United States Warehouse Co.

14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD building maintenance jobs. The Petitioner contends that Harrison and Proffitt, who are both paid on a retainer basis, are independent contractors and that the latter should, in any event, be excluded from the unit as a supervisor. As the record is not clear whether they are independent contractors or whether Proffitt is a supervisor, we shall permit Harrison and Proffitt to vote subject to challenge. We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees 9 and shipping and re- ceiving employees, including part-time plant clerical employees 10 at the Employer's bearing shop, and reed and textile specialty shop and -the boiler building in Spartanburg, South Carolina, but excluding all office, clerical, professional, technical employees, salesmen, guards, and all supervisors 11 as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 9 See discussion , supra, as to J. R. Harrison and L D. Proffitt. 10 Betty Lawrence. "The parties agree, and we find, that the departmental foremen in both plants are supervisors. They are therefore excluded from the unit. UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, LOCAL 32, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-1515. February 8, 1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William M. Otter, 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 panol [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock 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 involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section, 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: 98 NLRB No. 9. UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE COMPANY 15 The Petitioner seeks certification as bargaining representative of a unit of refrigeration employees at the Employer's dry and cold storage warehouse in Detroit, Michigan. The Employer and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 547, AFL, the Inter- venor herein, contend that a contract between them covering employees in the proposed unit, effective to June 1, 1952, is a bar to a determina- tion of representatives at this time, and urge that past bargaining his- tory on a more comprehensive basis for employees of the Employer and other storage companies in the Detroit area precludes a unit limited to the Employer's employees at this time. The Employer is a member of Michigan Warehousemen's Associa- tion, herein called the Association. In 1941, the Association and the Intervenor began bargaining -for warehouse and refrigeration em- ployees employed by employer members of the Association. Until 1946 representatives of the individual members of the Association participated directly in the bargaining negotiations with the Inter- venor. Since that time representatives of the Intervenor and William J. Lamping, secretary of the Association, acting as bargaining repre- sentative for employer members as a group, have conducted the bar- gaining negotiations for employees of all association members. Over the years the bargaining negotiations have resulted in separate, but substantially identical, contracts, in which all the usual subjects of collective bargaining were covered for each of the employer-members of the Association. These contracts vary in a few minor details, such as the description and type of skilled employees covered, the expira- tion dates, and the union-security clause. In the light of the over- all and basic matters determined by the Association's bargaining on behalf of its members, however, these variations are relatively in- significant.' On the basis of this bargaining history, we are of the opinion that, by bargaining through the Association, the Employer has evidenced an intention to be bound by group, rather than by individual, action. We believe that a unit limited to refrigeration employees at the Em- ployer's plant is, under these circumstances, inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining at this time.2 We shall, therefore, dismiss the instant petition. Order IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and, it hereby is, dismissed. 1 Furniture Employers' Council of Southern California , Inc., et al., 96 NLRB 1002. z Furniture Employers' Council of Southern California, Inc., et al , supra; Abbotts Dairies, Inc., et al., 97 NLRB 1064, and cases cited therein . We find it unnecessary , therefore, to rule on the contention with respect to contract bar.