Deeco Co.

In the Matter of DEECO COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS FOR ITSELF AND ON BEHALF OF ITS DIS- TRICT LODGE No. 94, PETITIONER Case No. 21-R--34i0.Decided November 14, 1946 Mr. Alex Deutsch, of Burbank, Calif., for the Employer. Messrs. E. R. White and L. E. Poesnecker, of Los Angeles , Calif., for the Petitioner. Mr. Nick Cordill, of Los Angeles , Calif., for the Intervenor. Mr. Be?ij. E. Cook, of counsel for the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Los Angeles, California, on August 13, 1946, before Charles M. Ryan, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby afirnied. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS or FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Deeco Company, a California corporation, maintains its place of business at Burbank, California, where it is engaged in the manu- facture of furniture. During the period from January 1 to June 27, 946, the Employer purchased raw materials valued at approximately $313,400, all of which were obtained within the State of California. During the same period, the Employer sold finished products valued at approximately $1,000,000, of which approximately 50 percent was shipped to customers located outside the State. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a,labor organization claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 71 N. L. R. B., No. 112. 692 DEECO COMPANY 693 Furniture Workers' Local No. 2267, United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claim- ing to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner and the Intervenor agree that all production and maintenance employees including inspectors, tool crib and stores em- ployees, stock control employees, factory clerks, employees of the shipping and experimental departments, but excluding guards, truck drivers, employees of the engineering department, office clerks, and all supervisory employees, constitute an appropriate unit. The Em- ployer contends that the unit should comprise all employees, including supervisory and office employees. Ogee clerical: The Board has consistently excluded office clerical employees from production and maintenance units. Inasmuch as no persuasive reason is here presented for our departing from such policy, we shall exclude the office clerical employees-from the unit' Supervisory employees: The Board's policy is to exclude supervisory employees from the units of rank and file employees unless a contrary custom exists within the industry. No evidence of such a custom was adduced in the present case. Accordingly, we shall exclude super- visory employees .2 Truck driver: The Employer has one truck driver who hauls ma- terials to and from its plant. The truck driver's interests and con- ditions of employment are not altogether the same as those of the other employees and inasmuch as the parties are in dispute as to his inclusion, we shall follow our customary practice and exclude the truck driver.3 Guard: There is one employee who spends part of his time as a janitor and the remainder as a night watchman. It does not appear 1 See Matter of Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Company, 68 N. L. R. B. 153, and cases therein cited. 'See Matter of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (East Springfield Works), 69 N.L R. B. 215. ' See Matter of Kingan & Co., Incorporated, 61 N. L. R. B. 1222 ; Matter of Wilson & Company, Inc., 62 N. L. R . B. 895. 694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION S BOARD that this employee is either armed or deputized or that he performs any monitorial duties. We shall include him in the unit. Employees of the engineering and experimental departments: It appears from the record that the only employee in the engineering department is an official of the Employer and that the experimental department has been discontinued. Accordingly, we shall exclude employees of the engineering department, but shall make no disposi- tion respecting the experimental department. We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Burbank, California, plant, including guards, inspectors, tool crib and stores employees, stock control employees, factory clerks, and employees of the shipping department, but excluding truck drivers, employees of the engineering department, office clerks, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Employer contended at the hearing that no election should be held until its staff is expanded to a full crew of approximately 200 employees. At the time of the hearing there were about 20 workers employed in production work and it appeared that the staff of pro- duction employees would be increased to approximately 75 by August 26. The Employer hopes to increase its production staff to about 200 employees by January 1, 1947, depending on the availability of mate- rials. Under these circumstances, we do not believe that the present employees should be deprived of the benefits of collective bargaining pending the employment of the expected expanded production force. However, inasmuch as the Employer's plant staff may be greatly increased within a comparatively short time, we shall not in the event a collective bargaining representative is certified as a result of this proceeding, adhere to our usual rule of refusing to entertain a petition for investigation and certification of representatives within a year after we have issued a certification. We shall, instead, entertain a new petition for an investigation and certification of representatives affecting the employees involved herein within less than a year, but not before the expiration of 6 months from the date of any certification we may issue in the instant proceeding upon proof (1) that the number of employees in the appropriate unit is more than double the number eligible to vote in the election hereinafter directed, and (2) that the DEECO COMPANY 695 petitioner represents a substantial number of employees in the ex- panded appropriate unit.4 DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Deeco Company, Burbank, California, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as, possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, 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, to determine whether they desire to be repre- sented by International Association of Machinists, for itself and on behalf of its District Lodge No. 94 5 or by Furniture Workers' Local No. 2267, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. * See Matter of Berg's Bretzels, Inc., 69 N. L it. B. 1182, and cases therein cited. The Petitioner's request to appear on the ballot as I A. M , Lodge 1600, is hereby referred to the Regional Director for appropriate action.