Donovan Construction Co.

704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD than others, it is evident from the record that "journeymen brewers" devote a great deal of their time to cleaning equip- ment, and some are regularly assigned to that function alone. It thus appears that the classification of "journeymen brewers" has no real significance as to the skill of the employee so classified. It is, therefore, clear from the foregoing, as well as upon the entire record, that although the duties of the "journeymen brewers" and the other brewery department employees require a different kind of experience or training from the duties of other employees , the degree of experience or training required to attain proficiency in their work is not extensive , and the difference in the skill of these employees as compared to other employees , who the Petitioner contends are not craftsmen, is no greater than that normally found among different classifications of production and maintenance employees ,8 Upon all the facts, we conclude that brewing department employees do not constitute a craft unit or departmental unit of the type the Board has found should be permitted to sever from a larger unit . We shall , therefore , dismiss the petition. Inasmuch as we have found that no question concerning representation exists because the units requested are in- appropriate , we deem it unnecessary to pass uponthe contract- bar contentions of the parties. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 8See Anheuser-Busch, Inc., supra. DONOVAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AND DONOVAN, INC. and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL NO. 12, A. F. of L., Petitioner. Case No . 18-RC- 1907. June 22, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, ahearingwas heldbefore Jack R. Carrier, hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af- firmed. 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 Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds: 1. Donovan, Inc., is a family corporation whose entire stock is owned by George H. and Margaret L. Donovan and their eight children . Donovan, Inc ., in turn owns all the stock of Donovan Construction Company. Both corporations have the same president , vice president, and assistant secretaries. 105 NLRB No. 99 DONOVAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 705 Margaret L. Donovan is secretary of Donovan , Inc., and treasurer of Donovan Construction Company. Donovan, Inc., has 2 contracts with the Department of Defense, 1 to produce shells and another to rehabilitate the plant building housing its production operations (building 501 at the Twin Cities Arsenal , New Brighton, Minnesota ). Donovan Construction Company has subcontracted the rehabilitation work from Donovan , Inc., and is now engaged in that work. The production operations of Donovan , Inc., are in their early stages. All the employees here involved are now on the payroll of Donovan Construction Company, but will be transferred en bloc to the payroll of Donovan , Inc., in the very near future, when the rehabilitation work will be substantially completed. The operations of the 2 corporations are closely interrelated, and all policies , including labor relations , are determined by the aforementioned officers who exercise control over both corporations. Because the employees here involved are not yet on its payroll, Donovan, Inc., contends that it is nota proper party to this proceeding . However, on the basis of the aforementioned facts, which show common ownership and control of operations and labor policies , we find that, for the purposes of this pro- ceeding, Donovan , Inc., and its subsidiary, Donovan Construc- tion Company, constitute a single employer within the mean- ing of Section 2 (2) of the Act.' The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation 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 requests a single unit of office clerical and plant clerical employees ; in the alternative it would repre- sent each category in a separate unit. The Employer contends that a single unit of office and plant clericals is inappropriate but apparently does not oppose separate units of these em- ployees; it further requests that certain employees be excluded as confidential or supervisory employees from any of the units eventually established. The office clericals perform customary office duties in various administrative departments , such as the accounting, purchasing , and property departments, or serve as secretaries to the company officers . There is no dispute that they are entitled to a unit separate from the production employees. The plant clericals here involved are a shipping and receiving clerk, a tool crib clerk , a stockroom supervisor , and two stock- room clerks . The record shows clearly that their work is closely related to that of the production employees , that they work in the production area, that they work different hours from the office clericals and that they are not interchanged 1 American Cable and Radio Corporation , 101 NLRB 1750. 706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with the latter . In accordance with established Board policy, we will not include both office and plant clerical employees in a single bargaining unit, but we shall establish a separate unit for each group! The Employer contends that Frances Berglund , secretary to Cayey, purchasing agent, is a confidential employee. The record does not show that Cayey formulates labor relations policies . Berglund' s asserted confidential status is based on the fact that on occasion she takes dictation from the plant manager, Joslyn, when his secretary, a confidential employee excluded by stipulation, is absent. The record does not show how frequently Berglund substitutes for Joslyn 's secretary nor whether , when so substituting, she handles any labor relations matters . We believe that this evidence is insufficient to warrant a finding that Berglund is a confidential employee within the Board ' s usual definition of the term.' We shall therefore include her in the office clerical unit. The Employer would also exclude Duane Hill as a supervisor. Hill is the shipping and receiving clerk and is now being assisted by a laborer; the helper is not supervised by Hill but by the labor foreman . Hill has no power to hire or discharge his assistant, nor effectively to recommend such action. The Employer intends to assign another permanent assistant to Hill, when production operations have reached the planned peak; however, the extent of Hill's anticipated supervision over a future assistant has not yet been decided . In these circumstances we find that Hill is not a supervisor, and we shall include him in the plant clerical unit. The Employer further contends that James Herbert should be excluded as a supervisor. Herbert is carried on the Em- ployer's records as stockroom supervisor . He assigns two stockroom clerks to their work and regularly directs, in- structs, and advises them. The record shows further that he can effectively recommend the hire, discharge , transfer, promotion, and demotion of these clerks , who have no other immediate supervision. We find that Herbert is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and we shall therefore exclude him. Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: (a) All office clerical employees of the Employer at the Twin Cities Arsenal plant at New Brighton, Minnesota, in- cluding the secretary of the purchasing agent, but excluding professional employees , technical employees, confidential employees , guards , and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) All plant clerical employees of the Employer at the Twin Cities Arsenal plant at New Brighton, Minnesota , including 2 Truscon Steel Company, 88 NLRB 331. $Standard Brands Incorporated, 101 NLRB 1349. SOUTHLAND PAPER MILLS, INC. 707 the shipping and receiving clerk, but excluding professional employees, technical employees, guards, the stockroom super- visor, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] SOUTHLAND PAPER MILLS, INC,' and LODGE 1808 , INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC-1295. June 22, 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 John F. White, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af- firmed.2 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 Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.3 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing unit of production and maintenance employees, a unit of painters, painter helpers, and the painter leaderman. The Intervenor challenges the appropriateness of the unit apparently on the ground that the employees in question do not constitute a skilled group of employees and on the further ground that there is a contrary bargaining history on a broader basis. The Em- ployer takes no position. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of newsprint and paperboard products at its plant in Lufkin, Texas. Since 1940 it has bargained with the Intervenor fora unit of production and maintenance employees including the employees whom the Petitioner seeks to sever. There is no evidence that any labor organization has heretofore sought to represent the painters separately. However, it appears that, as the result of Board- directed self-determination elections in 1945,4 and subsequent iThe correct name of the Employer appears as stated above. 2 At the hearing the Petitioner moved to amend its petition so as to seek certification of a separate and additional unit consisting of the furnace repair and installation man and helper. We find, contrary to the Petitioner's contention, that the hearing officer properly sustained the Intervenor's objection and denied the motion. 3International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, Local 401, was per- mitted to intervene on the basis of its existing contractual interest. 4Southland Paper Mills, Inc., 60 NLRB 63. 105 NLRB No. 107.