Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1321 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

CROSBY AEROMARINE COMPANY 1321
the Petitioner's objections. Accordingly, as the Petitioner failed to
secure a majority of all the valid votes cast, we shall certify the
results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not
cast for Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 79,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
& Helpers of America, and that the said organization is not the
exclusive representative of the Employer's employees in the unit
heretofore found appropriate.]
Crosby Aeromarine Company, a subsidiary of Archer -Daniels-
Midland Company 1 and International Union of Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Crosby Aeromarine Company, a subsidiary of Archer -Daniels-
Midland Company and Crosby Aeromarine Drivers Union of
Fort Wayne , Petitioner. Cases Nos. 13-RC-5910 and 13-RC-
6301. February 6, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Frances P. Dom, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a
three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and
Jenkins].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
2 The organizations herein are ( 1) International Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called IUE ; ( 2) Allied Industrial Workers, AFL-CIO, herein
called AIW ; ( 3) Crosby Aeromarine Drivers' Union of Fort Wayne , herein called Drivers'
Union; and ( 4) Crosby Aeromarine Independent Union of Fort Wayne, herein called
Independent . AIW, Independent , and Drivers ' Union are Intervenors in Case No . 13-RC-
5910 and IUE and AIW are Intervenors in Case No . 13-RC-6301 . All parties stipulated
that IUE and AIW are labor organizations and we so find . IUE and AIW contend, how-
ever, that Drivers' Union and Independent are not labor organizations within the mean-
ing of the Act mainly on the basis of lack of compliance with the filing requirements of
the Act. The record shows that Drivers' Union was in full compliance before the close
of the hearing and our administrative records disclose that Independent achieved and is
.122 NLRB No. 140.
1322 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Employer has no bargaining history at its Grabill, Indiana,
plant, involved herein. IUE seeks a unit of all production and
maintenance employees, including leadmen and truckdrivers, but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, professional and technical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. AIW agrees with the
IUE as to the appropriateness of such unit. Drivers' Union con-
tends that the over-the-road truckdrivers constitute a separate ap-
propriate unit. Independent favors the unit sought by the IUE and
AIW except it would, in agreement with Drivers' Union exclude the
over-the-road drivers. The Employer takes no position on the truck-
drivers but is otherwise in agreement with the plantwide unit.
The Employer at its Grabill, Indiana, plant, is engaged in the
manufacture and construction of boats. It employs approximately
200 employees in the unit sought by IUE. After the boats are fin-
ished they are loaded on trailer trucks and delivered by the over-
the-road drivers to all parts of the United States. At the time of
the hearing, the Employer had 11 such drivers, 8 active and 3 in a
layoff status. The drivers are paid on a mileage basis except when
they are delayed by truck breakdown, bad weather or other incidents
requiring layovers. At such times they are paid on a straight-time
hourly basis. They do not report to the plant but receive telephone
calls at home from their dispatcher notifying them when a truck is
ready to go out after being loaded by the loaders in the shipping
room.' They have their own supervisor, the dispatcher, and in case
of layoffs are transferred to the plant only on a temporary basis,
and upon their own request.
The drivers are under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce
Commission thereby being permitted to work 70 hours a week in
a 7-day week, on a basis of 10 hours on and 8 off and average about
8,000 miles a month. They are also bonded as they collect the cost
of the boats on delivery.
In addition to the over-the-road drivers, the Employer has a local
driver who uses a small truck to pick up material and run errands
on a local basis. He spends about 50 percent of his time driving the
truck, is paid on an hourly basis and is supervised by the purchasing
agent. Drivers' Union would exclude the local driver from the unit
of over-the-road drivers and all labor organizations herein would
in full compliance since the close of the hearing. We therefore find that both Drivers'
Union and Independent are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
B All parties would include these loaders in the production and maintenance unit.
CROSBY AEROMARINE COMPANY 1323
include him in the plantwide unit. The Employer takes no position
tts to his inclusion in or exclusion from a unit of over-the-road
drivers.
In accord with Board policy, we find that the plantwide unit
sought by IUE is appropriate. However we also find that the over-
the-road drivers comprise a unit of the type which the Board his-
torically has found appropriate.4 These employees may, if, they so
desire, be represented separately or be included in the plantwide unit
sought by IUE. However as the local driver performs entirely dif-
ferent work, is paid on a different basis, and has different supervi-
sion, we find that he may not appropriately be included in the unit
sought by the Drivers' Union. We shall therefore include him in
the plantwide unit.5
Accordingly, we shall direct elections in the two following voting
groups of employees at the Employer's Grabill, Indiana, plant, ex-
cluding from each group office clerical employees, professional and
technical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Group 1: All employees engaged in the manufacture and construc-
tion of boats and in plant maintenance, including leadmen and the
local truckdrivers.
Group 2: All over-the-road truckdrivers.
We shall place the names of International Union of Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Allied Industrial Workers,
AFL-CIO, and Crosby Aeromarine Drivers' Union of Fort Wayne
on the ballot in the election among the employees in both voting
;groups and Crosby Aeromarine Independent Union of Fort Wayne
the ballot in the election among the employees in group 1.6
5. If a majority of the employees in voting group 2 select the
Drivers' Union, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
constitute a separate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the
elections directed herein is hereby instructed to issue a certification
of representatives to the Drivers' Union for such unit, which the
Board, in such circumstances, finds appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining.
If, however, a majority in voting group 2 does not vote for the
Drivers' Union, such group will appropriately be included with the
employees in voting group 1 and their votes will be pooled with
those in voting group 1.' The aforesaid Regional Director is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organi-
4 Tropicana Products, Inc., 122 NLRB 121.
5 Tropicana Products , Inc., supra.
E The Independent does not seek representation among the employees in group 2.
7 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for
each union in group 2 shall be counted as valid votes and added to the total votes such
union shall acquire in group 1 ; all valid no-union votes in group 2 shall be added to the
grand total of valid votes in group 1.
1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
zation selected by a majority of the employees in the pooled group,
which unit the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
United States Steel Corporation (American Bridge Division)
and James Russell
Local Union 542, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO and James Russell. Cases Nos. 4-CA-1514 and
4-CB-373. February 9, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 30, 1957, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore ' issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding
that the Respondents had not engaged in any unfair labor practices
and recommending that the complaints be dismissed in their entirety,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief, and each Respondent filed a brief in
support of the Intermediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and finds merit in the
exceptions to the Intermediate Report to the extent noted below.
Accordingly, the Board adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner which are consistent with the
findings and conclusions hereinafter made.
1. The Trial Examiner found that the General Counsel did not
prove the allegations of the complaint that the Respondent Company
violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act and that the Respondent
Union violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act by being
parties to an agreement which required the Company to hire only
persons who were members of the Union and who were referred for
employment by the Union. We do not agree.
The record discloses that the Company entrusted its master me-
chanic with the recruitment of operating engineers for its Morrisville
construction project, which is here involved.. Thus, when the Com-
pany's superintendent, Wright, determined that operating engineers
were needed, it was his practice to request Master Mechanic Stewart,
122 NLRB No. 155.