Daystrom, Inc.

DAYSTROM FURNITURE DIVISION 343 All our employees are free to become or remain , or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named union or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. COTTMAN BUILDERS SUPPLY CO., INC., Employer. Dated -------------------- By ----------------------------------------- .(Representative ) .(Title)- This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Appendix B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF GENERAL TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS , HELPERS AND YARDMEN LOCAL UNION No. 470, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BuoTHERHooD or TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, we here notify you that : WE WILL NOT restrain or corece employees of COTTMAN BUILDERS SUPPLY Co., INC., their successors or assigns, in the exercise of their right to engage in or to refrain from any or all of the concerted activities guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment, as authorized by Section 8 (3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any manner cause or attempt to cause the above-named employers, their officers, agents, successors, or assigns, to discriminate against their employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL make Joseph Keresty, Jr., whole for any loss of pay suffered because of the discrimination against him. GENERAL TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS AND YARDMEN LOCAL UNION No. 470, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN , AND HELPERS 08' AMERICA, AFL, LABOR ORGANIZATION. Da.ted-------------------- By ------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. DAYSTROM_ FURNITURE DIVISION, DAYSTROM, INC. and DAYSTROM IN- DUSTRIAL INDEPENDENT UNION, INC., PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC- 1062. November 18,1962 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 Thomas H. Ramsey, hearing 101 • NLRB No. 92. 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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-mem- ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. 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 add eight timekeepers to its existing unit of production employees at the Employer's Olean, New York, furniture manufacturing plant.' In the alternative, the Petitioner seeks a separate unit of these timekeepers. The Employer contends that the proposed unit is too small and should include other office salaried clerical employees and the timekeeper at the Employer's Friendship, New York, plant. The Olean timekeepers work under the immediate supervision of the plant accountant, who is located in the main office of the Olean plant, and perform the usual duties of employees in this classification. They are responsible for keeping records of the daily hours of em- ployees, as taken from their time cards, and for keeping production time and down-time of the workers in specified departments, so that the accounting office can properly compute employees' pay and produc- tion costs. Although the timekeepers are salary paid and on the office payroll and enjoy common sick leave and' vacation benefits with the office employees, they perform their duties in the production areas of the plant, work the same schedule as the production em- ployees, and are in constant contact with the hourly paid production employees and their foreman. Although the timekeepers are paid on a salary rather than an hourly basis, and their line of supervisory authority runs to a different hierarchy from that which supervises the production employees, these factors do not necessarily ;differentiate them from the production employees with whom they work and have other common interests.3 1 The Employer 's and Petitioner 's names appear in the caption as amended at the hearing. Since about 1940 the Petitioner has been the exclusive bargaining representative of the production employees at the Olean plant. The Employer and Petitioner executed a collective-bargaining agreement on February 29, 1952, covering all the Employer 's hourly paid production employees at the Olean plant, excluding the timekeepers, office employees, foremen , guards, supervisors , and salaried employees. This contract is effective to Feb- ruary 28, 1954, and automatically renewable yearly thereafter. 3 H & B American Machine Co ., 97 NLRB 9, and cases cited therein. DAYSTROM FURNITURE DIVISION 345 From the foregoing facts, it is clear that the timekeepers are plant clericals whose interests are closely allied with those of production employees and who may properly be included in the same unit. We shall, therefore, hold an election among the timekeepers. If a majority of them vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the production unit currently represented by the Petitioner, and the Petitioner may bargain for such employees as part of the existing Unit .4 Otherwise, we shall dismiss the petition. The parties agree that Catherine Gilray, who spends approximately half her time as a timekeeper and the remainder as an office clerk to the plant superintendent, is a timekeeper, and is to be included in the voting group. The parties disagree with respect to the inclusion of the roving timekeeper at the Olean plant and the timekeeper at the Friendship plant in the voting group. The Employer would include and the Petitioner would exclude them. The roving timekeeper is paid at a slightly higher salary rate than other timekeepers. His principal duties are to substitute for and assist regular timekeepers when they are absent from work or are especially busy. He conveys instructions from the plant accountant to the timekeepers. He has no authority to hire or discharge a time- keeper or any other employee. Any recommendations he may make in regard to hire, discharge, or discipline are subject to independent investigation and final action by the plant accountant. Under all these circumstances, we conclude, contrary to the Petitioner's conten- tion, that the roving timekeeper at the Olean plant is not a supervisor as defined in the Act,5 and we shall include him in the voting group. The Employer's Friendship, New York, plant is located 20 miles from the Olean plant and employs one timekeeper. Although this timekeeper performs the same type of duties and enjoys the same leave benefits as the Olean timekeepers, he is paid at a lower salary rate than they; he does not interchange with them; and he is under separate supervision. The Petitioner has never bargained and does not bargain at present for any employees at the Friendship plant. In view of the separate location of the Friendship plant, lack of employe interchange on the part of the timekeepers, sep- arate supervision, and the absence of any history of bargaining on a two-plant basis, we restrict the voting group of timekeepers to those at the Olean plant .6 The following employees constitute the voting group : All time- keepers at the Employer's Olean, New York, plant, including Gilray 4 H & B American Machine Co., supra. 5 Wm. Cameron & Co., Inc., 98 NLRB 969. E See George Aftergood & Son d/b/a Calivogue Sportswear, 96 NLRB 228; The McKay Machine Company, 93 NLRB 822. 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and the roving timekeeper, but excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] DISTRICT No. 9, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, A. F. L. and ANHEUSER-BUSH, INC. Case No. 14-OD-27. November 18, 1952 Decision and Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro- vides that "whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D) of section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and deter- mine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen ...." On April 8,1952, Anheuser-Busch, Inc., herein called the Employer, filed with the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region a charge alleging that District No. 9, International Association of Machinists, A. F. L., herein called the IAM, has engaged in and is engaging in certain activities proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act by "... inducing and encouraging the employees of Anheuser-Busch, Inc., ... to engage in a strike . . . with the object and purpose of forcing and requiring Anheuser-Busch, Inc., and those contracting with it for the purpose of performing construction work, to assign, and to cause to be assigned, particular work to employees who are members of and represented by said District No. 9, International Asso- ciation of Machinists, rather than to employees, members of and represented by other labor organizations...." Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act and applicable sections of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the charge and provided for a hearing upon due notice to all the parties. The hearing was held on July 9 and 10, 1952, before Harry G. Carlson, hearing officer of the Board. All parties appeared 1 The relevant portions of Section 8 of the Act are as follows : (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or agents- ( 4) .. . to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in, a strike . . . where an object thereof is:.. . (D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade, craft , or class rather than to employees in another labor organization or in another trade, craft , or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work. . . . 101 NLRB No. 87.