McCoy Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 383 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

McCoy CO. 383
McCoy Co. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local No. 775,
Petitioner . Case No. 27-RC-2717. March 2, 1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer F. T. Frisbey. The Hearing Officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. Briefs were filed by both the Employer and Petitioner.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Mc-
Culloch and Members Brown and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in the sale, distribution, and service
of heavy duty construction equipment at Commerce City, a suburb
of Denver, Colorado, and at three branches, which are located in
Colorado at distances of about 110 to 338 miles from Commerce
City. The Petitioner seeks a unit of warehousemen, partsmen, parts
countermen, pickup and delivery drivers, and shipping and receiv-
ing clerks in the parts department at the Employer's Commerce
City operation; it indicated in its brief, filed after the hearing,
that it is willing to include such employees at the Employer's
three branch locations if the Board should require their inclusion
in the appropriate unit. The Employer contends that the unit
should include the parts-department employees at the branch
operations, and the field-service mechanics at all the operations.
The Intervenor, which represents a unit of construction equipment
mechanics at Commerce City and the three branches,2 also urged
i International Union of Operating Engineers , Local No 9 , AFT CIO, was permitted to
intervene on the basis of a showing of interest
3 The contract between the Employer and the Intervenor covers a unit of construction-
equipment mechanics, welders , and yard employees at all the Employer's operation', ex-
cluding field -service mechanics and all other employees . There is no evidence that this
unit is based upon a Board certification.
151 NLRB No. 37.
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a companywide unit of parts-department employees, including field-
service mechanics, but indicated a willingness to represent any
unit found appropriate. There is no bargaining history covering
the employees sought by the Petitioner.
The Commerce City and branch establishments perform basically
the same operations. Each location has a parts department, a
sales department, and a service department. Overall supervision is
maintained at Commerce City, and the branches submit their pay-
rolls to Commerce City, where the paychecks are prepared. Parts
and supplies are distributed to the branches from Commerce City,
where the parts inventory is controlled through an electronic system.
All'the Employer's employees have the same insurance and other
employment benefits.
There is, however, separate local managenment at each branch,
including departmental managers who direct the employees in
their departments, and possess the authority to hire subject to
Commerce City approval, and to discharge if the situation requires
it. While it appears that there are some transfers between locations,
the record does not establish the frequency of such transfers, nor
whether they are permanent or temporary.
It thus appears that, while some centralized control is maintained
by Commerce City over all the branches, there also exists a con-
siderable degree of autonomy in the day-to-day operations of each
establishment. Therefore, although, as indicated above, there are
some factors supporting a statewide unit, the appropriateness of
such a unit does not establish the inappropriateness of a smaller
unit .3 Accordingly, upon the entire record, particularly in view
of the considerable distance separating Commerce City from each
of the branch operations, the lack of any showing of substantial
interchange among the parts-department employees at the different
operations, the separate supervision at each location, and the absence
of any determinative bargaining history, we find that a unit con-
fined to employees at Commerce City is appropriate.4
The parties, while in disagreement as to the scope of the unit,
do not dispute the basic appropriateness of a unit of parts-
department employees. They disagree as to the unit placement
of the field-service mechanics, whose inclusion is urged by the
Employer and Intervenor but opposed by the Petitioner.
3 Montgomery Ward d Co. , Incorporated, 150 NLRB 596
s Amarillo Hardware Company, Inc, et al, 148 NLRB 48; P. Ballantene d Sons,
141 NLRB 1103; N L R B. v. Schill Steel Products , Inc., 340 F. 2d 568 (C A. 5).
McCoy CO. 385
The parts-department employees are engaged in loading, unload-
ing, selling, and delivering parts, and are not required to be
mechanics, whereas the field-service mechanics, who are not in the
parts department but in the service department, are required to
be mechanics. The duties of the field-service mechanics, who travel
considerably, include selling machines and parts, and repairing
and adjusting the machines in accord with the Employer's warranty
thereon. They also do sales promotion of the Employer's products.
Furthermore, the field-service mechanics work under different super-
vision, receive substantially higher wages and do not interchange
with parts-department employees. Accordingly, we find that the
work and the employment interests of the field-service mechanics
differ substantially from those of the parts-department employees,
and we shall therefore exclude the field-service mechanics from the
parts-department unit.5
The parties stipulated to the supervisory status of a number of
individuals, including Varela, the warehouse manager. They were
in dispute, however, as to Walter Johnson, the warehouse leadman,
who the Petitioner contends, contrary to the Employer and the
Intervenor, is a supervisor. Johnson trains new men; and he
assigns work, including truck driving, to warehouse employees.
He was, on at least one occasion, consulted concerning a layoff,
and his recommendation was effective. In addition, he substitutes
for Varela, who is the parts-exchange manager as well as the ware-
house manager, when Varela is absent which Johnson estimated
was about 20 to 25 percent of the time. Accordingly, we find
that Johnson is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and we
shall therefore exclude him from the unit.6
Accordingly, we find that the following unit is appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All warehousemen,? partsmen, parts countermen, pickup and
delivery drivers, and shipping and receiving clerks at the Employer's
Commerce City, Colorado, operation, excluding salesmen, field-service
mechanics, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards,
watchmen, all other employees, the warehouse leadman, and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 The Woodman Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 1784, 1787.
6 See The Powers Regulator Company, 149 NLRB 1185.
7 Tom Whitmill , a used-parts warehouseman , who is engaged under the supervision
of the sales department in salvaging and storing parts of used machines , is included in
the unit in accord with a stipulation of the parties
783-133-66-vol. 151-26