Philco Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 14, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 867 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

PHILCO CORPORATION 867
office clerical staff, which is located in a separate area and is under
the supervision of Manager William R. Giles.
Although Bryan is guaranteed a 40-hour week, he is, like the shop
employees, paid by the hour; he punches a timeclock, which is located
in the shop area; and he works the same hours as shop employees
and, like them, is paid time and a half for overtime. Bryan also re-
ceives the same fringe benefits, such as vacations, hospitalization, and
the like.
In the light of the foregoing, particularly the facts that Bryan
works in close 'proximity to the shop employees, and in association
with them, receives similar fringe benefits, and has no administrative
or functional connection with, and is under supervision separate from
that of, the office clerical employees, we find that he is a plant clerical
employee? . We shall, therefore, clarify,the certification and include
him in the unit 3
[The Board clarified the certification heretofore issued in the above-
captioned' proceeding to include within the unit, as a plant clerical
employee, the employee discussed herein, namely, the shipping and
receiving clerk.]
n Ponce Electric Company, Inc., 120 NLRB 975, 976; Waterous Company, 92 NLRB 76, 77.
The record contains no evidence that Bryan is in training for a management position.
Contrary to the contention of the Employer, we find no reason to exclude him from the
unit on the ground that his interests are allied with those of management. See Newark
,Stove Co., 143 NLRB 583, footnote 6.
'This Decision and'Order is not to be construed as a new certification.
Philco Corporation and Freight, Construction , General Drivers,
Warehousemen & Helpers Union , Local No. 287, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen &
Helpers of. America, Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-5665. April
14, 19641
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) (1) (A) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Of-
ficer John H. Arbuckle. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the
hearing 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning 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.
146 NLRB No. 103.
868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act.
3. No questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
Petitioner requests a separate unit at the Employer's Palo Alto,
California, plant, of all truckdrivers, excluding guards, supervisors,
and professional, clerical, and other employees. The Employer takes
no position as to what would constitute an appropriate unit but con-
tends that a truckdrivers' unit is inappropriate.
The Employer is engaged in research and development of ground
and space communications and space vehicles at its Palo Alto complex
of plants involved herein. This is a highly integrated plant employ-
ing 2,450 employees. All the employees including those Petitioner
seeks to include in the unit are salaried. Each position in the plant
is classified, and each classification is assigned u salary range. Salary
changes within these ranges and promotions to other positions are sub-
ject to uniformly applied company policies. All employees receive
identical fringe benefits, are subject to the same job transfer policy,
and are subject to the same company rules, policies, and general work-
ing conditions. There is no prior history of collective bargaining at
the plant.
The material department is divided into two groups, one of which,
the material distribution group, is divided into four sections, the
packaging section, traffic control section, warehousing section, and
the material handling section.
The unit sought by the Petitioner consists of 15 employees, includ-
ing all the employees in the material handling section and one em-
ployee in the warehousing section. Two of these employees are work
leaders, one for the day shift and one for the night shift. Another
is a full-time mechanic, while yet another spends a large portion of
his time performing clerical work for the materials handling section.
The warehousing section employee spends about half of his time deliv-
ering goods by truck directly from the warehouse to plant buildings
within the complex and the remainder of his time doing warehouse
work. The remaining employees of this group spend a large major-
ity of their time transporting materials by truck from building to
building within the plant complex. The plant buildings are about
20 in number and are spaced anywhere from a few feet to u third of
a mile apart. These employees' duties include obtaining materials
from their original location within one building and delivering them
to their final location within the destination building. They use hand
PHILCO CORPORATION 869'$
carts and dollys which are carried on the trucks to move larger loads,
into and out of position within the buildings.
The remainder of their time, constituting about 10 percent -thereof,
is equally divided between moving materials from one room to another
within a single building using hand carts, dollys, or fork-lifts as neces-
sary, and driving outside the plant complex making deliveries and
picking up materials. The outside driving constitutes only a small
percentage''of their work for two reasons. First, Palo Alto •is exclu-
sively -a research and development plant, not engaged in the production
of any standard products. Accordingly, for the size of the plant there
is very little in the way of materials to be shipped from the plant.
Secondly, commercial carriers are hired for all standard outside
driving chores. Plant employees are only called upon to drive out-
side the plant under special circumstances for the purpose of expedit-
ing deliveries or pickups.
Traditionally, driving outside the plant is done during the morning
hours, intraplant driving transporting materials' and supplies is done
during the remaining morning hours and throughout the afternoon',
and intraplant driving transporting office furniture and equipment
to accomplish personnel moves is done after day-shift working hours
by the night-shift employees. The day and night shifts overlap 4
hours in the afternoon. '
On the night shift, in addition to the material handling employees,
there are traffic control section employees whose primary function
is to complete the clerical work related to shipping and receiving that
was not completed during the day shift. This work usually consumes
less than, their entire' time, so, for the remainder of the time, they
assist the material handling employees in performing their duties of
moving materials and driving trucks. Also, on infrequent occasions
when large material handling operations need to be accomplished it
'has been the Employer's practice to select a team of employees from
the entire distribution group to perform the task. Additionally, some
of the traffic control employees work in the receiving building with
the material handling employees preparing distribution orders and
checking incoming packages against receiving slips. As the work of
unloading commercial carrier trucks and vendor trucks is not formally
assigned to any section of employees, either material handling em-
ployees, or traffic control employees, or a combination of these work-
ing together, do this work. Thus employees outside of the requested
unit often work very closely with the employees in the requested unit,
frequently doing the same work.
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Our decision in this case must be governed by a determination of
whether the separate community of interest of the employees in the
requested unit is significant enough to justify their being represented
-as ,a unit separate from all the other employees in the plant.' These
employees spend substantially all of their time driving, loading, and
unloading trucks. However, it appears that most of the time is spent
in loading and unloading rather than in driving the trucks. Only 5
percent of their time is spent off plant property. Accordingly, their
daily association is primarily with other plant personnel. They work
the same hours, are entitled to the same fringe benefits, and are subject
to the same plant policies regarding salaries and promotions as the
other plant employees. They are afforded an opportunity to transfer
into other positions within the plant and other employees are per-
mitted to transfer into their positions. The record reveals that 15
such transfers have occurred within the materials handling section in
the last 2 years, 2 of which occurred in the last 6 months. Their job
classifications are the same as those of the warehousing and traffic
control employees, and their pay is governed by the same salary ranges
as these employees . They work very closely with these employees and
most of their duties, except for the minor part of actually driving
trucks, are similar to those of these employees.
In view of these facts we find that the community of interest of
the employees requested by the Petitioner to be included in the unit
is with, rather than separate from, the other employees of the plant
and accordingly that the requested unit is inappropriate?
Petitioner contends the requested unit is appropriate because of an
area practice of separate representation for truckdrivers in the Palo
Alto area. Petitioner's witness could only point to two plants in that
area where intraplant truckdrivers were represented separately from
other plant employees. This evidence, relating to plants having tradi-
tional production and maintenance employees, is hardly sufficient to
support a finding of a controlling areawide practice of separate rep-
resentation for units such as the one requested by the Petitioner. Ac-
cordingly we find this contention to be without merit.
The question of what other unit may be appropriate is not before us,
and we therefore will dismiss the petition 3
[The Board dismissed the petition.]'
1 E. H. Koester Bakery Co., Inc ., 136 NLRB 1006.
s Endicott-Johnson Corporation, 116 NLRB 446 ; Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., 135
NLRB 768 . Though Member Fanning dissented in Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., he re-
gards this case as clearly distinguishable on the facts.
s As we have found the requested unit to be inappropriate it becomes unnecessary to de-
cide the other issue raised at the hearing, that is, whether the work leaders of the requested
unit are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.