National Perishable Inspection Service, Inc.

NATIONAL PERISHABLE INSPECTION SERVICE, INC. 779 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain 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. We find that all bus drivers, and relief drivers employed by the Columbus-Celina Coach Company and the Columbus-Marysville Bus Company excluding mechanics, clerical and office employees, guards, watchmen, 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.] a Although the Petitioner alternatively indicated its willingness to include the mechanics, the parties agree that a unit confined to the drivers is, as the Board has often found, an appropriate one. One of the bus drivers involved herein spends half of his time as a mechanic. He is included in the unit and is eligible to vote. Ocola Star Banner, 97 NLRB 384. NATIONAL PERISHABLE INSPECTION SERVICE, INC., and LODGE 840, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGIIT HAN- DLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-2388. December 28, 19.51 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert S. Fuchs, hear- ing 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- member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is a Massachusetts corporation engaged in the business of inspecting fruits and vegetables shipped to the Boston Market Terminal via railway and truck. During the calendar year 1950, the Employer received over $57,000 in revenue for these serv- ices. The Employer does business with a total of 82 companies, some of which are members or associate members of the Boston Market Terminal, and others independent operators. Subsequent to the hearing the parties stipulated for the record that during the year 1950 the Employer performed services valued at $54,996 for 31 com- panies, each of which annually sells at least $25,000 worth of merchan- 97 NLRB No. 139. 780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dise directly to customers located outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We therefore find, contrary to the Employer's con- tention, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.- 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain 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 a'unit comprising all perishable inspectors, excluding office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, close relatives of officers of the Employer, and all supervisors. The Employer contends that the unit sought is inappropriate on the ground that its perishable, inspectors are professional employees within the meaning of the amended Act. In addition to its president and treasurer, the Employer employs six perishable inspectors. These employees inspect loaded railway cars or trucks for the Employer's customers. They determine the quality and condition of the various perishable products and also inspect the equipment and refrigeration of the carrier. Upon com- pletion of their inspection, their findings are reported to the con- signee. The president of the Employer testified that an employee may become qualified as a perishable inspector after 3 years of on-the-job training. Only the two above officers of the Employer have received college training in their specialty.' While the perish- able inspectors exercise independent judgment and discretion in the performance of their duties, it is clear that they are not professional employees within the meaning of Section 2 (12) of the amended Act. Moreover, the unit requested includes only perishable inspectors similarly trained and performing similar duties. As no union seeks to represent these employees in the same unit with other categories of employees, the Employer's contention is, in any event, without merit. Relatives of management; The Employer would include two em- ployees who are brothers of the president or the Employer. The Petitioner would exclude them. In accordance with the Board's established policy of excluding close relatives of management from bargaining units, we shall exclude Peter and George Bucuvalas? The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : ' Hollow Tree Lumber Co., 91 NLRB 635. 2 Greater Erie Broadcasting Company, 92 NLRB 270. THE FILTRON CO., INC. 781 All perishable inspectors employed at the Employer' s Boston, Massachusetts, place of business, excluding office and clerical em- ployees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume,] THE FILTRON CO., INC. and FILTER WORKERS GROUP, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 2-RC-3605 and 2-RC-3606. December 28,1951 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Lloyd C. Greenidge, 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-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. 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 organizations 2 involved claim to represent certain 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 a unit of all production and maintenance employees, including draftsmen, in Case No. 2-RC-3605, and a unit of all office clerical, secretarial, and accounting employees in Case No. 2-RC-3606. The Intervenor, intervening only in Case No. 2-RC- 3605, agrees with the unit request of the Petitioner, but would exclude the draftsmen from the production and maintenance unit and include them in the office clerical unit. The Employer agrees with the 1 The hearing officer denied the motion of Local 463, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, hereinafter called the Intervenor, to adjourn the hearing for 1 or 2 days until its attorney could be present. The record shows that the Intervenor's business agent participated fully in the proceeding, examined and cross -examined witnesses, and was afforded full opportunity to introduce evidence . Under these circumstances, and in view of two previous postponements of the hearing, one at the request of the Intervenor, we find that the hearing officer's refusal to adjourn the hearing was not an abuse of his discretion, and we hereby affirm the ruling. 2 The record shows that both the Petitioner and the Intervenor exist for the purpose of engaging in collective bargaining on matters of wages, hours, and working conditions of employment and that each admits to membership employees of the Employer. Accord- ingly, we find that the Petitioner and the Intervenor are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. Peerless X-ray Laboratories Manufacturing Corp., 89 NLRB 1432; R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 88 NLRB 600. 97 NLRB No. 140.