Lee Miller Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 527 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

LEE MILLER CO. and LEMLAR MANUFACTURING CO 527
Consequently, for the reasons stated in my dissenting
opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627, I would
dismiss the petition.
LEE MILLER CO. and LEMLAR MANUFACTURING CO.
and INDEPENDENT UNION OF METAL WORKERS, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 21-RC-3081. July 30, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jerome A.
Reiner, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. i
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
Peterson I.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. Lemlar Manufacturing Co., herein individually called
Lemlar, manufactures and sells metal louvers , awnings, and
jalousies ; and Lee Miller Co., herein individually called
Miller, sells and installs products made by Lemlar and other
manufacturers. Between March 1, 1952, and February 28, 1953,
the goods destined for out-of-State shipment sold by Miller
and Lemlar were valued at over $47,000 and $ 39,000 , respec-
tively . As found in paragraph numbered 4 , infra , these com-
panies together are a single employer within the meaning of the
Act, but whether considered together or individually, we find
they are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and we shall therefore assert jurisdiction herein. 2
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.'
3. 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 Petitioner seeks a single unit of both Miller's
installation employees and Lemlar's factory employees at
IThe Intervenors , Sheet Metal Workers International Association , Local Unions Nos. 108,
371, and 548, AFL, moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought is
inappropriate . For the reasons set forth in paragraph numbered 4, infra, the motion is denied.
2 Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Co., 91 NLRB 618.
9The Intervenors refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act. We find that the Petitioner 's purpose is to organize and admit to member-
ship the Employer 's employees for collective bargaining concerning conditions of employ-
ment , and that it is therefore a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Thomas L.
Green & Company, Inc , 103 NLRB 1023.
106 NLRB No. 83.
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Companies' Gardena, California, plant. The Intervenors
contend that only separate units are appropriate. The Em-
ployer expressed no opinion regarding the appropriateness
of the unit sought.
Both Companies are individual proprietorships owned by
Lee Miller. They have one office, common office staff, and
one comptroller to run the office and attend to administrative
and financial matters. Although separate books and payrolls
are maintained, both Companies have the same reporting
number for withholding and social-security tax returns, and
one health plan covers their employees. Their superintendents
share desk space in the same room. The Miller employees
usually work at the installation site where they get their tools
and material from the Lemlar plant on a Lemlar truck. How-
ever, they sometimes come to the plant to select tools, wait
for assignments , and, occasionally, to pick up their paychecks,
and infrequently while at the plant they may be required to
load the truck. Although it appears that there is no employee
interchange between the Companies, and that their labor
forces work under separate immediate supervision, Lee Miller
apparently sets both their labor relations policies.
In view of the identity of ownership, control, and labor
relations direction of the Companies, and their functional
relationship and physical integration, we find that Miller and
Lemlar are a single employer within the meaning of Section 2
(2) of the Act,4 and that the employees of both Companies may
be in a single bargaining unit .5
For the last 2 years, Intervenor Locals 371 and 108 repre-
sented Miller and Lemlar employees6 in separate units, under
separate contracts. We therefore find that, particularly because
of the separate bargaining histories, the employees sought
may also be in separate bargaining units.?
We shall therefore direct elections in the following voting
groups at the Employer's Gardena, California, plant, excluding
all office employees,. engineers , guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act: (1) All installation employees of Lee Miller
Co.; (2) all factory employees of Lemlar Manufacturing Co.
If a majority of the employees in both voting groups select
the Petitioner, they will be deemed to have indicated their
desire to be a single 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 representatives to the
Petitioner with respect to such unit. Ifamajority of employees
4 Maloney- Chambers Lumber Co., 104 NLRB 503
5 Asociacion Cooperativa Lafayette, 94 NLRB 911.
6From the record it is not clear which Local represented Miller and which represented
Lemlar. It appears, however, that Sheet Metal Workers International Association lately
transferred Local 371's jurisdiction over some of the Employer's employees to Local 548.
7See footnote 5, supra.
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.]
"As 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
1 The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
106 NLRB No. 82.