D.M. Steward Manufacturing Co.

D. M. STEWARD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 461 specific territory established by the milk superintendent or the sales manager, using the Employer's trucks and equipment in making sales and deliveries.4 From the foregoing it would appear that the routemen comprise a homogeneous group and that a unit made up of these employees is, prima facie, an appropriate unit .5 The Employer contends, how- ever, that the wholesale and retail milk routemen are supervisors and should therefore be excluded from the unite The helpers, who are high school students and work intermittently part time, assist the milk routemen,in carrying out their duties and responsibilities as regards the services the routemen perform for the Employer. The direction by the milk routemen of the simple activities of their helpers is routine in character and, in our opinion, does not exceed that of a skilled craftsman with respect to a helper working under his direction. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the milk route- men are not supervisors of other employees within the meaning and intendment of the Act.7 We find that all wholesale and retail milk routemen, relief milk routemen, milk route helpers, and ice cream routemen employed at the Employer's Macon, Georgia, and Albany, Georgia, plants, ex- cluding all clerical and professional employees, watchmen or guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election 8 omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 From these facts it is evident that the routemen are not independent contractors. Rockford Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 81 NLRB 579; Puerto Rico Dairy, Inc., 99 NLRB 101& 5 Carnation Company of Texas, 78 NLRB 519; Rockford Coca-Cola Bottling Company, supra , Terre Haute Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 100 NLRB 435. 8 The Petitioner contends that the reliefinen are supervisors However, the record fails to support this contention . The ice cream routemen do not have helpers, although they are authorized to have them on the same basis as the milk routemen 7 Atlantic Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 83 NLRB 1871 ; United States Gypsum Company, 81 NLRB 182 , 184; cf. Roanoke Coca-Cola Bottlsng Works, Inc., 72 NLRB 733. 8 Because the turnover of milk route helpers is approximately 25, percent every 30 days, and because very few helpers have remained in the Employer 's employ for more than 3 months, we find that they do not possess sufficient interest to participate in the voting. D. M. STEWARD MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA , AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-0119. January 21, 1953 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 Frank E. Hamilton, 102 NLRB No. 44. 462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 appropriate unit : In its petition the Petitioner described the unit sought as : All pro- duction and maintenance employees excluding all employees in the machine shop, including tool and die makers, machinists, and their apprentices and regular helpers,2 all office and clerical employees, and all guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. It is clear from the record, however, that the Petitioner does not wish to exclude factory clerical employees, but on the contrary desires to represent them as part of the production and maintenance unit it seeks. The term "office and clerical employees" has customarily been used by the Board and its agents in appropriate unit descriptions to identify plant clerical employees together with office clerical employees.3 Oc- casionally, however, it has been brought to the Board's attention that, as in this case, not all the parties involved in representation proceed- ings before the Board have construed the term "office and clerical employees" to encompass plant clerical employees. To avoid any possible ambiguity or misunderstanding, in deciding cases docketed in the Regional Offices after the issuance of this Decision, the Board will discontinue the use of the combined term "office and clerical em- ployees." In its place the Board will use two separate terms : "Office clerical employees" to denote those employees, and "plant clerical em- ployees" to refer to that category. The parties agree with respect to the general composition of the unit sought, but disagree as to whether or not certain job classifica- tions pertain to plant clerical jobs. Checkers : There are two employees in this classification whom the Petitioner would exclude as office clerical employees and who the Employer contends are plant clerical employees. These hourly paid 'Local 840, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, whose contract covering the employees involved in this proceeding has expired, was served with notice of hearing but made no appearance at the hearing. 2 The machine shop employees are represented by Success Lodge No. 56, International Association of Machinists. 3 Kendall Reining Company, 71 NLRB 306. D. M. STEWARD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 463 employees, who are under the supervision of the machining depart- ment supervisors, spend from 60 percent to 75 percent of their time at desks located in an area of the plant where the foremen's desks are. The remainder of their time is spent elsewhere in the plant. They distribute copies of orders to the appropriate machine setters, collect these orders when the job is finished, upon request ascertain and report on the progress of certain orders, do some inspection work if the inspectors fall behind, and send in daily absentee reports to the production and control department. Production and control clerk and production clerk: There is one employee in each of these classifications, and they appear to perform the same work. The Petitioner would exclude them as office clericals. Although they are salaried employees and are assigned to the pro- duction control department in the general office, they spend about 50 percent of their time out in the plant. They file incoming orders, see that the orders are typed correctly on the production forms and that they are distributed to the proper department, and run periodic checks on certain orders so that the customers may be informed of promised delivery dates. Engineering clerk: There is one employee in this category, whom the Petitioner would include and who the Employer contends is in the same position as the other disputed categories. This employee is hourly paid and is supervised by, and located in the office of, the chief of tool and die work in the general office. She does some filing for the engineering department, runs off blueprints and photostats, checks the arithmetic on the blueprints, and makes inspections of samples. Some of the employees in the disputed classifications are assigned desks in the general office which is in an enclosed area of the plant, and some are assigned to desks located on the production floor. Three of them are hourly paid, and two are salaried. Despite these differ- ences, the employees do the clerical work in connection with manu- facturing operations carried on in the plant. We believe that these factory employees have a greater community of interest with the production and maintenance employees, and in accordance with estab- lished policy therefore include them in the unit 4 We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant at Chattanooga, Tennessee, and factory clerical employees including checkers, production and control clerks, produc- tion clerks, engineering clerks, stockroom clerks,' and laboratory tech- * National Cash Register Company, 95 NLRB 27, and Louisville Transit Company, 94 NLRB 20. 6 The operation of a small company-owned canteen for one-half hour each day is merely incidental to this employee' s duties which are those customarily performed by a stockroom clerk. 464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nicians,s but excluding all employees in the machine shop, including tool and die makers, machinists, and their apprentices and regular helpers, the shipping clerk,' all office clerical employees, and all guards,. professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, con- stitute 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.] 6 There are two employees in this classification . One performs chemical, and the other, electrical tests on the Employer 's products. These tests are essentially routine, and we find that the laboratory technicians are neither professional nor technical employees, and, accordingly, we shall include them in the unit. 7 The parties agree, and we find, that the shipping clerk is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. DARLING RETAIL SHOPS CORP. and LOCAL 692, RETAIL CLERKS' INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 5-RC-1172. January 91, 1953 Decision and Certification of Representative Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election entered into on October 14, 1952, by the Darling Retail Shops Corp.,. herein referred to as the Company, and Local 692, Retail Clerks' International Association, AFL, herein referred to as the Union, a secret ballot election was conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director on November 1, 1952. Thereafter a tally of ballots was furnished the parties, revealing that of approximately 7 eligible voters, 6 valid ballots were cast. Of the valid ballots cast, 4 were for and 2 against the Union, and none was challenged. Timely objections to the conduct of the election were subsequently filed by the Company on November 6, 1952. In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on December 4, 1952, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections to the election. In his report, the Regional Director found that the Company's objections raised no substantial or materialtissues which would justify setting aside the election, and recommended that the objections be overruled, and that the Union be certified as the exclusive representative for all employees in the unit defined in the stipulation for certification upon consent election within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act. On December 12, 1952, the Company filed exceptions to the Regional Director's determinations as to the objections. 102 NLRB No. 42.