The Parsons Investment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 27, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 192 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Car Traders, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen , and Production Workers, Local 424,
Independent, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is hereby recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Donald H . Parsons and James C. Holmes, d/b/a the Parsons In-
vestment Company and Local 79, Building Service Employees'
International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-
6490. A pril 27,1965
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On October 22, 1964, the Acting Regional Director for Region 7
issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding, dismiss-
ing the petition on the ground that the requested unit confined in scope
to certain employees employed at one of the Employer's two office
buildings was not appropriate. Thereafter, the Petitioner, in accord-
ance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, filed with the Board a
timely request for review of such Decision and Order on the ground
that the Acting Regional Director erroneously applied Board prece-
dent in concluding that the requested unit was inappropriate. The
Employer filed an opposition to the request for review.
The Board by telegraphic Order dated November 19, 1964, granted
the request for review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch
and Members Brown and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect
to the Acting Regional Director's determination under review, includ-
ing the positions of the parties as set forth in the request for review
and the opposition thereto, and makes the following findings :
The Employer, a Michigan partnership, owns the Ford Building
and the Dime Building in Detroit, Michigan. The two office buildings
are managed by the Lewis and Ford Company, a property manage-
152 NLRB No. 14.
THE PARSONS INVESTMENT COMPANY 193
ment firm . James B. Lewis and H. E. Ford are partners in the man-
agement firm. Lewis maintains an office in the Dime Building and
Ford has one in the Ford Building. Each partner handles the day-to-
day management of the building in which his office is located.
The two buildings are located less than a block apart on the same
street , being separated by an alley, an office building, and a main street.
They are connected by a tunnel, approximately 10 feet in diameter,
through which public utility pipes and lines are routed. Both build-
ings are heated by steam supplied by the Detroit Edison Company.
The steam is routed to the Dime Building and then flows to the Ford
Buildings through pipes which go through the tunnel. Similarly the
electricity for both buildings is received by the Dime Building and is
conducted through the tunnel to the Ford Building. The buildings
also have a central switchboard located in the Dime Building.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all building service employees at the
Ford Building and would exclude the plumbing and utility crew who
are supervised by a chief engineer whose office is in the Dime Building.
The seven employees on this crew report to and work out of the Dime
Building and though they perform their functions for both buildings,
spend the majority of their time working in the Dime Building. The
Employer contends, and the Acting Regional Director found, that the
only appropriate unit must include all the buildings service employees
at its two office buildings. There is no bargaining history and no labor
organization is seeking to represent the more comprehensive unit.
Although there is no dispute concerning the appropriateness of the
more comprehensive unit urged by the Employer, there are factors
present which indicate that the Petitioner's requested unit limited to
building service employees employed at the Ford Building is also
appropriate.' The record shows that each building has its own super-
intendent who is located in an office in that building. The building
superintendents do the actual hiring and firing and order the bulk
of materials used in their respective buildings. The building superin-
tendent in the Ford Building supervises 3 painters, a carpenter, an
electrician , an elevator starter, a freight elevator operator, and 27 to
30 janitresses who normally perform their services solely in that build-
ing. The Dime Building also has its own carpenters, painters, elec-
tricians , elevator operators , janitresses , and other building service
' There is nothing in the statute which requires that the unit for bargaining be the
only appropriate unit, or the ultimate unit, or the most appropriate unit; the Act re-
quires only that the unit be "appropriate ." Morand Brothers Beverage Co, et al., 91
NLRB 409, 418.
789-730-66-vol. 152-14
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees who normally perform their services solely in the Dime
Building under the supervision of the superintendent of that building.
The janitresses in each building work under the direction of a forelady
located in that building. The electrician in the Ford Building occa-
sionally works in the Dime Building during busy periods or vacations.
Although the elevator starter in the Ford Building does not perform
any services in the Dime Building, she is replaced during her vacation
by an operator from the Dime Building. The building service employ-
ees in each building submit their attendance reports to their respective
supervisors. There are separate employee lounges in each building.
On the foregoing evidence we can not conclude that the unit re-
quested by the Petitioner, limited to the building service employees at
the Ford Building, is inappropriate. In the circumstances of this
case , including especially the degree of autonomy that exists in the
operation and maintenance of each building, reflected in the control
each building superintendent exercises in the day-to-day operation of
his building, the separate supervision of employees in the group sought,
the lack of any substantial interchange of such employees with simi-
larly classified employees in the Dime Building, the absence of any
bargaining history, and the fact that no labor organization seeks to
represent the more comprehensive unit, we conclude that the employees
at the Ford Building have a community of interests apart from the
employees in the Dime Building,2 and that the requested single-build-
ing unit will assure to the employees the fullest freedom in exercising
the rights guaranteed by the Act and is, therefore, an appropriate
unit 3
Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All building service employees employed by the Employer at the
Ford Building, Detroit, Michigan, including janitors, janitresses, ele-
vator operators and starters, painters, carpenters, and electricians, but
excluding office clerical employees, the plumbing and utility crew,
2 While there may be a common use of the plumbing and utility crew , it is clear that
these employees are separately supervised, separately located, and spend the majority
of their time working in the Dime Building We are not persuaded that the plumbing
and utility crew share such a community of interests with the building service employees
at the Ford Building as to require their inclusion in the requested unit. We shall , accord-
ingly, exclude them from the unit.
3 Gordon Mills, Inc., 145 NLRB 771, and Dixie Belle Mills , Inc, a wholly -owned subsidiary
of Bell Industries, Inc., 139 NLRB 629. We are unable to agree with our dissenting
colleague that the determination made by the Acting Regional Director is supported by
"ample Board precedent ." The cases cited by the Acting Regional Director , to which
the dissent adverts , may not fairly be read as controlling the specific situation present in
this case.
THE PARSONS INVESTMENT COMPANY 195
watchmen , guards, foreladies , building superintendent , and all other
supervisors , as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER JENKINS , dissenting :
Unlike my colleagues , I would not disturb the Acting Regional
Director's Decision and Order in this case. In my view the request for
review was improvidently granted.
The Petitioner's request for review is grounded on the assertion that
the Acting Regional Director erroneously applied Board precedent in
making his determination. I do not find this assertion to be supported
by the record in this case.
The Acting Regional Director found that such factors as ownership
of both buildings, central management and control (above the imme-
diate supervisory level), central determination of labor policy, identi-
cal wages and fringe benefits, identical hours and working conditions,
performance of identical duties and use of similar skills, and inter-
change of employees to a limited degree, warranted the conclusion that
a unit embracing the employees of both buildings was the appropriate
unit. On the basis of the record facts here, it can not be said that the
Acting Regional Director was clearly wrong. Indeed, there is ample
Board precedent to support the Acting Regional Director's determina-
tion based upon consideration of the above factors .4
On the basis of the foregoing, I am not persuaded that the Peti-
tioner has clearly established that the Acting Regional Director has
misapplied existing Board precedent. Board procedure requires that
a party seeking review of a Regional Director's Decision under Section
102.67(c) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
must show convincingly that the Decision violated one or more of the
carefully circumscribed grounds set forth in that section.5 Absent
i See the following cases cited by the Acting Regional Director in support of his de-
termination: G. L Webster Company, Incorporated, 133 NLRB 440, 442, Pine State
Creamery Company, Inc, 130 NLRB 892, 893 ; S G Tilden. Incorporated, 129 NLRB
1096. Brown Engineering Company, Inc, 123 NLRB 1619; Medrose Hosiery Malls, Inc.,
114 NLRB 1166 Also compare Mad-West Abrasive Company, 145 NLRB 1665, 1668
5 Section 102 67 (c) :
The Board will grant a request for review only where compelling reasons exist
therefor Accordingly, a request for review may be granted only upon one or more
of the following grounds •
(1) That a substantial question of law or policy is raised because of (a) the
absence of, or (b) a departure from , officially reported Board precedent.
(2) That the regional director ' s decision on a substantial factual issue is clearly
erroneous on the record and such error prejudicially affects the rights of a party.
(3) That the conduct of the hearing or any ruling made in connection with the
proceeding has resulted in prejudicial error
(4) That there are compelling reasons for reconsideration of an Important Board
rule or policy.
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a clear demonstration of error, I find no basis in reason or logic for the
Board to upset the Decisions and Orders of the Regional Directors. To
do so defeats the very reasons for delegating authority to the Regional
Directors to make these determinations.
As I find that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate convincingly
that the Acting Regional Director's Decision is in error, I would sus-
tain the Decision and Order and dismiss the petition.
Moulton Manufacturing Company and International Ladies' Gar-
ment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-5648.
April 08, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 19, 1965, Trial Examiner Rosanna A. Blake issued her
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There-
after the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief.
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 Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this case, and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order, the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and orders that
Respondent, Moulton Manufacturing Company, Moulton, Alabama, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed on March 11 and April 27, 1964, by the International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, the General Counsel, acting through the Act-
152 NLRB No. 23.