J. C. Hirschman Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 529 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

J. C. HIRSCHMAN COMPANY, INC. 529
in each group select the Intervenors,' or if a majority of the
employees in one group select the Petitioner and a majority
of the employees in the other group select the Intervenors, or
if a majority of the employees in only one of the groups select
a labor organization , the employees in each group which
selects a labor organization will be deemed to have indicated
their desire to be a separate bargaining unit, which the Board
in such circumstances finds appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, and the Regional Director conducting
the elections is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the labor organization or organizations selected
by the employees in the voting group or groups. If a majority
of the employees in either or both voting groups do not select
a labor organization , the Regional Director conducting the
elections is instructed to issue a certification of results of
election with respect to such group or groups.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
8As the Intervenors did not indicate how they wish to appear on the ballot, and as the
record is not clear regarding which group each Local seeks, we shall place the Intervenor
Locals jointly on the ballots for both groups. Upon prompt request , the Regional Director
is authorized to change the designations of the Intervenors on the ballots.
J. C. HIRSCHMAN COMPANY, INC.' and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 193,
AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-911. July 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 Robert Volger,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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 case to
a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peter-
son].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor, Local 169, Textile
Workers Union of America, CIO, moved to dismiss the petition
on the grounds that: (1) The unit sought is inappropriate; (2)
their contract which extends to September 13, 1952, and is
1The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
106 NLRB No. 82.
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
automatically renewable thereafter for yearly periods, subject
to a 60-day notice clause, is abar; (3) the Petitioner's showing
of interest is not timely or adequate; and (4) the employees
sought no longer wish to be represented by the Petitioner or be
in a separate unit. The hearing officer refused to receive
evidence bearing on the issues raised by the third and fourth
grounds of the motion, and the Employer and the Intervenor
excepted to his rulings.
As to the first ground, we find for the reason fully s,.1 forth in
paragraph numbered 4, infra, that the unit sought may be ap-
propriate. With regard to the second ground, as the petition was
filed within a reasonable time before the Mill B date of the
existing contract, we find it was timely filed and that the con-
tract is not a bar.2 With respect to the third ground, a showing
of interest is an administrative matter not litigable by the
parties. 3 The Board is administratively satisfied with the
Petitioner's interest showing in this case. With regard to the
final ground, the employees' preferences concerning the unit
they wish to be in and the bargaining agent they wish to repre-
sent them can best be determined by a secret election.4 The
motion is therefore denied, and the exceptions are overruled.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing 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 Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of four truckdrivers
from a production and maintenance unit inexistence since 1937
at the Employer's Indianapolis, Indiana, furniture plant. The
Intervenor and the Employer contend that the unit sought is in-
appropriate because of the bargaining history on a more compre -
hensive basis, and because the requested employees are an
integral part of the larger unit and workunder the same condi-
tions as the other employees in that unit.
Of the Employer's 4 truckdrivers, 1, who is administratively
assigned to the felt department, spends about 90 percent of his
time in o, er-the-road driving, and the remainder of his time in
loading and unloading his truck. The other 3 drivers, who are
administratively assigned to the mattress department, spend
from 50-70 percent of their time intruckdriving, some of which
includes over-the-road driving, and the rest of their time in
assisting other employees load and unload their own and sup-
pliers' trucks, hauling trash, and doing production work. Al-
though they have no common supervisor and are on separate
departmental seniority lists, the employees sought are the only
ones in the plant who are designated as truckdrivers and drive
ZLewis Engineering & Manufacturing Company, 100 NLRB '_353. The Petitioner contended
that the contract is not a bar because it contains an illegal union- security clause. In view of
our determination of the contract-bar issue, supra , the legality of the union- security clause
need not also be considered.
3Arrow Candy Co., Inc., 100 NLRB 573.
4East Coast Fisheries , Inc., 97 NLRB 1261.
SEATTLE DOOR COMPANY, INC. 531
trucks.' Also, while they receive the same benefits and the
same average pay as the other employees, and generally share
the same working conditions, their hours are variable, e. g.,
the felt driver starts work late in the morning if he worked late
the previous day, and the other drivers con. in late if they know
their trucks will not be loaded until after the usual starting
time.
We are of the opinion that the Employer's truckdrivers are a
homogeneous and identifiable group, analogous to those whom
the Board has previously held may be a separate bargaining
unit, if they desire, despite a bargaining history on a broader
basis. 6 They may, of course, remain part of the more compre-
hensive production and maintenance unit, if they wish.
We shall therefore direct an election in the following voting
group: All truckdrivers at the Employer's Indianapolis, Indiana,
plant, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in this
group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indi-
cated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and
the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to
issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for
the unit, which the Board under such circumstances finds to be
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. In the
event that a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds
the existing unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director
conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of
results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Peterson, dissenting:
In view of the collective-bargaining history on a plantwide
basis since 1937, and in the absence of any other factors war-
ranting their severance from the established unit,? I would not
accord the truckdrivers separate representation.
5 One of the mattress drivers recently served as a replacement for a shipping department
employee on leave from the plant, but in the interim a replacement truck had to be leased
by the Employer to do that driver's work, and when the absent employee returned to work
the driver returned to his usual assignment.
6General Box Company. 93 NLRB 789. The decisions relied upon by the Employer in its
brief are clearly distinguishable on their facts.
TSee my dissenting opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627.
SEATTLE DOOR COMPANY, INC. and LOCAL 193, INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS,
AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 19-RC-1321. July 31, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Donald D.
106 NLRB No. 91.
322615 0 - 54 - 35