San Antonio Machine & Supply Co.

In the Matter of SAN ANTONIO MACHINE & SUPPLY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and DISTRICT LODGE No. 177, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER Case No. 39-RC-77.-Decided July 11, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this matter was held before James P. Wolf, hearing officer. 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. San Antonio Machine & Supply Company, a Texas corporation, is a distributor of industrial and water-works supplies, heavy hard- ware, contractors' equipment, and other kinds of merchandise. Its home office and principal plant is in San Antonio, Texas. It has branches in Corpus Christi, Waco, and Harlingen, Texas, and ware- houses in Borger and Crystal City, Texas. In addition, it conducts, on a small scale, foundry and machine shop operations in its San Antonio plant. During 1948, the Employer's purchase of supplies and equipment amounted to approximately $8,000,000, of which about 90 percent was received from points outside the State of Texas. Approximately 95 percent of such merchandise and supplies was obtained for purposes of resale. During the same period, the Employer's gross sales totaled approximately $11,000,000; of these, sales having a value of about $250,000 were made to customers in Mexico and a balance was made to customers within the State of Texas. Many of the Employer's Texas customers are engaged in interstate commerce. Contrary to the contention of the Employer, we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.' Accord- I Matter of DeMay's, Inc., 81 N. L. R. B. 1374; Matter of Binns Passaic Iron & Brass Foundry, 77 N. L. R. B. 380. 85 N. L. R. B., No. 24. 143 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ingly, the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Board does not have jurisdiction in this case-is hereby denied. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks certification as the bargaining representative of a unit of production and maintenance employees in the machine shop, brass shop, pipe shop, pump shop, babbitt shop, and garage at the Employer's San Antonio plant, excluding outside erection employees. The Employer generally agrees that the proposed unit is appropriate, but contends that the employees engaged in outside erection work should also be included in the unit. There are approximately 31 employees in the proposed unit, who work in the Employer's shops, and 10 outside erectors, who the Em- ployer contends also should be included in the unit. The inside em- ployees perform the usual functions and tasks of machine shop em- ployees, which includes assembling and repairing water pumps and fabricating parts for such pumps. The outside erectors primarily install water pumps in locations designated by the purchasers of such equipment. Seven of the 10 employees designated as outside erectors maintain their homes at Crystal City, Texas, which is approximately 100 miles from San Antonio. Two of the employees, designated as outside erectors, maintain their residence in San Antonio, but perform most of their work in the area surrounding El Campo, Texas, which is about 175 miles from San Antonio, or in Bexer County in which county San Antonio is located. When there are no installations to be made or adverse weather conditions prevent the erectors from working in the field, the crews are recalled to San Antonio and work in the shop. It is estimated that they spend approximately 20 percent of their time in the shop. The Petitioner contends that because the outside erectors spend so much time away from the plant, their interests in the terms and condi- tions of their employment differ from those of the inside employees. The record shows that the outside erectors are hired generally by the chief engineer, whereas the inside employees are hired by the plant superintendent. The outside erectors, when working in the field, are under separate supervision. However, when they work in the shop, they are subject to the same direction as the inside employees. Fur- thermore, the outside erectors exercise the same skills as do the shop SAN ANTONIO MACHINE & SUPPLY COMPANY 145 employees and are paid on the same basis. We have occasionally found that employees who work away from the plant do not have a community of interest with employees who work in the plant and, in such instances, we have excluded the former from bargaining units of inside employees.2 However, in these cases we did not rely solely upon the geographical separation of the outside employees from the inside employees. The difference in situs of employment of two groups of employees does not necessarily determine that they do not have a community of interest in their employment 3 Where condi- tions of employment among plant employees and outside workers are similar and both groups have substantially the same relationship to management, we generally find that the two groups together may con- stitute a single appropriate unit.' Upon the entire record in the pres- ent case, including the fact that the outside erectors spend about 20 percent of their time working in the shops, we believe that there is sufficient community of interest among the inside machinists and the outside erectors to warrant finding that both groups together consti- tute a single appropriate unit. We find that the following employees of the Employer at its San Antonio plant constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: all production and maintenance employees in the Employer's machine shop, pipe shop, pump shop, brass shop, babbitt shop, and garage, including employees engaged in erecting, installing, dismantling, maintaining and repairing machinery in these shops, the foreman of the babbitt shop 5 and also including outside erection employees, but excluding office, clerical, technical, sales and service employees, guards, and supervisors 6 as defined in the Act. 2 Matter of Dixie Spindle and Flyer Company, Inc., 84 N. L. R. B. 109 ; Matter of Foremost Dairies, Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 764; Matter of Willamette National Lumber Company, 74 N. L. R. B. 569; Matter of Continental Motors Corporation, 73 N. L. R. B. 885. a Matter of Textile Machine Works, Inc., 72 N. L. R. B. 56, 59. 4 Matter of Hunt Tool Company, 82 N. L. R. B. 399; Matter of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 81 N. L. R. B. 619; Matter of Shell Oil Company, Incorporated, 79 N. L. R. B. 618 ; Matter of Textile Machine Works, Inc., 72 N. L. R. B. 56. 6 The Petitioner contends that the foreman of the babbitt shop is a supervisor. However, the record reveals that no employees work under his direction. Accordingly, we find that the foreman of the babbitt shop is not a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act. G The Petitioner contends that working foremen are supervisors and requests their exclusion from the unit, whereas the Employer urges. that they are not supervisors and requests their inclusion. with the exception of the foreman of the babbitt shop, the record is inadequate to determine the supervisory status of the working foremen. For this reason, we shall make no determination at this time with respect to the exclusion or inclusion of these employees from the unit. If they possess supervisory powers within the meaning of Section 2 (7.1) of the Act, they are to be excluded from the unit; otherwise they are to he included. Cf. Matter of Chrysler Corporation, 80 N. L. R. B. 334. 146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIRECTION OF ELECTION 7 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by ,secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from 'the date of this Direction, under the direction and su- pervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees -vho did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding em- ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by District Lodge No., 177, International Association of Machinists. 7If. the Petitioner does not wish to participate in an election for the unit herein found appropriate, it may withdraw its petition filed in this proceeding upon notice to that effect given to the Regional Director in writing within 10 days from the date of the Direction of Election herein.