F. M. Reeves and Sons, Inc.

F. M. REEVES AND SONS, INC. 295 2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.2 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Rich- land, Washington, places of operation, including counter employees 2 and plant clerical employees 4 but excluding office clerical employees, truckdrivers, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 'Teamsters, Warehousemen, Garage Employees and lielpeis, Local 839, AFL, inter- vened at the hearing but dues not desrie to appear on the ballot. Time counter employees isork at the Employer's various substations. They wait on customers, who deliver and call for laundry and cleaning at these branches At the Em- ployer's main pant, employee Lillian Nance spends a substantial portion of her time per- forming the duties of a counter guI, and also pertotins some office clerical-duties She i, pail at the same rate and is apparently under the same supervision as the counter em- ployees We inelmie hem in the unit i Blanch Moss petloruit, elei icnl duties ielated to the production operations In agree- ment with the pa itice, Re find hen to be a plant clerical employee and include her in the inn, F. M. Reeves and Sons, Inc. and Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 492, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 33-PC-500. April 19,1955 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 Harold L. Hudson, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Farmer and Members Murdock and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.' 'The Employer contends the Board should not assert jurisdiction over its Roswell operation in the light of F 11. Reeves and Sons, Inc., 111 NLRB 186, wherein the Board dismissed a representation petition because the Employer 's operations did not meet its jurisdiction standards The record now before the Board shows the Employer's Roswell operation sold , under contract, materials valued at about $110 ,000 to contractors perform- ing work at a military installation , the Walker Air Force Base As the Employer's opera- 112 NLRB No. 59. 296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.2 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees of the Roswell, New Mexico, operation of F. M. Reeves and Sons, Inc., excluding supervisors, salesmen, watchmen, carpenters, plant clerical and office clerical employees as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] tions thus substantially affect the national defense (Maytag Aircraft Corp., 110 NLRB 594), and the Board 's dismissal of the petition in the recent previous proceeding involving the Employer was obviously due to an incomplete record, we shall at this time assert juris- diction over the Employer' s Roswell operation. Cf. Bob Morgan Motor Company, Inc., 106 NLRB 334. The Employer objects to the use of a calender year in determining the dollar volume of its operations because in the prior proceeding the Board 's frame of reference in determin- ing business volume was a fiscal year. As the Board merely uses a yearly period proxi- mate to the filing of a representation petition as a yardstick for determining the impact of an employer' s operations upon commerce and, absent special circumstances not present here, is not concerned with the characteristics of the annual period selected , we find no merit in the Employer 's objection 2 The Employer asserts the petition should be dismissed because the Petitioner's current representation interest in the employees is insufficient, noting that about 2 months elapsed between the filing of the petition and the hearing . It is well established that the suffi- ciency of a petitionei' 1 representation inter est is a matter for administrative determination. and the Board is administratively satisfied that the Petitioner 's showing of interest here warrants an election to deteimine the employees' desires. Tube Distributors Co., Inc. and Local 810, Steel, Metals, Alloys & Hardware, Fabricators & Warehousemen, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-6152. April 20,1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated December 18, 1953,1 amended on January 12, 1954, and further amended on No- vember 1, 1954,2 an election was conducted on November 30, 1954, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which shows that, of approximately 1 Tube Distributors Co, Inc, 2-RC-6152, December 18, 1953, not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 2 The election was postponed because of pending unfair labor practice charges. 112 NLRB No 47.