Kleber Glass & Mirror Co.

180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AABEL CORPORATION D/B/A KLEBER GLASS & MIRROR COMPANY and WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION No. 322, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 5-RC-156. January 10, 1955 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 Louis Aronin, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi- cial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds that : 1. Aabel Corporation d/b/a Kleber Glass & Mirror Company, herein called Kleber, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Binswanger & Com- pany, herein called Binswanger. Both companies are Virginia corpo- rations engaged in the business of installing glass, principally for com- mercial concerns. Kleber operates within a radius of 80 miles of Rich- mond, Virginia. Binswanger, the parent corporation, undertakes larger and more difficult glazing jobs in several States and also assem- bles and sells mill items and building supplies. The plants of the two companies are about 41/2 miles apart. A substantial amount of Kleber's supplies are purchased from Binswanger. The treasurer and secretary of Binswanger are the president and secretary-treasurer, respectively, of Kleber. They are also directors of the latter corporation. While Kleber's general manager testified that he operates that Company independent of, and sometimes submits bids in competition with, Binswanger, the record reveals that he is paid by Binswanger and is responsible to the executive vice president of the parent corporation. The general manager, the officer manager, and the salesman of Kleber are all former Binswanger employees. Kleber maintains a separate payroll and a separate bookkeeping system. Its books and accounts, however, are kept and audited by Binswanger at Kleber's expense. Kleber's general manager also testified that in de- termining Kleber's labor policies he does not necessarily adhere to the same policies in effect for Binswanger's employees. Except as noted above, the two companies do not exchange employees or services. In view of the substantial integration of these two companies, in- cluding Binswanger's total ownership of Kleber and Binswanger's control over the business operations of its subsidiary, we find that these two companies constitute a single employer within the meaning of sec- tion 2 (2) of the Act.' The record in a recent representation proceed- 1 See Youngstown Tent and Awning Company, 110 NLRB 835. 11] NLRB No. 21. MURRAY WORSTED SPINNING CO., INC. 181 ing a which involved Binswanger, of which we shall take official notice,3 reveals that in 1953 Binswanger received directly from outside the Commonwealth of Virginia materials valued in excess of $750,000 and sold to customers outside the Commonwealth of Virginia, during the same period, materials valued in excess of $100,000. Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purpose of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein' 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. As stipulated by the parties, we find the following employees of the Employer's glass installation plant at 2100 Stockton Street, Richmond, Virginia, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees, excluding all office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] iBsnswanger & Company, Inc, Case No. 5-RC-1501 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders). 3 See Avco Manufacturing Corporation, Appliance and Electronics Division, 107 NLRB 295. 'Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 295. MURRAY WORSTED SPINNING Co., INC. and CECILE PLOUFFE, PETI- TIONER and INDUSTRIAL TRADES UNION OF AMERICA . Case No. 1-UD-6. January 10, 1955 Decision and Direction On July 26, 1954, the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 (e) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, seeking to rescind the union- shop authorization of the Union. Thereafter, on August 27, 1954, the Regional Director for the First Region conducted an election among the employees in the production unit at the Employer's Woonsocket, Rhode Island, worsted yarn plant, to determine whether they desired to withdraw the authority of their bargaining representative to re- quire, under its agreement with the Employer, that membership in the Union be a condition of employment. Upon completion of the 111 NLRB No. 22.