National Cylinder Gas Co.

768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hire or -fire or effectively to recommend such action. The record does not permit a finding that the lead man responsibly directs the work of the warehouse employees in a- manner which requires the use of independent judgment. We are satisfied on the record as a whole that the lead man does not possess supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act, and we shall, therefore, include him in the unit .s We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining : All pro- duction and maintenance employees, including timekeepers and the shipping and receiving lead man but excluding office clerical em- ployees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Employer expects to increase the number of its employees from approximately 180, the number employed at the time of the hearing, April 29, 1952, to approximately 270 employees by the end of the year. It also expects to add 3 new job classifications to its present number of 19. As the record discloses that the present com- plement is a representative and substantial segment of the working force ultimately to be employed, we shall direct that an election be conducted within the customary period.7 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] E George If. Knight, at al, d/b/a Geo. Knight h Co., 93 NLRB 1193. 'Foremost Dairies, Inc., 86 NLRB 585; Hatneschfeger Corporation, 86 NLRB 325. NATIONAL CYLINDER GAS COMPANY and WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION WORKERS UNION LOCAL 688, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND' HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL,1 PETITIONER . Case No. 14-RC-1830. August 06, 1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry G. Carlson, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 1 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing. 2 Locals 2, 2a, and 2b of the International Union of Operating Engineers were permitted to intervene on the basis of their contractual interest. The Petitioner objects to such in- tervention on the ground that the employees involved herein are not within the Inter- venor's jurisdiction. As indicated infra, the Intervenors take the position that their contract covers one of these employees . We therefore find that the Intervenors-have a colorable claim to representation sufficient to justify their intervention. 100 NLRB No. 130. NATIONAL CYLINDER GAS COMPANY 769 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 meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to represent the shipping clerk and the assist- ant shipping clerk at the Employer's St. Louis, Missouri, plant, ex- cluding general office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer contends that the shipping clerk is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and that the resultant one-man unit is inap- propriate. In the event the Board finds that the shipping clerk is not a supervisor, the Employer argues alternatively that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate as the shipping clerk and the assistant shipping clerk properly belong in the unit of operators now represented by the Intervenors. The Intervenors agree with the Employer that the shipping clerk is a supervisor and also contend that their contract is a bar as it includes the assistant shipping clerk. The Employer at its St. Louis, Missouri, plant is engaged in the production and sale of oxygen. Five operators 3 produce oxygen by a liquefaction process, after which they compress it into cylinders. The shipping clerk and the assistant shipping clerk are stationed nearby in a partitioned area which, in turn, is connected with the loading and unloading dock where the Employer's five drivers bring their trucks 4 The shipping clerk receives some orders from the front office, takes other orders from "will call" customers, aids in scheduling deliveries; helps load trucks, warehouses stock, tests cylinders for defects,5 makes receiving records, and takes inventory.6 The assistant shipping clerk has similar duties but concentrates on testing, loading, and unloading cylinders. 8 These employees have been represented by the Intervenors since 1941. ' Local 600 of the Teamsters , which does not claim to represent the shipping employees, was recently certified as the reprgsentatlve of the drivers. ( Case No. 14-RC-1887.) 5 The operators also do testing work which involves substantially the same processes as those used by the shipping clerks. E The record contains other evidence concerning the duties of the shipping clerk upon which the Employer bases its contention that the shipping clerk is a supervisor. As we are dismissing the instant petition , it is unnecessary to decide this issue 770 DECISIONS OF .NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the absence of the shipping clerks at night or on week ends, the operators and occasionally the truck drivers do the work of the ship- ping department when customers call to pick up supplies. It also appears that there have been some transfers between the shipping and operating departments? It is clear that the shipping clerk and the assistant shipping clerk do not exercise distinctive craft skills. Nor does it appear that their duties and interests are otherwise so clearly distinguishable from those of other employees in the plant to warrant the establishment of an appropriate unit limited to the shipping clerks alone. Such a finding would require the Board to accord controlling weight to the Petitioner's extent of organization among the employees at the Em- ployer's plant. However, Section 9 (c) (5) of the amended Act forbids this results As the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappro- priate, we shall dismiss the petition herein o Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 7 The record also discloses the transfer of a truck driver to the shipping department. 8 Rene P. Wasserman and Marie Rose Wasserman , Co-Partners, d/b/a Alpine Metals Manufacturing Company, 95 NLRB 1190 ; Arnold Hoffman ci Co., Incorporated, 91 NLRB 1371. 9In view of this conclusion , we find it unnecessary to decide whether the contract between the Employer and the Intervenors constitutes a bar to this pr , ceeding. P. R. MCDOWELL D/B/A MCDOWELL MAYTAG 1 and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER . Case No. $1-RC-f4531. August 6,1954 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Ben Grodsky, hearing 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 100 NLRB No. 122.