Industrial Cleaning Machines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 27, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 181 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

INDUSTRIAL CLEANING MACHINES, INC.
Industrial Cleaning Machines, Inc. and Teamsters Auto-
motive Workers, Local 495 , International Brotherhood
of Teamsters ; Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers
of America , Petitioner . Case 21-RC-11429
April 27, 1970
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
Pursuant to ,a Stipulation for Certification UponICon-
sent Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted
on November 7, 1969, under the direction and supervi-
sion of the Regional Director for Region 21, among
the employees in the stipulated 'unit described below.
At the conclusion of the election, the 'parties were
furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approxi-
mately 18 eligible voters, 16 cast ballots, of which 8
were for the Petitioner, 5 were against the Petitioner,
and 3 were challenged. The challenged ballots were
sufficient in number to affect the results of the election.
No objections to the conduct of the election were filed.
'In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and' Statements of Proce-
dure, Series 8, as amended, the' Regional Director con-
ducted an investigation of the challenges and, on Decem-
ber 9, 1969, he issued and duly served upon the parties
his report on challenged ballots in which he recommend-
ed that challenges to two of the ballots' be sustained,
and that the Petitioner be certified as the bargaining
representative of the employees involved. As to the
remaining challenged ballot, the Regional Director rec-
ommended that if it was determinative of the results
that it could be best resolved through a hearing. There-
after, the Employer filed timely exceptions and a support-
ing brief to the Regional Director's report, and the
Petitioner filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization which claims
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of certain employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the follow-
ing employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All production and maintenance employees
employed by the Employer at its plant located
181
at 10640 South Garfield, South Gate, California;
excluding all other employees, office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered -the Regional Director's
report, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and finds as follows:
We find, as did 'the Regional Director with respect
to the challenged ballot of Edward Chaffey, that he
is a technical employee. The stipulation provided for
a unit of production and maintenance employees only,
and excluded all other employees. We find that it was
the clear intention of the parties to include only produc-
tion and maintenance employees as specifically designat-
ed in the stipulation, and to exclude all other employees.'
The • unit established by the parties does not violate
any clearly established Board policy and where there
are no such competing interests the primary question
is what the parties intended. Therefore, we-reject the
Employer's contention that it was the intention of the
parties to. include Chaffey and adopt the Regional
Director's recommendations to sustain the challenge to
his ballot.' Moreoyer, we find that Chaffey is employed
in the engineering department which is located separate
and, apart from the production area; that he' is identified
with the:engineering department as distinguished from
production employees; that any actual production work
performed by him is occasional and minimal; and that
his. interests are diverse to those of' the employees
in the appropriate unit.'
Accordingly, as we have sustained the challenge to
the ballot of Chaffey, and as the tally of ballots shows
that the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid
ballots cast, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that Teamsters Automotive Work-
ers, Local 495, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, has
been designated and selected by a majority of the
employees in the unit found appropriate above as their
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and that pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the said labor organization
is the exclusive representative for all employees in such
unit for purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 160 NLRB 1394
In view of our finding that the challenge to the ballot of Chaffey
be sustained, we do not find it necessary to pass upon the challenged
ballots of Holt and Dolan as they would not be sufficient in number
to affect the results of the election.
, Member Brown would exclude Chaffey solely because his community
of interest is diverse to that of the unit employees
182 NLRB No. 25