Townley Metal and Hardware Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 706 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
single sequential operation demonstrates the superior claim of the
lathers to the disputed work. Under these circumstances, we con-
clude that the Employer's assignment of the work to the lathers
should not be disturbed. We shall, accordingly, determine the exist-
ing jurisdictional dispute by deciding that lathers, rather than car-
penters, are entitled to the work in dispute. In making this determi-
nation, we are assigning the disputed work to the employees of the
Employer who are represented by the Lathers but not to the Union
or its members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
the proceeding, the Board makes the following Determination of
Dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act :
1. Lathers employed by Gordon Brown, Inc., who are represented
by Lathers Local 104, Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International,
AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of erecting metal studs
to receive wallboard on interior partitions in the Biology Building
on the campus of the University of Washington in Seattle, Wash-
ington.
2. Seattle and King County Carpenters District Council and
Vicinity is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D)
of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign the above
work to carpenters.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determi-
nation of Dispute, the Respondent, Seattle and King County Car-
penters District Council and Vicinity, shall notify the Regional
Director for Region 19, in writing, whether they will or will not
refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed
by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to carpenters
rather than lathers.
Townley Metal and Hardware Company and Teamsters Local
Union No. 541 , affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, Petitioner . Case No. 17-RC-41588. March 15, 1965
DECISION ON REVIEW
On October 29, 1964, the Regional Director for Region 17 issued
a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding appropriate a unit of all warehouse employees at the
Employer's Kansas City, Missouri, warehouse facilities, including
truckdrivers and printshop employees, but excluding office clerical
employees, salesmen, professional employees, guards, and supervisors
151 NLRB No. 67.
TOWNLEY METAL & HARDWARE COMPANY 707
as defined in the National Labor Relations"-Act, as amended. There-
after , the Employer, in laccordaiice (with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board's Rules and Regulatiofls, as amended, filed with the
Board a timely request for review of such Decision and Direction
of Election on the ground that the unit is inappropriate under
officially reported Board precedent and prejudicially affects the
rights of the Employer and its employees. On November 25, 1964,
the Board, by telegraphic order, granted the request for review.
The Employer and the Intervenor 1 filed briefs on review.
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 Brown and
Jenkins].
The Board has considered the entire record in the case with
respect to the Regional Director's determination under review and
makes the following findings :
The Regional Director, in agreement with the Petitioner, directed
an election in a unit, as stated above, of warehouse employees, in-
cluding truckdrivers and printshop employees,2 but excluding office
clerical employees. The Employer contends, inter alia, that the unit
excluding office clerical employees is inappropriate in view of its
long contractual history with the Intervenor in an agreed unit
encompassing all nonsupervisory employees, including office and
warehouse employees.
The Employer is engaged in the wholesale distribution of hard-
ware and industrial supplies to retail hardware stores and industrial
concerns. Approximately 9 percent of its business is on a "will
call" basis consisting of single items or groups of small items.
Control and supervision of the business is centralized in the
president, as well as in the vice president in charge of operations
who has overall responsibility for the entire office and warehouse,
with the various salaried departmental supervisors of both office and
warehouse reporting to the vice president. Responsibility for hiring
and firing is centralized in the vice president, and the same applica-
tions, interview procedures, and hiring procedures are utilized for
both office and warehouse employees.
The same work rules apply to all employees. Both warehouse
and office employees use the same entrance and punch the same
timeclock; there is a common bulletin board maintained between
the office area and the warehouse., All employees' payroll records
are kept in the same book, and all. are paid on the same day on an
1 Townley Metal and Hardware Employees Association intervened on the basis of its
contractual interest The Regional Director found the current contract, which has no
fixed term, to be no bar to the petition.
2 The Regional Director rejected the Petitioner's request to exclude the printshop
employees who are under office supervision . This finding is not in issue on review.
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hourly basis. They receive the same cost-of-living bonus.' All are
bonded in the same amount (except for the cashier). The same
vacation procedures apply to all employees. They have identical
sickness and accident benefits, group life insurance, and fringe
benefits such as Christmas box, discounts on merchandise, etc. They
all have the same lunch and coffee breaks.
The Employer's operation is closely integrated. Orders come in
from salesmen in the field, by teletype, by mail order, and from some
customers by telephone directly to the Employer. These orders are
processed through a complex IBM system. The IBM department,
via pneumatic tube, loudspeaker, and telephone, connects with the
operations office, the warehouse, and the invoicing and accounts
receivable operations. Office employees confer with employees in
the warehouse as a regular, routine part of their job. During
inventory taking, office employees actually go out and count mer-
chandise. Warehouse people regularly come to the office area for
the purpose of inquiry and inspection. The Employer alleges,
without controversion, that at any given time at least one warehouse
person would be found in the office; sometimes two, three, or four
might be there at the same time. The operations department,
now located in the office, was once physically located in the ware-
house area due to the close connection of the work; the change
in location was made when the building now housing the office
and warehouse employees was completed. Over the years, there
have been a number of transfers between the office and the warehouse.
Since 1937, when it was first recognized by the Employer, the
Intervenor has always represented a unit of all nonsupervisory
employees. The first formal contract, executed in 1940, covered
an overall unit. In 1953, when the Employer's operation under-
went substantial modernization and expansion, the contract reflected
the changes by adding additional job classifications, many of which
were office categories. The most recent contract, for an indefinite
term, was executed December 31, 1962, and included some 35 classi-
fications of office employees. Of the Employer's present complement
of approximately 145 employees, 127 (including office clerical em-
ployees) are hourly paid.
Although the Board does not consider itself bound by bargaining
history based upon stipulated units where other impelling unit con-
siderations are also present, bargaining history is a factor to which
the Board does accord weight in determining the appropriateness
'An incentive bonus is paid to certain warehouse employees (bin fillers ) but not to
original order fillers ( warehouse ) or to office employees.
U.S. MANUFACTURING COMPANY 709
of a unit 4 In this case, as shown above, there is a high degree of
functional integration and identity in terms and conditions of em-
ployment, resulting in a community of interest among all employees.
In these circumstances, including the integrated nature of the Em-
ployer's operations and the long history of bargaining for all
employees in a single unit, we find, contrary to the Regional
Director, that the historical unit including office clerical employees
is appropriate.5
Accordingly, the matter is hereby remanded to the Regional
Director for Region 17 for the purpose of conducting an election
in the appropriate unit, as modified herein, pursuant to his Direction
of Election, except that the eligibility period shall be the payroll
period immediately preceding the date below.6
4 See Standard Oil Company of California, 116 NLRB 1762. Cf. National Cash Regis-
ter Company, 95 NLRB 27, 29; General Electric Company ( River Works ), 107 NLRB 70,
72; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engineers , 145 NLRB 1521 , footnote 10.
s See Standard Oil Company of California, supra.
As the unit found appropriate herein is broader than the unit sought by the Peti-
tioner , the direction of election is conditioned upon the Petitioner 's demonstrating , within
10 days from the date hereof , that it has an adequate showing of interest in the broader
unit found appropriate . In the event the Petitioner does not wish to participate in
an election in the unit found appropriate , we shall permit it to withdraw its petition
upon notice to the Regional Director within 5 days from the date of this Decision.
U.S. Manufacturing Company and Richard M . Miller
U.S. Manufacturing Company and William Bloom . Cases Nos.
13-CA-5993 and 13-CA-6125. March 16, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 22, 1964, Trial Examiner Phil W. Saunders issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion . Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a
supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a reply brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations 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 error was committed.
151 NLRB No. 75.