York Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 613 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of YORK CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and REFRIGERATION
FITTERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., ALSO KNOWN AS LOCAL
UNION 508, PETITIONER
Case No. 21-RC-8641.-Decided December 13, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Ben Grod-
sky, hearing 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds 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. The labor organizations involved, claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer?
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The unit requested by the Petitioner, as amended at the hearing,
consists of all refrigeration journeymen, fabricators, welders and
their apprentices working in the shop of the Employer, but excluding
hand welders, guards, professional employees and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act. The Employer agrees that the requested unit is
' Upon sufficient showing of interest made to the hearing officer at the hearing , United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of
United States and Canada , Local Union 250, AFL, was allowed to intervene in these pro-
ceedings . We find no merit in the contention of the Petitioner that Local 250 lacked
proper interest to be admitted to the status of intervenor. See Walt Disney Productions,
76 NLRB 121. On the basis of the record herein , we also reject the argument of the Inter-
venor that the Petitioner is.fronting for an affiliate of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL. See Baker Ice
Machine Company , 86 NLRB 385.
87 NLRB No. 78.
613
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate.2 The Intervenor contends that employees engaged inL
outside construction work as well as those working in the shop should
be included in the unit and that two individuals should be excluded
as supervisors.
The shop employees and those employees engaged in outside con-
struction work for the Employer both utilize similar skills and work
on the same type equipment. There is a limited amount of inter-
change between the two groups consisting of infrequent transfers of
outside construction men to the shop in periods of slack business, and
assignments of men, in the shop, to work on outside construction to.
satisfy peak requirements for labor in that field. This interchange is
restricted, however, to a small percentage of the time of a minority
of the men in each group. The Employer regards the two groups of"
employees as being separate and distinct classifications. The record
also shows that the working conditions in the case of the employees
in outside construction are substantially dissimilar from those of the
shop workmen. Moreover, the shop personnel and the outside em-
ployees have, in the past, worked under separate collective bargaining
contracts, and, as a result, have substantial differences in wage rates
and benefits such as vacations. Upon the entire record, we believe that
the interests and working conditions of the shop employees and the
outside construction employees are divergent and we shall exclude
the latter from the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
The Intervenor also contends that Robert E. Hall and Conrad Mar-
tinez are supervisors and should be excluded from the unit. Hall is
a shop fabricator who has no power to hire or discharge, or effectively
to recommend such actions. There is no evidence in the record as to,
his having any supervisory authority. Conrad Martinez is a work-
ing foreman in the shop who receives a pay rate slightly higher than
the base rate. He has no power to hire or discharge nor can he effec-
tively recommend such action. There is no shop foreman, and a shop.
superintendent is in charge of all functions including the fabricat-
ing department, the warehouse, and the stockroom. In the superin-
tendent's absence, the chief engineer assumes control. Martinez, up.-
der the direction of the superintendent, lays out the work to be done
and occasionally directs other employees in the performance of as-
signed tasks as well as working with tools himself. In the course of
this routine direction, Martinez may comment on the qualifications of
the men, or if he does not like a certain employee, may have a nevr
man assigned to his crew. We do not believe the record shows tha',
2 The Employer requested that warehouse and stockroom employees be specifically es
eluded from the unit . As neither the Petitioner nor the Intervenor expressed a desire t«
represent these employees and as they appear to be clearly outside the scope of the unit,
we shall exclude the warehouse and stockroom employees.
YORK CORPORATION 615
.Martinez is vested with the authority of a supervisor within the mean-
ing of the Act.3 Accordingly we find that neither Hall nor Martinez
7s a supervisor and we shall include them in the unit.
We find that all refrigeration journeymen, fabricators, welders and
their apprentices working in the shop of the Employer at Los An-
geles, California, but excluding hand welders, outside construction
employees, warehouse and stockroom employees, guards, professional
employees, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act, constitute
a unit 'appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 4
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard,
and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tempo-
rarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior
to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to
be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Refrigera-
tion Fitters Protective Association, Inc., also known as Local Union
508, or by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of United'States and Canada,
Local Union 250, AFL, or by neither.
8 See Standard Oil Company of California, 79 NLRB 1466; Marshall Field & Company,
76 NLRB 479.
'The Employer stated at the hearing that it believed the election directed in this pro-
ceeding should be postponed to occur at a time when an election might be directed for a
unit of the outside construction employees also. Inasmuch as we have no proceeding pres-
ently before us involving the outside construction employees , we do not believe it would
serve the interests of the parties and the purposes of the Act to indefinitely forestall the
resolution of the instant question concerning representation . Accordingly we shall order
an immediate election.