Mack Motor Truck Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 6, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 618 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and does not extend its protection to him It will accordingly be recommended that the com-
plaint be dismissed in its entirety $
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following-
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The operations of Respondent Company, Claremont Development Co., affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
2. Respondent Unions, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 12,
A. F. of L , and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local 36, A. F. of L , are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Company, Claremont Development Co., has not engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
4. Respondent Unions, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 12,
A. F. of L., and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local 36, A. F. of L , have not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication ]
sAlthough the complaint did attack the contractual relationship between Respondent Com-
pany and Respondent Unions on a broad basis, the only evidence presented related to the case
of Peters. There is therefore no evidence before me with respect to an unlawful hiring
arrangement insofar as it applied to employees under the Act.
MACK MOTOR TRUCK CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Peti-
tioner . Case No. 11 -RC-533. August 6, 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 Cohn,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
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, Murdock, and
Styles] .
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 organization involved claims to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner, which was certified after a consent
election in May 1953 as the bargaining agent of all mechanics,
mechanics' helpers, and drivers at the Employer's Charlotte,
106 NLRB No. 99.
MACK MOTOR TRUCK CORPORATION 619
North Carolina , branch ,' now seeks to represent the parts and
stockroom employees , shipping clerk, porters , and maid, who
were excluded from the unit by agreement of the parties. The
Employer moves the dismissal of the petition on the grounds
that ( 1) the Petitioner is barred by the consent - election agree-
ment in the earlier case from petitioning herein for the ex-
cluded classifications ; ( 2) the porters and the maid have dif-
ferent interests from those of the other employees presently
sought by the Petitioner ; and (3 ) the employees in the requested
unit are not interested in having a bargaining representative
and constitute too small a group to require one. We find no
merit in these contentions and hereby deny the Employer's
motion.
As noted above, the Employer has a service department of
about 40 employees which is already represented by the Peti-
tioner . The Employer ' s operations also include a separately
supervised stockroom with a shipping clerk and 4 parts and
stockroom employees whose duties consist of ordering and
stocking parts which they sell to customers or furnish to the
service department . There are 2 porters who are responsible
to the service department supervisor and perform such tasks
as running errands and cleaning up. One is assigned exclusively
to the service department , while the other divides his time
equally between the service department and the stockroom where
he helps pack parts for shipment. The maid works 3? to 4 hours
each day doing cleaning work in the office and showroom
principally under the supervision of the office manager and the
assistant district manager.
From the foregoing it is clear that the employees sought by
the Petitioner constitute a residual group who have been ex-
cluded from the service department unit currently represented
by the Petitioner . The Board has held in a number of cases 2
that employees of this type may be represented in the same
unit with service department employees . We shall therefore
direct an election to determine whether the residual group of
employees sought by the Petitioner desire to be added to the
Petitioner ' s existing service department unit. Although the
maid works in and about the office , we find that her interests
are more closely allied with those of the stockroom and
service employees than those of the excluded office clerical
group. 3
There remains for consideration the supervisory status of
the assistant stockroom supervisor or seniorpartsclerkwhom
the Employer would exclude as a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act . The Petitioner takes no definite position on this
issue. The individual in question trains new employees but
spends most of his time doing the same work as the other stock-
'Case No. 11-RC-529.
20. Z. Hall Motors , Inc., 94 NLRB 1180 ; Hanna Motor Company, 94 NLRB 105.
3 The William Schluderberg - T J Kurdle Co., 93 NLRB 1572.
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
room employees . It is not clear from the record whether he
effectively recommends the hiring and discharge of employees
or possesses other supervisory authority. We shall therefore
permit the assistant stockroom supervisor to vote subject to
challenge.
Accordingly, the voting group shall consist of all parts and
stockroom employees , shipping clerk, porters, and maid at the
Employer's Charlotte, North Carolina, branch, excluding office
clerical employees, all other employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees vote for the Petitioner, they
will be included in the unit of the Employer' s employees pre-
sently represented by the Petitioner. The Regional Director
conducting the election is directed to issue a certification of
results of election in accord with the foregoing.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
HADLEY MANUFACTURING CORP. and AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 11-RC-512 . August 6, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
On May 5, 1953, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of
Election issued by the Board on April 21, 1953,1 an election by
secret ballot was conducted under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region among
the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate
by the Board. Upon the conclusion of the election , the parties
were furnished a tally of ballots, which showed that of 81 votes
cast, 51 were for and 28 against the Petitioner , and 2 were
challenged. There were no void ballots. On May 8, 1953, the
Employer filed objections to conduct whichitallegedinterfered
with the election. After an investigation , the Regional Director,
on June 26, 1953, issued and duly served upon the parties his
report on objections , finding the objections to be without merit
and recommending that they be overruled and that the Petitioner
be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit . The Employer timely filed
exceptions to the Regional Director ' s report and a supporting
brief.
The Employer 's exceptions are limited to the Regional Direc-
tor's disposition of the objection in which it contended that the
election should be set aside because of improper conduct of an
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
106 NLRB No. 101.