Simmons Co.

SIMMONS COMPANY 83 went personnel, inasmuch as they are required to protect property a portion of their time, are also guards within the meaning of the Act.' Accordingly, as the Petitioner admits to membership employees other than guards, we find that the Petitioner is barred by the Act from representing the Employer's plant department employees. We shall, therefore, dismiss the instant petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision and Order. 6Walterboro Manufacturing Corporation, 106 NLRB 1383; Amerwan Lawn Mower Co., 108 NLRB 1589 ; Armored Motor Service Company, Inc., supra. Insofar as American Distrwt Telegraph Company, Case No. 13-RC-3584 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders ), is inconsistent with this case it is hereby overruled Simmons Company and Truck Drivers Union, Local No. 413, Affil- iated With International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, Petitioner Simmons Company and United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 9-RO-2387 and 9-RC-2395. April 12,1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La- bor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Clifford L. Hardy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affimed. 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 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. The United Furniture Workers of America, CIO (hereinafter referred to as Furniture Workers), seeks a unit of production and maintenance employees including truckdrivers, and shipping and re- ceiving department employees. The Machinists would represent a unit of the maintenance department employees, while the Truck "District 52, International Association of Machinists , AFL (hereinafter referred to as Machinists ), and the Upholsterers' International Union, AFL (hereinafter referred to as Upholsterers ), Intervened in Case No. 9-RC-2395 on the basis of a showing of interest. 112 NLRB No. 23. 369028-56-vol. 112-7 84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Drivers Union, Local No. 413, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL (hereinafter referred to as Teamsters), would represent separately either the truckdrivers and shipping and receiving department em- ployees, or, in the alternative, the truckdrivers alone. The Upholster- ers seeks a unit of all employees, excluding those sought by Teamsters and Machinists, or in the alternative, if the Board finds inappropriate the units sought by the Teamsters or Machinists, a unit of all pro= duction and maintenance employees. The Employer takes no posi- tion, except in opposition to the Teamsters 2 principal unit request and would limit the unit to truckdrivers alone, excluding the receiv- ing and shipping department employees. There is no history of bar- gaining at the plant. The Employer is engaged at its Columbus, Ohio, plant, in manufac- turing mattresses and sleeping furniture. It employs three truck- drivers who only make deliveries to the Employer's customers. One drives a truck for local deliveries, while the other two drive tractor trailers for long hauls and interstate deliveries. The truckdrivers whose sole duty is to drive trucks, spend a majority of their time away from the plant and have no established hours, their starting time being left to the discretion of the individual driver. They have the same supervior as the shipping department employees who store the crated merchandise, and help load the trucks. The receiving depart- ment employees store the raw materials and component parts received from the railroads and independent truckers and supply the produc- tion lines with such materials and parts for use in the manufacture of the Employer's finished products. They are separately supervised and have no contact with the truckdrivers sought herein. Unlike the truckdrivers, the shipping and receiving employees work only at the plant and have fixed schedules of hours. They do not drive trucks. There is no interchange between the truckdrivers and any other em- ployees, while the shipping and receiving employees interchange with the production employees in the plant. In these circumstances, we find that the unit of truckdrivers and shipping and receiving depart- ment employees sought by the Teamsters constitutes an artificial group- ing of employees with insufficient community of interests to warrant their representation as a separate unit? On the other hand, we find merit in Teamsters' alternate unit contention limited to truckdrivers. The truckdrivers are a distinct, well-defined, homogeneous group of employees which the Board has traditionally established as a separate appropriate bargaining unit in absence of a bargaining history. We 2 These employees may operate lift and fork trucks in the plant. a Airborne Instrument Laboratory, Inc., 104 NLRB 367, 370. See also, Tennessee Egg Company, 110 NLRB 189 SIMMONS COMPANY 85 therefore find that the truckdrivers may constitute a separate ap- propriate unit 4 The maintenance department employees sought by the Machinists, install and repair equipment and machinery used by the production employees. They are hired on the basis of their previous mechanical experience and receive a higher rate of pay than the production em- ployees. They work under separate departmental supervision. In these circumstances, we find that, in the absence of any bargaining history, and in accord with well-established Board precedent, the maintenance department employees may constitute a separate ap- propriate unit.' We shall accordingly direct separate elections by secret ballot among the following groups of employees at the Employer's Columbus, Ohio, plant, excluding from each voting group all office clericals, temporary employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (a) All truckdrivers; (b) all maintenance department employees; and (c) all other employees including shipping and receiving depart- ment employees. If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) or (b) select the Union seeking to represent them separately, those employees will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargain- ing unit and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organization se- lected by the employees in each group -for such unit, or units, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. If, however, a majority of the employees in either voting groups (a) or (b) do not vote for the Union which is seeking to represent them in a separate unit, that group will appro- priately be included in the production and maintenance unit and their votes shall be pooled with those in voting group (c),e and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organization selected by a majority in the pooled group, which the Board, in such circumstance, finds to be a single unit appropriate for collective bargaining. 5. The Employer contends that the petitions are premature and should therefore be dismissed, because of the contemplated expansion of its Columbus, Ohio, plant. The Employer began operation of this plant in early August 1954. On December 8, 1954, there were 99 em- 4 Volney Felt Mills, Inc., 110 NLRB 1244; Tennessee Egg Company, supra; Airborne Instrument Laboratory, Inc, supra 6 The Ruberoid Company, 109 NLRB 257. 6 If the votes are pooled , they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for the Union seeking the separate unit shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against any union seeking the more comprehensive unit ; all other votes are to be accorded their face value whether for representation by a union seeking the comprehensive unit or for no union . The Ruberoid Company, supra; and American Potash & Chemical Corpora- tion, 107 NLRB 1418. 86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees employed. At the time of the hearing on January 10, 1955, this number increased to 134, working in 52 classifications. The Em- ployer testified that between 50 and 67 percent of its anticipated full complement of employees would be working in all of its job classifica- tions by March 15, 1955. Under the general plans of the Employer it is expected that by the end of 1955 the normal complement of em- ployees will be 313 employees working in 89 job classifications. The record indicates that, at the time of the hearing, the physical layout of the plant has been established and that all of the departments have a representative group of employees except the hide-a-bed department, which will be in operation by March 15,1955. Upon the entire record, we find that the Employer's present complement of employees consti- tutes a substantial and representative segment of the employees to be employed at the plant. We, therefore, find no compelling reason to de- lay the granting of the employees an opportunity to choose a bargain- ing representative. Accordingly, we shall direct an immediate elec- tion. 7 [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision and Direction of Elections. 4 S'unshtine Biscusts, Inc, 110 NLRB 10, and cases cited. General Time Corporation and International Association of Machinists, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-2933. April 12, 1955 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region on January 12, 1955, among certain employees of the Employer. At the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties, pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations. The tally showed that, of ap- proximately 118 eligible voters, 113 cast ballots of which 24 were cast for the Petitioner, 4 for the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, CIO, 21 for Local 613, Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, 63 against the par- ticipating labor organizations, and 1 ballot was challenged. On January 19, 1955, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the con- duct affecting the results of the election. Petitioner, however, failed 112 NLRB No. 11.