Mack Motor Truck Corp.

618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and does not extend its protection to him It will accordingly be recommended that the com- plaint be dismissed in its entirety $ Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following- CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The operations of Respondent Company, Claremont Development Co., affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 2. Respondent Unions, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 12, A. F. of L , and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 36, A. F. of L , are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. Respondent Company, Claremont Development Co., has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. 4. Respondent Unions, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 12, A. F. of L., and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 36, A. F. of L , have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication ] sAlthough the complaint did attack the contractual relationship between Respondent Com- pany and Respondent Unions on a broad basis, the only evidence presented related to the case of Peters. There is therefore no evidence before me with respect to an unlawful hiring arrangement insofar as it applied to employees under the Act. MACK MOTOR TRUCK CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICUL- TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Peti- tioner . Case No. 11 -RC-533. August 6, 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 Cohn, 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 Styles] . 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 organization involved claims to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 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, which was certified after a consent election in May 1953 as the bargaining agent of all mechanics, mechanics' helpers, and drivers at the Employer's Charlotte, 106 NLRB No. 99. MACK MOTOR TRUCK CORPORATION 619 North Carolina , branch ,' now seeks to represent the parts and stockroom employees , shipping clerk, porters , and maid, who were excluded from the unit by agreement of the parties. The Employer moves the dismissal of the petition on the grounds that ( 1) the Petitioner is barred by the consent -election agree- ment in the earlier case from petitioning herein for the ex- cluded classifications ; ( 2) the porters and the maid have dif- ferent interests from those of the other employees presently sought by the Petitioner ; and (3 ) the employees in the requested unit are not interested in having a bargaining representative and constitute too small a group to require one. We find no merit in these contentions and hereby deny the Employer's motion. As noted above, the Employer has a service department of about 40 employees which is already represented by the Peti- tioner . The Employer ' s operations also include a separately supervised stockroom with a shipping clerk and 4 parts and stockroom employees whose duties consist of ordering and stocking parts which they sell to customers or furnish to the service department . There are 2 porters who are responsible to the service department supervisor and perform such tasks as running errands and cleaning up. One is assigned exclusively to the service department , while the other divides his time equally between the service department and the stockroom where he helps pack parts for shipment. The maid works 3? to 4 hours each day doing cleaning work in the office and showroom principally under the supervision of the office manager and the assistant district manager. From the foregoing it is clear that the employees sought by the Petitioner constitute a residual group who have been ex- cluded from the service department unit currently represented by the Petitioner . The Board has held in a number of cases 2 that employees of this type may be represented in the same unit with service department employees . We shall therefore direct an election to determine whether the residual group of employees sought by the Petitioner desire to be added to the Petitioner ' s existing service department unit. Although the maid works in and about the office , we find that her interests are more closely allied with those of the stockroom and service employees than those of the excluded office clerical group. 3 There remains for consideration the supervisory status of the assistant stockroom supervisor or seniorpartsclerkwhom the Employer would exclude as a supervisor within the meaning of the Act . The Petitioner takes no definite position on this issue. The individual in question trains new employees but spends most of his time doing the same work as the other stock- 'Case No. 11-RC-529. 20. Z. Hall Motors , Inc., 94 NLRB 1180 ; Hanna Motor Company, 94 NLRB 105. 3 The William Schluderberg- T J Kurdle Co., 93 NLRB 1572. 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD room employees . It is not clear from the record whether he effectively recommends the hiring and discharge of employees or possesses other supervisory authority. We shall therefore permit the assistant stockroom supervisor to vote subject to challenge. Accordingly, the voting group shall consist of all parts and stockroom employees , shipping clerk, porters, and maid at the Employer's Charlotte, North Carolina, branch, excluding office clerical employees, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees vote for the Petitioner, they will be included in the unit of the Employer' s employees pre- sently represented by the Petitioner. The Regional Director conducting the election is directed to issue a certification of results of election in accord with the foregoing. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] HADLEY MANUFACTURING CORP. and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-512 . August 6, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On May 5, 1953, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on April 21, 1953,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region among the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Upon the conclusion of the election , the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which showed that of 81 votes cast, 51 were for and 28 against the Petitioner , and 2 were challenged. There were no void ballots. On May 8, 1953, the Employer filed objections to conduct whichitallegedinterfered with the election. After an investigation , the Regional Director, on June 26, 1953, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections , finding the objections to be without merit and recommending that they be overruled and that the Petitioner be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit . The Employer timely filed exceptions to the Regional Director ' s report and a supporting brief. The Employer 's exceptions are limited to the Regional Direc- tor's disposition of the objection in which it contended that the election should be set aside because of improper conduct of an 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions. 106 NLRB No. 101.