Orchard Industries, Inc.

798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD should:- arise with respect to its disposition in the same case of .issues,-litigated and considered onthe -m ts....Hence it seems obvious, under all the circumstances, that all of the unfair labor practice allegations of the consolidated complaint with respect to the Respondent Union must also fail. Accordingly, it will be recom- mended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the basis of the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Imperial Wire Company, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Magnet Wire Workers Union, Inc., and International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The allegations of the consolidated complaint that the Imperial Wire Company, Inc., and that the Magnet Wire Workers Union, Inc., have engaged in unfair Inbor practices within the meaning , of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) of the Act, and Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and'(2) of the Act, respectively, have not been sustained. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Orchard Industries, Incorporated and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-3459. July 19,1957 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 Iris H. Meyer, hear- ing 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Rodgers]. 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 organization involved claims to represent certain employees 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 Petitioner seeks a unit comprising the employees in the Employer's 4 plants at Hastings, Michigan, but will, in the alternative, accept 2 separate units, one limited to the Employer's plant 4 at 215 South Jefferson Street, and the other comprising the Employer's 2 plants on West State Street and a third at 201 South Jefferson Street. The Employer takes no position on the scope of the unit, but leaves the question for determination by the Board. 118 NLRB No. 93. ORCHARD INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED 799 The 4 plants are located within an area 6 miles square. At one of the West State Street plants (plant 1), the Employer manufactures fishing rods and a "hot stick" which is used by electric power com- panies in handling high voltage lines. At plant 2 (201 South Jefferson Street), the Employer manufactures bows and performs certain finishing operations on the fishing rods fabricated in plant 1. At plant 3, the Employer assembles a special fishing rod and the hot stick, both of which originate in plant 1, and also assembles arrows. At plant 4, the Employer manufactures aircraft parts, consisting of flexible hose, couplings, and ducts. Different skills are required in plant 4 as compared with the other 3 plants. Efforts to utilize at plant 4 employees from the other plants have proved unsuccessful and have been discontinued. Plant 4 has a separate seniority list, while seniority is consolidated at the other 3 plants. Plant 4 has its own superintendent; the other 3 plants share the same superintendent. Vacation and insurance benefits are the same in all four plants. The personnel manager, whose office is in plant 1, hires employees for all 4 plants. The Employer expects to move plants 1, 2, and 3 into a single building during the latter part of July 1957. It is well settled that a unit embracing all the operations of a single employer is presumptively appropriate.' Here we find insufficient basis for overcoming the presumptive appropriateness of the four- plant unit preferred by the Petitioner. Although there are points of difference between the operations of plant 4 and the other 3 plants, the employees in all 4 plants work in close proximity to one another, have interests in common, share the same employee benefits, and are hired by the same individual. Accordingly, we find that the four-plant unit is ,appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.' We shall direct an election in the following unit : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's four plants at Hastings, Michigan, excluding office clerical employees, draftsmen, technical employees, engineers, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as, defined in the Act. 5. The Petitioner contends that five employees, who were originally hired as temporary employees but who have been retained beyond the original term of their employment and whose employment is now for an indefinite period, are properly included in the unit and are eligible to vote. We agree.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 1 Arden Farms, 117 NLRB 318. 2 The B. F. Goodrich Company. 112 NLRB 757. 3 H. F. Byrd, Inc., 103 NLRB 1278.