The Coleman Co., Inc.

THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC. 667 desk in the store building. Five service men, headquartered at the store building, work at both locations and in customers' homes. A furniture refinisher, assigned to the warehouse, likewise works at both locations and in customers' homes. Temporary assignments and trans- fers from one location to the other are frequently made. Personnel matters for all employees are handled by one office located in the store building. The same vacation and holiday policy, hospitalization benefits, profit-sharing plan, and discount privileges apply alike to all employees. All new employees are hired under the same procedure and are subjected to the same training program. In view of the foregoing, particularly the integration between the warehouse activities and the store, the similarity of functions per- formed at both locations, the mutuality of interests of all the employees in the terms and conditions of employment, we find that the requested unit is too limited to constitute a separate appropriate unit .3 Accord- ingly, we shall dismiss the petition. . Order IT Is HEREBY oRZrnRm that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. a Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Company, 99 NLRB 380 and 80 NLRB 1442 ; Miller and Rhoads, 86 NLRB 625 ; Marshall Field & Company, 90 NLRB 1 ; J. L. Brandeis & Sons, 82 NLRB 806. THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC. and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER. Case No. 17-RC-1330. December 1, 1952 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before David Kruger, 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 [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 organizations involved claim 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. 101 NLRB No. 123. 668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of lithographic production employees at the Employer's Wichita, Kansas, nonelectrical home-heating ap- paratus manufacturing plant, excluding all other employees and su- pervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer and National Inde- pendent Union Council, Independent Appliance Workers' Union, the Intervenor herein, contend that the appropriate unit for these em- ployees is a unit of the Employer's printing shop employees, including lithographic production employees, but excluding supervisors as de- fined in the Act. The printing department at the Employer's plant prepares ad- vertising material and displays for the Employer's own products exclusively. Of the 11 persons employed in the printing department, 3 are lithographic production employees who, although they fre- quently spend minor portions of their time in the performance of printing work other than lithography, are primarily responsible for the operation of the Employer's lithographic machines, including 2 multilith presses and a Webb offset press. Except in emergencies, no other printing department employees operate these machines. Printing department employees other than lithographic production employees include a duplicating machines operator, a bindery girl, 2 veritypists, and 3 artists, the latter engaged in the production of mechanical and engineering drawings and layout. The employees in this department work separate and apart from the production and maintenance employees and are separately supervised. Since 1948, the Intervenor has bargained with the Employer for production and maintenance employees, and all printing department employees have been excluded from their bargaining unit. Under these circumstances, we shall hold separate elections for lithographic production employees and other employees in the print- ing department. The parties disagree respecting the status of Floyd Ashley, Harold Eaton, and Neva Hood. Ashley performs some lithographic produc- tion work, but spends 60 percent of his time managing the printing department in the absence of the sales production manager, and can effectively recommend wage increases and transfers outside the print- ing department. We find, contrary to the Petitioner's contention; that Ashley is a supervisor as defined in the Act, and we shall there- fore exclude him from participation in both elections herein directed. Eaton, a lithographic production employee, is responsible for the work performed on his machine whenever it is occasionally operated on a multishift basis. For sporadic periods totaling 30 days in a year, his is in charge of the printing department in the absence of the sales production manager and Ashley. - We find, contrary to the • Em= ployer's contention, that Eaton is not-a supervisor; but rather a: tnoro MARS OIL COMPANY 669 experienced employee engaged in routine direction, and as such, eligible to participate in the election for lithographic production em- ployees herein directed. Hood, in charge of the bindery, spends 65 percent of her time in bindery work and the remainder in the opera- tion of the bindery, including work assignments to, and the instruction of, 2 to 15 bindery employees; she also recommends the hire and dis- charge of employees, and her recommendations, although separately investigated, are generally followed. We find, contrary to the In- tervenor's contention, that Hood is a supervisor as defined in the Act, and therefore not eligible to vote in the elections for printing depart- ment employees herein directed. The following employees constitute the voting groups : (a) All lithographic production employees, including Harold Eaton, but excluding Floyd Ashley and other supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) All printing department employees, excluding lithographic production employees and Neva Hood, Floyd Ashley, and other super- visors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con- stitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director is in- structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for that unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds appro- priate." If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) and a majority of employees in voting group (b) vote for the Intervenor, the Regional Director is directed to issue a certification of representa- tives to the Intervenor for a unit which includes the employees in both voting groups and which the Board, under such circumstances, finds appropriate. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] I Danner Pree8 of Canton, Inc., 91 NLRB 237. MARS OIL COMPANY AND LUNAR OIL _ COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 30-RC-739, and SO-RC-750. December 1, 1952 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives On June 13, 1952, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of `Electic n' issued by the Board herein on May 26, 1952,1 an election by secret ' Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions. 101 NLRB No. 134.