Andrews Co.

ANDREWS COMPANY 11 it does not permit a 30-day escape period for (1) employees who be- come members of the Intervenor after the contract became effective or (2) employees who were members of the Intervenor when the contract became effective. The contract contains the following union-security provisions : All employees who, on May 16, 1950, are members of the Union in good standing in accordance with its constitution and by-laws, and all employees who voluntarily become members after that date, shall, as a condition of employment, maintain their member- ship in the Union through the prompt payment of dues, for the duration of this contract. We find this contention without merit. The contract does not re- quire any employees to become members of the Intervenor.' For reasons set forth in the Charles A. Krause case," the fact that the con- tract contains no 30-day escape clause for old employees who were members on the effective date of the maintenance-of-membership clause is not material to the validity of the contract as a bar. We find that the existing contract between the Employer and the Intervenor is a bar to the petition herein. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed by United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO, be, and it hereby is, dis- missed. MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 7 Southland Paper Mills, Inc., 97 NLRB 896. 8 Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536. ANDREWS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 19-RC--1611. February 7, 1952 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 Charles M. Paschal, Jr., 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, Murdock, and Styles]. 98 NLRB No. 16. 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 seeks to represent a unit 1 composed of all pro- duction and maintenance employees and shipping and receiving em- ployees at the Employer's bearing shop plant in Spartanburg, South Carolina, excluding all office, clerical, professional, and technical employees, guards or watchmen, salesmen, all employees employed on a retainer basis, all supervisors as defined in the Act, and all em- ployees employed at the Employer's reed and textile specialty shop. In the alternative, if the Board finds such a single-plant unit in- appropriate, the Petitioner is willing to represent a two-plant unit consisting of the bearing shop plant and the reed and textile specialty shop. The Employer contends in its brief that only a unit embracing both plants is appropriate. There is no history of collective bargaining affecting the employees involved herein. As indicated above, the Employer has two manufacturing plants which are located about 100 feet apart in Spartanburg, South Carolina. One plant, herein called the bearing plant, is engaged primarily in the production of ball bearings. The other plant, herein called the reed" shop, produces reeds and other textile accessories 2 The Employer maintains a• single office at the bearing plant where all personnel matters are handled. A single payroll and other rec- ords are kept at this office for both plants. All employees have the same general working conditions and enjoy similar benefits. Although each plant has its own departmental foremen, they are responsible to the Employer's manager , assistant manager, and superintendent, who have over-all supervision of both plants. Part of the reed shop and a separate warehouse are used for the storage of materials for all operations of the Employer 3 Both plants are also served by the high pressure boiler in another building of the Employer which supplies heat and power. The making of boxes in which all of the Employer's finished products are packaged takes place in the reed shop, while the shipment of these products is the responsibility of the shipping and receiving department in the bearing 1 The description of the unit sought by the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing. 2 At the time of the hearing in this case, the Employer was negotiating the sale of the reed shop and- was contemplating an addition to the bearing plant to house the functions carried on in-the reed shop. s However, some sections of the warehouse are rented to another company. ANDREWS COMPANY 13 plant. Most of the welding jobs and the other machine work for both plants are done at the bearing plant . The reed shop in turn performs certain processes such as soldering on some of the items produced in the bearing plant . There is considerable interchange of maintenance men and laborers who work wherever they are needed. In view of the foregoing, particularly the integration of operations, close proximity of both plants , centralized administration , common supervision, and the community of employee interests, we find that a unit covering both plants and the boiler building is appropriate' As we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner has an ade- quate showing of interest in the broader unit which it is willing to represent, we shall not dismiss the petition but shall direct an election in this unit. There remains for consideration the unit placement of certain individuals whom the Employer would include and the Petitioner would exclude. Betty Lawrence: b This employee, a stenographer in the Employer's office, also spends 2 or 3 hours a day in the receiving and shipping department making out express and freight receipts . As she works regularly in the capacity of a part-time plant clerical which is within the ambit of the unit, Betty Lawrence is entitled to representation as to such work, although she devotes the greater part of her day to office clerical duties." Accordingly, we shall include her in the unit.7 Jack Lussardi, a pensioner, is regularly paid by the Employer whether he works or not. As a "privileged character" he may stay home at any time if he so chooses. And although he performs some specific tasks upon the request of the manager, he is generally free to work or "sit outside in the shade " all day. As it is clear that Lussardi does not have a substantial interest in the conditions of employment within the unit, we shall exclude him .8 J. R. Harrison and L. D. Proffitt: Harrison, who also has a job with another employer, maintains the Employer 's boilers whenever such work is required . Similarly, Proffitt is called in periodically to direct a crew of the Employer's laborers in special construction and 4 Phillips-Jones Corporation, 96 NLRB 153; Pine Hall Brick and Pipe Company, 93 NLRB 362; Hass Wholesale Inc, 92 NLRB 408. There are no employees attached to the warehouse 6 The Employer's brief refers to one Edna McCraw instead of Betty Lawrence. It is clear from the job description contained in the record and the brief that this substitution of names is the result of an inadvertence on the part of the Employer . The record shows that one Edna McCraw is an office employee and therefore is excluded, in any event, from the unit. 6 WWEZ Radio, Inc., 91 NLRB 1518; Harms Hosiery Co , Inc , 91 NLRB 330. ° We also find in view of the fact that she works a substantial number of hours each week in the appropriate unit that she has a sufficient interest in the terms and conditions of employment within the unit to entitle her to vote. The Ocala Star Banner, 95 NLRB 569. 8 Jasper Wood Products Company, Inc., 66 NLRB 333. Cf. Acme Lumber and Supply Co., 79 NLRB 429. 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" 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. 11 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 panel [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, t (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: 98 NLRB No. 9.