Pacific Isle Mining Co.

740 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD forklift driver,l maintenance man,' and 9 yard laborers, who are also referred to as mud handlers. The truckdrivers sometimes work in the yard, the laborers sometimes drive trucks, and the truckdrivers and laborers sometimes operate the forklift. There was.no dispute, and we find, that all the above-mentioned categories should be included in the unit. The Employer maintains that a shipping and receiving clerk and an inventory clerk should also be included. The Petitioner took no position regarding these employees. As there is uncontradicted testi- mony that these clerks spend a substantial amount of time in the yard in the course of their work, and as their duties bring them constantly into contact . with the employees in the unit, we shall include the shipping and receiving clerk and the inventory clerk in the unit as plant clerical employees? We find that the following employees of the Employer 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 at the Employer's Harvey, Louisiana, operation, including all truckdrivers, crane operators, forklift drivers, yard laborers, the shipping and receiving clerk, and the inventory clerk, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees; guards and watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of. Direction of Election. omitted from, :publication.] e The maintenance man maintains the cranes , power saws, and other machines other than the automotive equipment. 4 Wm, R. Whittaker Co., Ltd., 117 NLRB 3.39 ; Engine Rebuilding Corporation, 115 NLRB 1.776, 1778. Pacific Isle`Mining Company and International Union of Operat- ing Engineers Local No. 49, AFL-CIO ; Petitioner Pacific Isle Mining Company and United Steelworkers , of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.. Cases Nos. 18-RC-3216 and 18-RC- 3239. Jelly 17,1967 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon, separate: petitions : duly filed under : Section 9 (c) of the+ Na- tional Labor Relations Act,, a consolidated hearing was held before Hjalmar Storlie, hearing officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are' hereby affirmed. Pursuant, ito. the provisions' of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case W. a three-mem- ber panel .[Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock. and Jenkins]. 118 NLRB No. 86. PACIFIC ISLE MINING COMPANY 741 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 appropriate unit: With the exception of the placement of the engineers' helpers, the parties are in agreement that the composition of the unit should be all pit, plant, and shop production and maintenance employees, ex- cluding office and mine clerical employees, engineers, professional em- ployees, guards, and supervisors. However, the parties disagree as to the scope of the unit. In Case No. 18-RC-3216, the Operating En- gineers seeks to represent the employees presently employed in what is designated as the Employer's eastern district. In Case No. 18-RC-3239, the Steelworkers seeks to represent one employerwide unit including both eastern and western districts. The Employer agrees with the position of the Operating Engineers and wishes to have 2 separate units, 1 for each district. For many years, the E. W. Coons Company carried on mining and general contracting operations in Minnesota in the eastern district, which is generally designated as the area east of the Mesabi Range. Thereafter, the mining operations of Coons were taken over by the Pittsburgh-Pacific Company, leaving the general contracting business with Coons. These companies had informal arrangements with the Operating Engineers covering wages, seniority, and other working conditions for the. employees in the eastern district. However, no written contract was ever executed or formalized embodying these informal arrangements. In 1956, the Employer, Pacific Isle Mining Company, which theretofore had extensive operations in the western district (the area west of the Mesabi Range) but only a few tem- porary and limited operations in the eastern district, became the op- erating agent for the Pittsburgh-Pacific Company for the entire east- ern district. After the Employer took over the eastern district, it notified the eastern district employees that it would continue to dis- cuss working conditions with the Operating Engineers on behalf of the members of that organization. The Employer specifically stated that all seniority rights of employees in the eastern district would be respected. The Employer has never recognized any bargaining agent for the western district employees. I United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner in Case No. 18-RC-3239, was permitted to intervene in Case No. 18-RC-3216. 742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All operations of the western and eastern districts of the Employer are under its general management located at Hibbing, Minnesota. In each district, the Employer operates a number of mines at various locations with a mine superintendent in charge of each local operation. There is no superintendent for either district, and each mine superin- tendent reports directly to the general superintendent who is at Hib- bing. All administrative matters are handled from the central office. This includes record keeping, personnel records, purchasing, financial controls, hiring, planning, sales, work scheduling, engineering; that is to say, practically everything except direct supervision of the physical activities involved in a specific field location. The work and skills involved in each district are essentially the same. All labor relations and personnel policies originate from the central office. Vacations and working conditions are the same. The testimony shows that it is the plan of the Employer to equalize conditions and secure uniformity throughout its operations. . The Board has held that, in situations as the one here under con- sideration, where following a merger or consolidation of former sep- arate corporate entities, operation of the enterprises becomes inte- grated under centralized managerial control and centralized control of labor relations, the resulting enterprise is comparable to a new operation? Upon the entire record, and in view of the administrative integration of all the Employer's mining operations under a single unified control, the centralized control of labor relations, the uni- formity of skills and working conditions,3 we find that a single bar- gaining unit as requested by the Steelworkers is appropriate.' We come now to the question of the placement of the engineers' helpers, whom the Employer and Engineers would exclude and the Steelworkers would include. There are three engineers' helpers who work in both the eastern and western districts. They report to work -at the central office in Hibbing where they receive assignments for work in either district. They assist the Employer's professional engineers in performing engineering work, such as surveying mines, 2 Hooker Electrochemical Company, 116 NLRB 1393, 1395. 3 We do not find that because the Employer has agreed to retain seniority rights based on employment in the eastern district, an overall unit finding is inappropriate. Cf. Maine Industries, Inc., 117 NLRB 1710. 4 See Industrial Stamping and Manufacturing Company, 111 NLRB 1038, 1041. The case of J. 0. Rhode et at., 106 NLRB 536, is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the Engi- neers sought a unit limited to a single mine, while the Steelworkers sought an employerwide unit. The Board found a unit limited to a single mine as well as the broader unit ap- propriate on the ground of such factors as keeping funds for each mine separately, main- taining separate books for each mine, separate records, bank accounts, tax returns, ordering of supplies, and different working conditions. The Board found no merit in the Steel- workers' contention that a bargaining pattern on a division or company basis in the area, precluded a finding of an appropriate unit on an individual mine basis. Likewise, we find herein that the informal bargaining on a district basis does not preclude a finding on a broader companywide basis, which we consider more appropriate. Nor do the facts here- in justify the granting of a self-determination election, such as that directed in the Rhode case. DIANA SHOP OF SPOKANE, INC. 743 making maps, calculating engineers' notes, compiling engineering data, and performing routine manual work for engineers. Their on-the-job training prepares them to qualify for engineering work. They spend about half their time in the mines and the other half in the central office. Though they are hourly paid and have the same vacation benefits as the production workers, we find, on the basis of the record, that the engineers' helpers are technical employees. Our established policy is to exclude technical employees from a produc- tion unit where one of the parties seeks to exclude them, and we therefore exclude them. Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute an ap- propriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 .(b) of the Act: All pit, plant, and shop production and maintenance employees of the Employer's eastern and western districts in Minnesota, excluding office and mine clerical employees, engineers, engineers' helpers, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] r, Supervisors include foremen, superintendents , assistant superintendents , and managers. Diana Shop of Spokane, Inc. and Hughes Apparel, Inc. and Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1439, Petitioner. Case 11No.19-RC 1988. July 18,1957 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Donald D. McFeely, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' i In its petition , the Petitioner named Diana Stores Corporation ( doing business. as Hughes Apparel, Inc., and Diana Shops ) as the Employer in interest. Diana Stores Corpo- ration and its subsidiaries moved at the hearing to amend the petition to substitute as the Employers in interest Diana Shop of Spokane, Inc., and Hughes Apparel, Inc. The bearing officer referred the motion to the Board. The parties stipulated that Diana Stores of Spokane , Inc., and Hughes Apparel, Inc., are Washington corporations, and wholly owned subsidiaries of Diana Stores Corporation, a New York corporation ; that the latter company .and all of its subsidiary corporations operate a multistate chain of approximately 179 retail stores in 28 States , selling principally women's and children's apparel ; and that the 2 Washington corporations are an integral part of the multistate chain . It also appears that the parent concern and , apparently, both Washington subsidiaries, have common officers, and that a certain amount of supervision over the activities of each subsidiary corporation is exercised by personnel attached to the parent corporation . However, the record also establishes that the manager of each of the subsidiaries exercises a large measure of autonomy with respect to hiring and establishing of wages and other terms and conditions of employment ; and that each manager has complete authority to enter into collective- bargaining negotiations and to negotiate agreements . Under such circumstances, we find that Diana Stores Corporation , the parent concern , is not a necessary party to the proceed- ing. Cf. Binon Chocolates, Inc., 65 NLRB 591, 592. We shall , therefore , in accordance with the Employer's motion, amend the petition so as to designate Diana Shops of Spokane,. Inc., and Hughes Apparel, Inc., as the only Employers in interest. 118 NLRB No. 91.