Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 937 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

LEE WAY MOTOR FREIGHT, INC. 937
Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. and Oklahoma City Local 850,.
International Association of Machinists, and General Drivers,
Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local Union 886, Petitioner. Case
No. 16-RC-2039. September 25, 1962
DECISION CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
On January 30, 1957, the Regional Director for the Sixteenth
Region issued a Certification of Representatives in the above-entitled
proceeding, certifying the Petitioner as the exclusive representative
of all the employees of the Employer in the following unit :
All maintenance, repair and service employees including work-
ing foremen, machinists, mechanics, bodymen, welders, electri-
cians, painters, tiremen, partsmen, greasemen, porters, fuelmen,
washmen and all apprentices and helpers connected with these
classifications located at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and exclud-
ing all office and clerical employees, road driver units, city pickup.
and delivery, professional employees, supervisors and guards and
other employees as defined in the Act.
Thereafter, on May 1, 1962, the Petitioner filed a motion for clarifi-
cation of the above certification, requesting the Board to find that the
following classifications of employees, to wit, yard maintenance men;:
dock maintenance men; trailer flooring-paneling man; and freight
dockyard porters constitute an accretion to its certified unit. On
June 1, 1962, the Employer filed a statement of position in opposition
to motion for clarification.
On June 14, 1962, the Board issued an Order directing that a hear-
ing be held for the purpose of obtaining all relevant and material
facts pertaining to the Petitioner's motion and remanding the matter
to the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region for that purpose.
On July 2, 1962, in accordance with the above Order, a hearing was
held before Louis L. Vasse, hearing officer. 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, including the brief filed by the
Employer subsequent to the hearing, the Board i finds :
The Petitioner contends that the work performed by the employees
in the disputed classifications place them in the certified unit. The.
Employer contends that the employees are under different supervi-
sion from employees in the bargaining unit and are located in a differ-
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Members Leedom, Fanning , and Brown].
138 NLRB No. 93.
'938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vent division of the Company, and that, accordingly, they should be
excluded from the unit. The employees presently within the certified
unit are all supervised by Maintenance Manager J. L. Brundage.
They do the maintenance and repair work on all of the Employer's
.automotive equipment, with some minor exceptions hereinafter dis-
,cussed, and, except for wash rack and grease rack employees and fuel-
men, are all located in the truck repair shop. The wash rack, grease
rack, and fuel pumps are located within 125 feet of the truck repair
shop.
Since the 1957 certification, and continuously to the present time,
the Petitioner and Employer have entered into collective-bargaining
agreements. Their current contract, entered into on March 13, 1961,
will expire on February 1, 1964. It appears that during the course of
negotiations thereof the parties discussed the inclusion of the disputed
.classifications of employees, but executed the contract without making
any specific reference in the description of the unit to the employees
sought, thus leaving it uncertain as to whether they intended to include
or exclude them from the coverage of the agreement.
The dock maintenance man, Heinz Schilling, classified as a janitor
by the Employer, is supervised by Onis R. Miller, manager of the
'Oklahoma City Terminal. Schilling is responsible for the mainte-
nance of a continuous chainbelt and the carts attached thereto, which
is installed along the terminal dock. In performance of his duties
Schilling goes to the truck repair shop as often as 10 times a day to
secure necessary repair parts, oil, and grease, and will spend as long
as 2 to 3 hours in the shop assembling wheels for the carts.
In the repair and maintenance of the chain belt and carts Schilling
is apparently also supervised by Bill McCullough, the truck repair
shop foreman. McCullough tells him when the chain belt should be
greased and repaired, and as this repair work is often a two-man job,
McCullough will assign a man from the truck repair shop to assist
Schilling. Schilling has the same vacation and holiday benefits as the
employees in the unit, and like them is hourly paid. The record also
shows that prior to his assignment, to these duties, this work was per-
formed by employees in the certified unit.
The trailer flooring and paneling man, Joe Doern, is classified as a
carpenter by the Employer, and is supervised by Superintendent
Jones. Doern performs all of the maintenance and repair work
throughout the plant which requires the service of a carpenter. He
also spends between 20 to 25 percent of his time in repairing the
paneling on the inside of trailers. He performs this work in an area
near the grease rack where there is a trailer which contains all neces-
sary supplies. However, it appears the eight trailer and body men,
LEE WAY MOTOR FREIGHT, INC. 939
who are part of the certified unit, also spend approximately 10 percent
of their time doing identical work on trailers, in the same general
area where Doern works. Moreover, the record shows that before
Doern was hired all of the trailer panel repair work was done by
employees in the certified unit.
The yard maintenance man, Harrison P. Powell, classified by the
Employer as yardman, is supervised by the superintendent of build-
ings, G. A. Jones. Powell's principal duties are to look after main-
tenance of the yard and where necessary he repairs the yard's sur-
faces. Occasionally, he performs services away from the yard for
the Employer. He also cleans and looks after lighting fixtures in
the repair shop. The record shows that Powell punches the same
timeclock, has the same holidays, vacations and hours, and other
benefits as the employees in the certified unit.
The freight truck-yard porters, Acherman and Collins, classified
as janitors by the Employer, are supervised by Manager Miller. Their
duties consist of sweeping and picking up debris around the terminal
dock and the yard. They perform the same janitorial services in and
around the truck repair shop.
Although the employees sought by the Union are, except for Heinz
Schilling, separately supervised, they all work in close proximity to
the employees in the certified unit, have the same conditions of em-
ployment and, like them, perform general maintenance duties. It
is evident that by reason of their duties and conditions of employment
these employees have a close community of interest with the repair
shop employees,' and had the disputed classifications been in existence
at the time of the original proceeding and certification, it is clear
that because of their interests they would have been included as part
of such unit. Since it appears that they came into existence after
the certified unit was established, we find, in the circumstances of
this case, that they constitute an accretion to the existing unit. Ac-
cordingly, we shall clarify the existing certification by including all
of the disputed categories in the existing unit.-'
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the certification heretofore issued in the
above-captioned proceeding be, and it hereby is, clarified by specifically
including , in the description of the appropriate unit, the classifica-
tions of yard maintenance man (yardman ), dock maintenance man
(janitor ), trailer flooring and paneling man (carpenter), and freight
truck-yard porter ( janitor).
2 Cf. Dixie Ohio Express, Inc., 123 NLRB 1936, 1937
8 Cf. Columbia Steel & Shafting Company, etc , 132 NLRB 1536, 1540.