3
5. The Employer asserts that its operations are in the process of a
substantial expansion, and that the petition is therefore premature.
The Employer began organizing its operations in April 1956.
Initially, it expected to have approximately 100 employees by Octo-
ber 31, 1956, the date on which the hearing was held herein; 150 by
January 1, 1957; 200 by July 1, 1957; and ultimately, at some indefi-
nite date in the future, between 250 and 300. Because it encountered
difficulties in securing experienced help, and therefore found it neces-
sary to train the employees it was able to hire, the Employer, as of the
date of the hearing, was operating with a complement of only 40
employees. The Employer then estimated that it would have a total
complement of about 100 employees as of January 1, 1957, but never-
theless anticipated that it would reach its planned complement of 200
by July 1, 1957. The Employer, which was operating at about 25
percent of capacity as of the time of the hearing, further anticipated
that with minor exceptions all of its machinery, which was then in
the plant or on order, would be installed by January 1, 1957, and that
as of that time it would be producing finished products in substan-
tially greater quantities. In addition, the employees who will be em-
ployed on January 1, 1957, will, with minor exceptions, either be
utilizing all the skills which will be utilized by the full anticipated
complement, or will be in training to utilize such skills.
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition
on the ground that it was prematurely filed. For the reasons set forth hereinafter, the
motion is denied.
s As the record establishes that the Petitioner exists at least in part for the purpose
of bargaining collectively with employers on behalf of employees , we find that it is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act we find no merit in the Employer 's conten-
tion that the Petitioner is disqualified from representing the Employer 's employees because
of certain purported jurisdictional limitations in its constitution . "M" System , Inc., 115
NLRB 1316 , at footnote 2.
3 The Employer took no position on the unit issue.
AMERICAN MAIL LINE, LTD. 53
On the basis of the foregoing it appears, and we find, that on and
after January 1, 1957, the employee complement at the Employer's
plant will be a substantial and representative segment of the total
complement which the Employer anticipates employing by July 1,
1957, and that the timing of any further expansion beyond that date
is uncertain. Under such circumstances, and as this date has passed,
we find that the employees now employed are entitled if they so desire
to select a representative for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and we therefore find no merit in the Employer's contention that the
petition is premature.4 We shall, accordingly, provide for an election
to be held on a date to be selected by the Regional Director; eligibility
to vote shall be determined by the payroll period immediately preced-
ing the issuance of a notice of election by the Regional Director.5
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 Springfield Body & Trailer Go, 112 NLRB 1287, 1289; General Electric Company, 106
NLRB 364, 365-368
Armstrong Cork Company, 115 NLRB 1578, 1580-1581.
American Mail Line, Ltd. and Joseph H. Edwards. Case No.
19-CA-1274. - January 14, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 2, 1956, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and the Respondent
filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's findings.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations.'
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
'The General Counsel excepts to the alleged failure of the Trial Examiner to rule on
LeDoux's credibility However, we have examined the record as a whole and find that
LeDoux's testimony supports the Trial Examiner's ultimate factual findings , and that
certain minor discrepancies do not, in the light of all the testimony , affect his credibility,
nor the ultimate conclusions reached by the Trial Examiner . Accordingly, we find no
merit in the General Counsel 's exceptions
117 NLRB No. 16.