J. C. Hirschman Co., Inc.

J. C. HIRSCHMAN COMPANY, INC. 529 in each group select the Intervenors,' or if a majority of the employees in one group select the Petitioner and a majority of the employees in the other group select the Intervenors, or if a majority of the employees in only one of the groups select a labor organization , the employees in each group which selects a labor organization will be deemed to have indicated their desire to be a separate bargaining unit, which the Board in such circumstances finds appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and the Regional Director conducting the elections is instructed to issue a certification of repre- sentatives to the labor organization or organizations selected by the employees in the voting group or groups. If a majority of the employees in either or both voting groups do not select a labor organization , the Regional Director conducting the elections is instructed to issue a certification of results of election with respect to such group or groups. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 8As the Intervenors did not indicate how they wish to appear on the ballot, and as the record is not clear regarding which group each Local seeks, we shall place the Intervenor Locals jointly on the ballots for both groups. Upon prompt request , the Regional Director is authorized to change the designations of the Intervenors on the ballots. J. C. HIRSCHMAN COMPANY, INC.' and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 193, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-911. July 30, 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 Robert Volger, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing 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, Styles, and Peter- son]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The Employer and the Intervenor, Local 169, Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that: (1) The unit sought is inappropriate; (2) their contract which extends to September 13, 1952, and is 1The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 106 NLRB No. 82. 530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD automatically renewable thereafter for yearly periods, subject to a 60-day notice clause, is abar; (3) the Petitioner's showing of interest is not timely or adequate; and (4) the employees sought no longer wish to be represented by the Petitioner or be in a separate unit. The hearing officer refused to receive evidence bearing on the issues raised by the third and fourth grounds of the motion, and the Employer and the Intervenor excepted to his rulings. As to the first ground, we find for the reason fully s,.1 forth in paragraph numbered 4, infra, that the unit sought may be ap- propriate. With regard to the second ground, as the petition was filed within a reasonable time before the Mill B date of the existing contract, we find it was timely filed and that the con- tract is not a bar.2 With respect to the third ground, a showing of interest is an administrative matter not litigable by the parties. 3 The Board is administratively satisfied with the Petitioner's interest showing in this case. With regard to the final ground, the employees' preferences concerning the unit they wish to be in and the bargaining agent they wish to repre- sent them can best be determined by a secret election.4 The motion is therefore denied, and the exceptions are overruled. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concern- ing 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 seeks to sever a unit of four truckdrivers from a production and maintenance unit inexistence since 1937 at the Employer's Indianapolis, Indiana, furniture plant. The Intervenor and the Employer contend that the unit sought is in- appropriate because of the bargaining history on a more compre - hensive basis, and because the requested employees are an integral part of the larger unit and workunder the same condi- tions as the other employees in that unit. Of the Employer's 4 truckdrivers, 1, who is administratively assigned to the felt department, spends about 90 percent of his time in o, er-the-road driving, and the remainder of his time in loading and unloading his truck. The other 3 drivers, who are administratively assigned to the mattress department, spend from 50-70 percent of their time intruckdriving, some of which includes over-the-road driving, and the rest of their time in assisting other employees load and unload their own and sup- pliers' trucks, hauling trash, and doing production work. Al- though they have no common supervisor and are on separate departmental seniority lists, the employees sought are the only ones in the plant who are designated as truckdrivers and drive ZLewis Engineering & Manufacturing Company, 100 NLRB '_353. The Petitioner contended that the contract is not a bar because it contains an illegal union- security clause. In view of our determination of the contract-bar issue, supra, the legality of the union- security clause need not also be considered. 3Arrow Candy Co., Inc., 100 NLRB 573. 4East Coast Fisheries , Inc., 97 NLRB 1261. SEATTLE DOOR COMPANY, INC. 531 trucks.' Also, while they receive the same benefits and the same average pay as the other employees, and generally share the same working conditions, their hours are variable, e. g., the felt driver starts work late in the morning if he worked late the previous day, and the other drivers con. in late if they know their trucks will not be loaded until after the usual starting time. We are of the opinion that the Employer's truckdrivers are a homogeneous and identifiable group, analogous to those whom the Board has previously held may be a separate bargaining unit, if they desire, despite a bargaining history on a broader basis. 6 They may, of course, remain part of the more compre- hensive production and maintenance unit, if they wish. We shall therefore direct an election in the following voting group: All truckdrivers at the Employer's Indianapolis, Indiana, plant, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in this group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indi- cated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit, which the Board under such circumstances finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. In the event that a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Member Peterson, dissenting: In view of the collective-bargaining history on a plantwide basis since 1937, and in the absence of any other factors war- ranting their severance from the established unit,? I would not accord the truckdrivers separate representation. 5 One of the mattress drivers recently served as a replacement for a shipping department employee on leave from the plant, but in the interim a replacement truck had to be leased by the Employer to do that driver's work, and when the absent employee returned to work the driver returned to his usual assignment. 6General Box Company. 93 NLRB 789. The decisions relied upon by the Employer in its brief are clearly distinguishable on their facts. TSee my dissenting opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627. SEATTLE DOOR COMPANY, INC. and LOCAL 193, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 19-RC-1321. July 31, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Donald D. 106 NLRB No. 91. 322615 0 - 54 - 35