Flora Cabinet Co., Inc.

12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR` RELATIONS BOARD single location, the operations of the two companies will be further integrated. Their punch press, maintenance, and shipping depart- ments will be combined, and will serve both corporations. The em- ployes of both will share common locker and washroom facilities, one cafeteria, and one time clock. On the basis of the foregoing facts and on the more numerous de- tails shown in the record, it is clear that the Vulcan Tin Can Com- pany and the Vulcan Stamping and Manufacturing Company op- erate as a single integrated enterprise. The common stock owner- ship and interlocking officers and directors show that all employees are subject to the same managerial control and that they share com- mon labor policies. The slight differences in the interests of the employees of the two companies now occasioned by their physical separation will soon be eliminated by completion of the impending move. In these circumstances, we believe that the two companies constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 9 (b) ,of the Act.4 The four watchmen at the two plants do regular janitorial work and also watch the premises and punch clocks on regular rounds. The record shows that they spend more than 50 percent of their time doing janitorial work. In accordance with well-established Board practice, we shall include them in the unit.5 Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employees .of Vulcan Tin Can Company and of Vulcan Stamping and Manu- facturing Co., Inc., at their Hillside and Bellwood, Illinois, plants, respectively, including watchmen, but excluding cafeteria employees, professional employees, office clerical employees, guards, executives, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 Willzam W. Fitzhugh, Inc, 88 NLRB 537; Marcal Pulp & Paper Co., Inc, 65 NLRB 263. 5 ,United States Gypsum Company, 81 NLRB 344. FLORA CABINET COMPANY, INC. and UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 13-RC-1757 and 13-RC--1777. April 24,1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relation Act, a consolidated hearing was held be- 94 NLBR No 6. FLORA CABINET COMPANY, INC. 13 fore Ivan C. McLeod, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem- ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]. 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 labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees 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, who seeks to represent all production and maintenance employees, excluding guards and supervisors, contends that separate units for the radio division and the cabinet division are appropriate. The Employer argues that the units sought by the Petitioner are inappropriate, asserting that the employees in the two divisions comprise one appropriate unit. The cabinet division is engaged in the manufacture of television and radio cabinets while the radio division is engaged in the assembly of electronic equipment. Both divisions are located within the same plant.' The record indicates that there is a common maintenance crew which services both divisions; that there is a uniform wage pat- tern in effect throughout the plant; and that there are uniform working hours, overtime policy, relief period policy, shop rules, and vacation policy, in effect for all employees. Furthermore, one account- ing department and the same employment and personnel section serves both divisions, which together constitute the complete production and maintenance operations of the Employer. There is no evidence that the foreman of either division has independent authority in the handling of labor relations. There likewise is no history of collective bargaining fdr the employees in either division. Contrary to the contention of the Petitioner, we perceive no justi- fication for severing the employees in question into two units. The facts adverted to above indicate that there is a substantial community of interest between the employees in the two divisions and that the establishment of two departments in the Employer's plant is not founded on differences in basic craft skills, but is based on the Em- ployer's convenience in having a separate organization for each of i ' A new building is under construction across the road from the one presently in use, and when it is completed , the radio division will be transferred there. 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the two manufacturing processes at the plant. Accordingly, in the absence of significant differences in skills and working conditions and in view of their over-all community of interest, we shall include em- ployees of the cabinet and radio divisions in a single production and maintenance unit.2 , Although the unit found appropriate is more comprehensive than either of the units sought by the Petitioner, the record shows that the Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest in this larger unit. We shall therefore treat the petition as one requesting an alternative production and maintenance unit.3 We find that all production and maintenance employees in the cabinet division and radio division of the Employer at its Flora, Indiana, plant, excluding guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. The determination of representatives : The Employer contends that the petition is premature because of contemplated expansion in the size of the unit. When the Company commenced operations on August 8, 1950, it had about 25 employees. and this number was gradually increased so that by January 27, 1951, there were 276 production and maintenance employees working at the plants. By. February 1, 1951, the number had increased to 314 and by the end of the month is expected to be around 345. However, when the new structure is completed and the plant is in full opera- tion,' it is expected that the total number of employees will be in the neighborhood of 450. The record shows that the increase in the number of employees will be, for the most part, an expansion of classi- fications already in existence, and that the present complement of production and maintenance personnel at the Irwin plant constitute, a substantial and essentially representative proportion of the expected full staff.5 Under these circumstances, we see no reason for departing from our usual policy of directing an immediate election. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this, volume.] 2 Mutual Rough Hat Company, 86 NLRB 440 ; A. J. Siru8 Products Corporation of Virginia, 83 NLRB 99. 2 Mutual Rough Hat Company, supra. Lawrence Haggerty, an officer and director of the Employer , estimates this will occur in 30 to 60 days. S Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 87 NLRB 463 ; General Motors Corporation, 82 NLRB 876. Syracuse Color Press, Inc., 93 NLRB No. 116.