Gluck Bros., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1949

83 N.L.R.B. 683 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of GLUCK BROS., INC.,1 EMPLOYER and TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 10-RC-376.-Decided May 18,1919
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this matter was held before
M. V. Martin, hearing officer. At the hearing the Employer moved
to dismiss the petition upon various grounds stated below. The hear-
ing officer reserved ruling on the motion for the Board. For reasons
stated hereinafter, the motion is denied. 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 National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-,
ployees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Employer contends, in effect, that the petition should be dis-
missed because the Petitioner is not the real party in interest, but is
acting as "a front" for the United Furniture Workers of America,
CIO, herein called the Furniture Workers, which has not complied
with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act,
and because it is dominated by the CIO Organizing Committee, herein
referred to as the CIO, which also has not complied with these filing
requirements. In support of these contentions the Employer points
to the fact that the Furniture Workers has endeavored to organize the
Employer's employees since 1942, and was assisted by the CIO, which
later assisted the Petitioner in organizing the same employees. These
contentions are identical with those raised by the employer in the
1 The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
83 N. L. R. B., No. 105.
683
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Morrison Turning Company 2 case, issued this day, and are denied for'
the reasons stated in that case.3
At the close of the hearing the Employer petitioned for subpoenas
duces tecum, which the hearing officer granted, directing certain officers
of the Petitioner, the CIO, and the Furniture Workers, to produce
all books, records, correspondence, and documents in their possession
relating to the organizing of the Employer's employees by these labor
organizations. The hearing officer thereafter revoked the subpoena
on motion of the Petitioner's representative. The Employer then
made an offer of proof in which it alleged that it "hoped" to prove
through the requested records that the Petitioner is acting as a front,
that the Furniture Workers had contributed money and aid to the
Petitioner in organizing its employees, and that dues and initiation
fees collected by the Petitioner from these employees had been credited
to the account of the Furniture Workers. We reject the Employer's
objections to the revocation of the subpoena and sustain the action of
the hearing officer, for the reasons stated. in Matter of Morrison Turn-
ing Company, Inc., supra.
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 appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit consisting of all production
and maintenance employees at the Employer's Morristown, Tennessee,
furniture manufacturing plant, excluding all office and clerical em-
ployees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act. The Employer does not concede that the requested unit is
appropriate, but desires the inclusion, within any unit which the Board
may find appropriate, of two clerks who work in the plant superin-
tendent's office, and whom the Petitioner would exclude. The parties
leave to the Board the determination of whether certain employees
should be excluded as guards.
As no reason, to the contrary appears, we find, in accord with
our usual practice, that a plant-wide unit of production and mainte-
2 Matter o f Morrison Turning Company , Inc., 83 N. L. R. B. 687.
8 The Employer also moved to dismiss the petition on the following grounds : (a) the
Petitioner does not represent a majority of the employees in the proposed unit; ( b) there
is a pending unfair labor practice charge filed against the Employer ; ( c) the Petitioner is
unable to represent the employees in the requested unit because of jurisdictional limitations
in its constitution . For reasons also set forth in the Morrison Turning Company case,
supra, we deny the motion based on these grounds.
The Employer ' s motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that elections had been held
within the proposed unit in 1942, 1944, and 1947 upon petitions filed by the Furniture
workers is likewise denied. The holding of an election pursuant to the present petition
does not contravene Section 9 ( c) (3) of the Act, which provides that two representation
elections shall not be held in the same bargaining unit within the period of 1 year . Matter
of Orleans Materials & Equipment Co., Incorporated, 76 N. L . R B. 351.
GLUCK BROS., INC. 685
nance employees is appropriate. There remains for consideration the
inclusion of the disputed categories.
The clerk's in the superintendent's office
There are two clerks who are directly supervised by the plant
.superintendent' and who work in his office. One clerk, Kenneth
Mayes, spends 75 percent of his time maintaining the stockroom
adjacent to the- superintendent's office, to which the production em-
,ployees come for supplies. The remainder of his time is devoted to,
giving first aid for minor injuries and to making out reports. As"his.
duties are essentially those of a stockroom attendant, we shall include
him in the unit.4
The other clerk, Edwin Clark, spends most of his working time in
the plant. He maintains a flow chart for the purpose of insuring
that the production employees have the materials which they need and
determining the location of all merchandise. He spends 20 to 25
percent of his time in the superintendent's office where he occasionally
works in the stockroom. We find that this employee is essentially an
expediter or production clerk whose interests are similar to those of
the other production employees and shall therefore include him in
the unit.5
The watchmen
One employee works each night of the week as a watchman, making
hourly rounds of the plant to see that everything is in order. He per-
forms no other duties than those related to plant protection. We find
that he is a guard within the meaning of the Act and shall exclude
him from the Unit .6
One employee, who works full time operating the plant boiler room,
Acts as watchman during the daytime on Saturday of each week. As
less than 50 percent of his working time is spent as a watchman, we
find that he is a maintenance employee and shall include him in the
unit.'
We find that all production and maintenance employees S at the
Employer's Morristown, Tennessee, plant, including the two clerks
in the superintendent's office, but;excluding all other office and.clerical
employees, the night watchman and all other guards, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
* Matter of General Electric Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 174.
5 Matter of Orleans Materials A Equipment Co., Incorporated, 76 N. L . R. B. 351.
5 Matter of C. V. Hall d Company, Inc., 76 N. L. R. B. 158.
7 Matter of Sampsel Time Control, Inc ., 80 N. L. R. B 1250.
8 Including , as a maintenance employee , the fireman performing part-time watchman's
duties.
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The determination of representatives :
The Employer objects to the holding of an election at this time, be-
cause of the possibility of an increase or a decrease in its employee
complement, and moved to dismiss the petition on this ground. In
support of its objection, the Employer asserts that "uncertain" con-
ditions in the furniture industry frequently cause' cancellation of
orders and reduction in its working force. However, the record does
not indicate that any material change is contemplated in the composi-
tion of the unit, nor is there any definite prospect of a substantial vari-
ation in its size. In view of these circumstances, we believe that the
Act will best be effectuated by the direction of an immediate election.
The Employer's motion is accordingly denied.9
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
• As- part of the investigation to ascertain representatives, for the
purposes 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-Series 5, as amended,
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 , includ-
ing employees who did not work during said pay -roll period because
they were ill or on vacation or temporarily 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 elec-
tion, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to
reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre-
sented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Teâ ile Workers
Union of America, CIO.
oMatter of General Eiectrio Company, 76 N. L. R. B. 995.