Witt-Armstrong Equipment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 6, 1974

214 N.L.R.B. 721 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

WITT-ARMSTRONG EQUIPMENT CO
Witt-Armstrong Equipment Co. and Teamsters Local
Union No. 841 , a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America. Case 1-RC-13370
November 6, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On June 21, 1974, Teamsters Local Union No.
841, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
hereinafter called the Petitioner, filed a petition for
certification of representatives. The Petitioner filed
the petition for the purpose of obtaining the right for
separate representation of all parts department em-
ployees employed at the Employer's three plants
in Hopkinton, Mattapoisett, and South Hadley, Mas-
sachusetts. These parts department employees have
been included since 1953 in a service unit for which
Petitioner and the International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Lodge
1898, hereinafter called Intervenor, were jointly certi-
fied. Included in that unit, in addition to parts de-
partment employees, are mechanics and helpers.
A hearing on the petition was held on July 10,
1974, before Hearing Officer Tamara A. Gilman.
Following the hearing, this case was transferred to
the National Labor Relations Board in Washington,
D.C., pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National La-
bor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended. No
briefs have been filed by any of the parties.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
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 in this
case and finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner and Intervenor constitute labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following rea-
sons:
The Petitioner seeks an election in a unit com-
721
posed of all parts department employees at three
plants where the Employer is engaged in the sale and
service of farm machinery. The collective-bargaining
history shows that the Petitioner and Intervenor were
jointly certified in 1953 to represent a unit of service
employees, including all mechanics, helpers, and
parts employees.' Thereafter, Petitioner and Interve-
nor engaged in joint bargaining, and signed succes-
sive contracts covering the certified unit. Most of the
approximately 13 parts department employees are
members of the Petitioner; several are members of
the Intervenor. The approximately 88 other employ-
ees are members of the Intervenor, except for 3 em-
ployees who are members of the Petitioner.
Whereas Petitioner contends that a separate unit
for the Employer's parts department employees is an
appropriate unit, the Employer maintains that the
historical unit is the only appropriate unit. The Em-
ployer and Intervenor contend, in addition, that the
petition should be dismissed because there is present-
ly in effect a valid collective-bargaining agreement
which constitutes a bar to an election. Based on our
consideration of the record herein, we find merit in
the contention that, in the circumstances of this case,
the employees sought by the Petitioner would not
constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.' We reach
this finding for the following reasons.
Pursuant to the joint certification of May 26, 1953,
the Unions have executed a number of collective-
bargaining agreements. At least since the Employer
took over its predecessor's operations in 1967, collec-
tive bargaining has been conducted on a joint basis
by the Unions and contracts arrived at have estab-
lished standard working conditions for all employees,
irrespective of their union affiliation.3 There is a sin-
gle grievance procedure covering all employees. Sep-
arate lines of seniority for parts department and ser-
vice department employees have been established.
However, the contracts have permitted the Employer
to transfer employees, permanently or temporarily,
between departments. Both Petitioner and Interve-
nor are signatories to the contract, which refers to
both as the "Union" party to the contract.
Approximately 50 percent of the parts department
employees' time is devoted to stocking and filling or-
ders for customers. The remainder of their time is
spent supplying part demands for the other service
employees. The parts department and service areas
' When the certification issued in May 1953, the employer was Perkins
Machine Company, Inc However, in 1967 the present Employer took over
Perkins Machinery Company's operations , there is no contention that the
Employer is not a successor to Perkins
2 In that we are dismissing the petition on the basis that the unit sought is
inappropriate, we find it unnecessary to consider the contract-bar issue
l Presumably, this was the bargaining pattern prior to 1967, but the re-
cord is silent with respect to this matter
214 NLRB No. 118
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are immediately adjacent to each other , and parts
department employees are often in the service area
and service employees are often in the parts depart-
ment. In rush situations , the service employees secure
their own parts and fill out the required inventory
orders. At the Employer 's two smaller plants in Mat-
tapoisett and South Hadley , the workflow is not suf-
ficient to justify full-time parts department employ-
ees and , therefore , the parts department employees
also work in the service department . At Hopkinton,
there is at least one service employee who is presently
working in the parts department , and the record indi-
cates that , depending on the workflow , it is a com-
mon occurrence for some service and parts depart-
ment employees to shift back and forth between the
rated along parts department or service department
lines.
Upon the entire record, it is clear , and we find,
that the parts department employees for whom Peti-
tioner now seeks separate representation do not have
an identifiable community of interests which are suf-
ficiently distinct and separate to warrant their estab-
lishment as a bargaining unit . We shall therefore dis-
miss the petition.4
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
two departments. The Employer's payroll is not sepa- 4 See Pharmaseal Laboratories, 174 NLRB 1139 (1969)