Andrews Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 946 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All perlite tube operators," board machine operators, board
kiln operators , head takeoff men, asphalt emulsion operator,
shingle wet machine operators , hydropress operators, punch
press ' operators , glatex machine operators ( gun tenders),
board lead mechanic, and glatex kiln operators, excluding the
mill and authority maintenance lead mechanics, the grain-
board operator, the dip and bundle operators and all other
employees.
If a majority of these employees vote for the Petitioner, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the
production and maintenance unit currently represented by the
Petitioner, and the Petitioner may bargain for such employees
as part of the existing unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
17 As already indicated, the vote of these employees will be subject to challenge if it
is determined, in resolving any challenges to their ballots, that they are supervisors, they
will be excluded; otherwise, they will be included.
ANDREWS INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner and INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON
SHIPBUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 27,
AFL and LOCAL 618, AUTOMOTIVE, PETROLEUM &
ALLIED INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES, AFFILIATED WITH
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 14-RM-79. June 30, 1953
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 Joseph H.
Solien, 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. International Brotherhood, of Boilermakers, Iron Ship-
builders and Helpers of America, Local 27, AFL, herein
called the Boilermakers, and Local 618, Automotive, Petro-
leum & Allied Industries Employees, affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, AFL, herein called the Teamsters,
are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. The Employer filed a petition for a unit of all employees
at its St. Louis, Missouri, plant, excluding office clerical and
professional employees, guards, and supervisors. The Boiler-
105 NLRB No. 115.
ANDREWS INDUSTRIES, INC 947
makers and Teamsters, which have respectively represented
in separate units the Employer's approximately '65 to 75
white employees and 6 colored employees, contend that no
question concerning representation exists. They argue in
this connection that (1) the Employer has no doubt as to the
majority status of the 2 unions in the existing 2 units; (2)
there is no showing of employee disaffection in either of
the Z units; and (3) there is no showing that any union seeks
to represent these employees in the unit petitioned for. We
find these contentions to be without merit.
As to the first and second grounds, the Board has previously
held that the good faith and reasonableness of the Employer
in refusing, to grant continued recognition are not properly
before the Board in a representation proceeding.' With respect
to the third ground, the production and maintenance unit
covered by the Employer's petition is substantially the same
as the broad unit requested by the Boilermakers; the Teamsters'
request embraces , in essence , merely a small fringe group.
Moreover,,the Boilermakers, as well as the Teamsters, have
expressed a desire to be placed on the ballot if an overall
unit is found appropriate.
Accordingly, .we find that a question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The Employer contends that a unit of all employees at
its St. Louis, Missouri, plant, with the usual exclusions, is
appropriate. The Boilermakers and Teamsters assert that
in view of the past bargaining history only separate units
of the white and colored employees are appropriate and, if
an overall unit is found appropriate, a "Globe" election
should be held.
The Employer is engaged at this plant in the manufacture
and repair of commercial freight trailers. Its manufacturing
constitutes approximately 90 percent of its operations and is
performed on an assembly line basis. The remaining 10
percent consists of repair work which is performed in a
separate area of the plant.
In 1946 the Employer recognized the Boilermakers as the
bargaining representative of all its production and maintenance
employees and executed a contract requiring membership
in the Union as a condition'of employment. One of the Em-
ployer's employees was ineligible to join the Boilermakers
because he was colored and therefore he did not become
a member. However, he was permitted to continue his employ-
ment with the Employer and received the same benefits
afforded other employees under the contract. On April 13,
'See e.g , Philadelphia Electric Company, 95 NLRB 71; J C. Penney Company, 86 NLRB
920
2 The Boilermakers' and Teamsters' motion to dismiss the petition principally on grounds
relating to the lack of a question concerning representation is therefore denied
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1948, in Case No. 14 - UA-685 , a union-shop election was
conducted in a unit of production and maintenance employees
which the Boilermakers won. In 1950 the Employer purchased
another company whose white and colored employees were
absorbed into the unit represented by the Boilermakers.
The new colored employees , as in the past , continued to work
and receive the same benefits as the white employees but
did not become members of the Boilermakers. During the
latter part of 1950 , white employees complained to the
Employer that colored employees should belong to the Union.
The Employer contacted the Boilermakers ' business manager
who brought in the business agent of the Teamsters. The
Employer introduced the Teamsters ' agent to his colored
employees ,' who were classified as tire and utility men,
porters , and maintenance man, all of whom enrolled in
the Teamsters . Thereafter , following a consent election
among these colored employees on December 6, 1950 (Case
No. 14-RC-1286 ), the Teamsters was certified as their
bargaining representative . No separate contract was then
executed covering the colored employees , the Teamsters
agreeing to go along with the Boilermakers ' current contract.
In 1951 , the Employer negotiated a new contract with the
Boilermakers . No negotiations were then held with the
Teamsters as they also agreed to go along with the terms
of the Boilermakers ' new contract . In 195Z the Employer
negotiated separate contracts , one with the Boilermakers
covering " all employees " of the Employer , and the other
with the Teamsters covering the colored night porter , utility
men, and painter . The Teamsters contract provided that
it "be attached to and become a part of the contract " executed
by the Boilermakers and contained wage rates for the night
porter, utility men, and painter . Both contracts , effective
April 1, 1952, to April 1, 1953, contained a 60-day automatic
renewal clause."
Although separately represented by the Teamsters, the
night porter , utility men , and painter 'perform functions
and duties similar to those of employees in the Boiler-
makers ' unit. Thus , the night porter cleans and sweeps
the dressing rooms and other parts of the building at night,
which functions are performed during the day by a helper;
welders and mill men also do clean up work in their depart-
ments . Utility men unload about 60 percent of the material
brought into the plant and helpers unload the other 40 percent;
welders also frequently help to unload . Utility men together
with helpers move fabricated sections into different points
along the assembly line and bring up needed material from
storage to different stages along the production line. The
painter, set up and repair men, who need parts, also bring
up materials from storage, and both utility men and repair
men move trailers to, be repaired into stalls . In addition,
3 At that time there were about 3 or 4 colored employees in the plant
4 There is no contention that these contracts are a bar to this proceeding.
ANDREWS INDUSTRIES, INC. 949
all employees are hourly paid, punch the same time clock,
have common restrooms, work under the same supervision,
and have the same conditions of employment.
It is clear from the foregoing that the employees repre-
sented by the Teamsters and those represented by the Boiler-
makers have a close community of interest. The difference
in the race of the employees involved is obviously no justifica-
tion for separate units. Nor, in our opinion, does the past
bargaining history afford any persuasive reason for such
units. We note in this regard that the_ bargaining history was
not based on a Board determination in a litigated case, but.
only in part on a consent election in the Teamsters' unit.
Such election is of course not controlling . Moreover, ap-
parently there were no substantial separate negotiations
until 1952. Even in that year the resulting contract with the
Teamsters was virtually the same as that with the Boiler-
makers and indeed was made "a part of the ( Boilermakers')
contract." Consequently, the evidence fails to establish a
clear pattern of separate bargaining . Finally, even assuming
that there was separate bargaining , as such bargaining con-
travened Board policy it is not dispositive.
Under all the circumstances, we find that all employees of
the Employer at its St. Louis, Missouri, 'plant, excluding
office clerical and professional employees , guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Acts
5. At the hearing, the Teamsters requested that in the
event the Board finds an overall unit appropriate, it appear
jointly on the ballot with the Boilermakers as joint repre-
sentative . The Boilermakers took no position in the matter.
The Employer objects to this request on the grounds that
there is no showing that the employees desire joint repre-
sentation and that it would merely perpetuate the past dis-
crimination.
The Teamsters and Boilermakers may appear on the ballot
as joint representatives , if they both so agree and submit
satisfactory evidence to the Regional Director of such agree-
ment.6 If they win, the Boilermakers and Teamsters shall
bargain jointly for all employees as a single unit. In the
event equal representation is not accorded all employees in
the unit, then the Board can, of course, rescind its certifica-
tion.'
If the Boilermakers and Teamsters do not both agree to be
placed on the ballot as joint representatives, they shall be
placed on the ballots separately . If either union then does not
desire to participate in an election at this time for the unit
5As no justification exists for separate units, the Boilermakers ' and Teamsters ' request
for a "Globe" election is rejected.
6See Wm Cameron & Co., Inc , 98 NLRB 969
7See Coleman Company, Inc , 101 NLRB 120; Hughes Tool Company, 104 NLRB 318
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
herein found appropriate, we shall permit it to withdraw
upon notice to the Regional Director within 10 days after
issuance of the Decision and Direction of Electionherein.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Chairman Herzog and Member Styles took no part in the
consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
CALUMET & HECLA, INC. (WOLVERINE TUBE, DIVISION)
and PAUL S. RUSSELL, Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO.
Case No. 10-RD-114. June 30, 1953
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 Paul L. Harper,
hearing officer, on February 3, 1953. Subsequently, on the
motion of the Union, the Board reopened the hearing for the
admission of additional evidence. The reopened hearing was
held before the same hearing officer on May 12, 1953. The
hearing officer ' s rulings made at the hearings , as modified by
the Board ' s order reopening 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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts
that the Union is no longer the bargaining representative of
the employees designated in the petition as defined in Section
9 (a) of the Act . The Union , a labor organization , was certified
on May 4, 1951,1 as the bargaining representative of the Em-
ployer's employees involved herein.
International Chemical Workers Union, AFL, moved to
intervene on the basis of less than a 30-percent showing of
interest . In the order reopening the hearing a majority of the
Board , Chairman Herzog and Member Houston dissenting on
the ground that intervention would confuse the issue in a
decertification case , granted the motion to intervene. In the
opinion of the majority there appeared no sufficient reason
for differentiating between decertification and other repre-
sentation proceedings in permitting intervention . Intervenor's
later request for leave to withdraw from this proceeding was
granted by the hearing officer during the reopened hearing.
3. The Union contends that the petition should be dismissed
on the ground that the decertification Petitioner is either an
agent of the Employer or is fronting for a noncomplying union,
the Decatur Industrial Employees Club organized by the
Petitioner.
1 Case No. 10-RC-1346.
105 NLRB No. 136.