Worthington Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 7, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 59 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

WORTHINGTON CORPORATION 59
• All our employees-are free to become, remain; or refrain from becoming members
of the above-named labor' organization except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a' labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
HEIGHTS THRIFT-WAY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60, consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they, may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 609
Railway Exchange Building, 17th and Champa Streets, Denver, Colorado, Telephone
No. 534-4151, Extension 513.
Worthington Corporation and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No..V-RC-2897. October 7, 1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed'uiider Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Gordon L. Fine. 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 National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Farming 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 Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists 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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner is seeking a unit of all office clerical., plant clerical,
and technical employees of the Employer's pump and heat transfer
division, Harrison, New Jersey. Alternately, it requests separate
units of clerical and technical employees at the Employer's P. & H.T.
division, or a unit, comprised of all clerical and technical employees
located at both the Employer's P. & H.T. division and its administra-
tive offices in Harrison, New Jersey, The Employer contends that the
first two units requested by Petitioner are inappropriate. It agrees
" The Petitioner and the Employer filed briefs with the Board which have been duly
considered.
9 Hereinafter referred to as P. & H.T. division.
155 NLRB No. 7.
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with Petitioner that a unit of all clerical and technical employees of
its P. & H.T. division and administrative offices is appropriate.
There are several factors supporting the unit urged by the Employer.
P. & H.T. division is located across the street from the Employer's
administrative offices, and in some instances employees of one opera-
tion are physically located in the buildings of the other. Due to the
proximity in location, many services are shared in common, such as
shipping and receiving, switchboard and messenger, maintenance and
guard, and hospital and medical. In addition, the Employer, which
has operations in 11 States of the United States and in 13 foreign coun-
tries, has established policies governing such matters as personnel prac-
tices, labor relations, wages, and other employee benefits which are
for the most part uniform throughout the organization. The adminis-
trative offices control and coordinate the operations of the Employer's
many divisions, including P. & H.T. division, and in many instances
there is an interrelationship between the duties and functions of the
administrative offices and the various divisions.
On the other hand, although there is no history of bargaining with
respect to the clerical and technical employees at P. & H.T. division,
the Petitioner has represented a unit of production and maintenance
employees in this division for many years. While there is some simi-
larity in job functions between the clerical and technical employees at
P. & H.T. division and those in the administrative offices, the record
establishes that there are only 22 common job classifications out of a
possible 130. The P. & H.T. division has a separate personnel office
which interviews, screens, and hires employees for that location and
handles such employee-employer relations problems as may arise. The
supervisory hierarchy at P. & H.T. division is separate and distinct
from that of the administrative offices, not only at the lowest level, but
up to and including separate vice presidents in charge of the day-to-day
operations at each location. The final authority to hire or discharge
P. & H.T. division employees resides in the management of that divi-
sion . Although seniority is on a companywide basis, there have been
only 19 transfers involving the clerical and technical employees of
P. & H.T. division and the administrative offices and these transfers
have occurred over an undisclosed number of years.
In the instant case, the records show that the P. & H.T. division for
all purposes is under separate supervision and that there is no signifi-
cant interchange of employees. While there is some integration, the
separate identity of the two operations has been maintained. The
common use of some services or facilities is not of such proportion that
it tends to destroy the separate identities of the two operations. We
are persuaded on the basis of the entire record in the case that the P. &
H.T. division employees have enjoyed and continue to enjoy a commu-
nity of interests in the terms and conditions of their employment sepa-
WHITE FURNITURE COMPANY 61
rate and apart from those of the employees of the administrative
offices.
It has long been established that a single-plant unit is presumptively
appropriate under the Act. Therefore, unless a plant has been merged
into a more comprehensive unit by bargaining history, or is integrated
in such a manner with other plants as to effectively negate its separate
identity, it remains an appropriate unit even though a more compre-
hensive unit might also be appropriate. Moreover, even assuming that
the unit urged by the Employer may be an appropriate unit, this does
not establish it as the only appropriate one. It has not been the Board's
policy to compel labor organizations to seek representation in a larger
unit unless the smaller unit requested is inappropriate. The facts
here do not reveal such a degree of integration or merger of opera-
tions as would make the separate unit requested by Petitioner
inappropriate.'
In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record in this case,
especially the degree of autonomy reserved to the P. & H.T. division
through its separate supervision, its separate personnel offices, separate
hiring and firing of employees, the lack of substantial interchange, the
lack of a bargaining history, and the fact that no labor organization
seeks to represent a larger unit, we find that the unit requested by Peti-
tioner will assure to the employees the fullest freedom in exercising
the rights guaranteed by the Act and is therefore appropriate .4
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All office clerical, plant clerical, and technical employees in Employ-
er's pump and heat transfer division located in Harrison, New Jersey,
excluding production and maintenance employees, patternmakers,
powerhouse employees, engineers, professional employees, nurses,
salesmen, confidential employees, managerial employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined by the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
See Dixie Belle Mills, Inc., 139 NLRB 629 , and cases cited therein.
* See Temco Aircraft Corporation, 121 NLRB 1085; Gordon Mills, Inc., 145 NLRB 771.
White Furniture Company and Industrial Union Department,
AFI-CIO and United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-
CIO. Cases Nos. 11-CA-2577 and 11-CA-1620. October 8, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 21, 1965, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent has
155 NLRB No. 16.