Gunnison Homes, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 27, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 940 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of GUNNISON HOMES , INc., EMPLOYER and UNITED
BROTIIERI -1001) Or CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, FALLS CITY
DIs7RICT COUNCIL, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 11-R-1269.-Decided February l7,1947
Messrs. Austin Drewry and George Rice, of New Albany, Ind., for
the Employer.
Mr. C. A. Shuey, of Louisville, Ky., for the Petitioner.
111r. Robert Owen, of Louisville, Ky., for the Intervener.
Mr. Jack J. Mantel, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Louis-
ville, Kentucky, on January 8, 1947, before Clifford L. Hardy, hearing
officer. The hearing officer 's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the Inter-
venor moved to dismiss the petition on various grounds. The hearing
officer referred the motion to the Board, which is hereby denied, for
reasons stated hereinafter.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS Or FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER
Gunnison Homes, Inc., a subsidiary of United States Steel Corpora-
tion , a Delaware corporation , has its principal office and plant in New
Albany, Indiana , where it is engaged in the manufacture and distribu-
tion of pre-fabricated houses . During the year 1946, the Employer
used raw materials , consisting of lumber , plywood, steel, paint, hard-
ware, and other building materials , valued in excess of $500 ,000, of
which 75 percent was shipped to its plant from points outside the State
of Indiana. During the same period, the Employer's sales of finished
products were in excess of $500 ,000, of which 50 percent represents
shipments to points outside the State;
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
s ithin the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
72 N L R B , No. 161.
940
GUNNISON HOMES, INC.
II. TIIE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
941
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
h'ederatio n of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.
United Construction Workers , United Mine Workers of America,
herein called Intervenor , is a labor organization affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.
III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On November 20, 1946, the Petitioner requested recognition by the
Employer as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees.
The Employer refused to accord such recognition until the Petitioner
has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
The Employer and the Intervenor entered into a 1-year bargaining
contract, on February 1, 1946, which provided that the agreement
;hound be automatically extended, unless either party should give
written notice at least 60 days prior to February 1, 1947, of a desire
to change or terminate the agreement. Pursuant to this notice provi-
sion, the Intervenor formally notified the Employer on November 19,
1946, of its desire to negotiate proposed changes in the contract. The
Employer refused to enter into negotiations because of the Petitioner's
claim to representation. On December 2, 1946, the petition herein
was filed. Inasmuch as the petition was filed before the "Mill B"
'or operative date of the automatic renewal clause, we find, contrary
to the Intervenor's contention, that the 1946 agreement does not con-
stitute a bar to a present determination of representatives.'
The Intervenor also argues that the petition should be dismissed
because both unions here involved are affiliated with the Ameiicaui
Federation of Labor. We find no merit in this argument. The
primary reason underlying the Board's reluctance to entertain peti-
tions in the presence of a jurisdictional dispute is the likelihood that
aill contention will be eliminated by submission to the authority of
the parent body. In this case, however the record indicates that
there is little prospect that the controversy can 'be effectively resolved
without resort to the administrative processes of the Aet.2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
' See flatter of ,lull B, Inc . 40 N L R B 346
7 See ftatte) of U S Industrial Chemicals, Inc , 71 N L R B. 940, and cases cited therein.
942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1v. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner and the Intervenor agree that all production and
maintenance employees, including inspectors, checkers, and receiving
and stores. clerks, but excluding office and clerical employees, and,
supervisory employees, constitute an appropriate unit. The Em-
ployer is n substantial accord with the proposed unit, but contends
that inspectors, checkers, and receiving and stores clerks should be
excluded for the reasons that these employees are on a salary basis
and that their duties are supervisory or managerial in nature.
The checkers are responsible for the loading of finished houses-on
boxcars and trucks and, like the laborers with whom they work, are
under the supervision of the Materials Division. The receiving and
stores clerks, who store and disburse various materials, and the laborers
_ who work with them, are also under similar supervision. The inspec-
tor's duties include primarily the detection of flaws in the finished
products of hourly paid workers. The inspectors report such matters
to the chief inspector who in turn refers them to the department super-
visor. The record shows that none of these employees fall within our
customary definition of supervisory or managerial 3 employees.
The Board has repeatedly held that in determining the appropriate
bargaining unit, it will not distinguish between employees paid on a
salary basis and those paid on an hourly basis solely on the ground of
the difference in mode of payment 4 In this case there is no substantial
evidence to w arrant a departure from our usual policy. We therefore
see no reason to exclude the inspectors, checkers, and receiving and
stores clerks from a unit of production and maintenance employees
because they are on a salary basis. However, inasmuch as the disputed
employees were not included in the past bargaining history of the Em-
ployer, we shall direct that a separate election be held among the
inspectors, checkers, and receiving and stores clerks to determine their
desires with respect to the matter.' Accordingly, we shall make no
finding concerning the appropriate unit or units for employees of the
Employer pending the outcome of the election.
We shall direct that separate elections be conducted among the
employees in the separate voting groups described below, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of the Direction of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and
additions set forth in the Direction :
3 Concerning the Employer ' s contention that the duties of inspectors are managerial, see
platter of Russell Electric Company, 72 N L R B 278
4 See Matter of Wilson f Company, Inc, 64 N 1, R B 1124, platter of Jones