Texas Hardwood Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of TEXAS HARDWOOD MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND SOUTHERN HARDWOOD COMPANY, EMPLOYERS and CONGRESS OF IN- DUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS , PETITIONER Case No. 16-R-0029-Decided April 11, 1947 Messrs. Alto B. Cervin and J. C. Muse, Jr., of Dallas, Tex., for the Employers. Messr. W. E. Keeter and W. L. Campbell, of Dallas, Tex., for the Petitioner. Mr. Stanley Segal, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Upon an amended petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, on January 10, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among the employees of the Employers in the alleged appropriate unit, to de- termine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 72 eligible voters, of whom 58 voted for the Petitioner, 8 voted against the Pe- titioner, and 5 voted under challenge. Thereafter, a hearing was held at Dallas, Texas, on February 13, 1947, before Claude H. Eads, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employers' motion'to dismiss the petition on the ground that the "CIO Organizing Committe" is not a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act is denied for reasons stated hereinafter. Upon the entire record in the case, the National'Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE 13USINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS 1 Texas Hardwood Manufacturing Company and Southern Hard- wood Company are Texas corporations with offices and sole plant I The name of the Employer was designated in the petition and the notices of election as Texas Hardwood Manufactuiing Company At the hearing it developed that another 73 N. L. R. B, No. 68. 356 O TEXAS HARDWOOD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 357 in Dallas, Texas, where they are engaged in the manufacture of di- mension furniture. The Employers annually, purchase for their man- ufacturing operations raw materials valued at approximately $250,- 000, of which about 40 percent is purchased outside the State of Texas. The Employers annually sell manufactured products valued at ap- proximately $600,000, of which about 65 percent is shipped out of the State. The Employers admit and we find that they are engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employers.2 III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employers refuse to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employers 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 Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance employees, including the janitor and watchmen, but excluding office and clerical employees, salesmen, and supervisory employees. The Employers agree that this unit is generally appropriate. They would, corporation, Southern Hardwood Company, was the Employer of some of the employees in the unit Accoidingly, the Petitionei moved to amend the caption to read as above The hearing officer granted this motion over the objection of the Employers Southern Hard- wood Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Texas Haidwood Manufacturing Company and has the sane stockholders and officers The operations of the two companies are closely integrated They share the same premises, have common supervision and personnel poli- cies, interchange employees, have a common office staff, and in all iespects function as a single employer On the insistence of the Employers, the employees of both companies were included in the unit and voted in the election Under these circumstances, we find that Texas Hardwood Manufacturing Company and Southern Hardwood Company are a single employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act and that the hearing officer's ruling permitting amendment of the caption was proper 2 At the hearing, over the objections of the Employers, the hearing officer granted the Petitioner's motion to change the name of the petitioning labor organization from "CIO Organizing Committee," the name under which it appeared on the amended petition and on the ballot, to "Congiess of Industrial Organizations " The Employers moved to dismiss the amended petition on the ground that the "CIO Organizing Committee" is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, they conceded that the Congress of Industrial Organizations is a labor organization. The "CIO Organizing Committee" is a department within the Congress of Industrial organizations devoted to oigamzing employees for col- lective baigaining purposes. Accordingly, we find that it is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. we further find that the modification of the Petitioner's name permitted by the hearing officer was proper in the circumstances. 358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD however, exclude the janitor and watchmen, whose votes were challenged. The janitor sweeps and cleans the offices and services an apartment located above the offices, used by customers of the Employers. The janitor's work is that of a maintenance employee. Regardless of the place of his employment, we believe that he should be included in the same unit with production and maintenance employees generally. We shall include him.3 The Employers employ three watchmen, one on each shift to tour the premises, guarding against fire and the unauthorized presence of strangers on company property. In addition, the watchmen check the boilers to make certain that the proper amount of pressure is maintained, and clean the boilers approximately once a month. The watchmen are neither armed, deputized, nor uniformed. In accordance with our usual policy, we shall include them in the unit 4 We find that all production and, maintenance employees of the Employers, including janitor and watchmen, but excluding office and clerical employees, salesmen, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, of 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 results of the election held before the hearing show that the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast, and that the challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Accordingly, we shall certify it as the- exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Congress of Industrial Organizations has been designated by a majority of the employees in the unit de- scribed in Section IV, above, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. Mi.. JOHN M. HousTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives. 3 Matter of Inland Steel Company, 73 N L R B 19 4 Matter of J. d L Steel Barrel Company, 68 N L R B . 409; Matter of Marsh Furniture Company, 66 N L. R. B. 133.