Sealite, Inc.

SEALITE, INC. 619 Sealite, Inc. and International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Local No. 39, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-3930. December 4, 1959 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 Edward J. McFetridge, 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 [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. 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. 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 Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of textile materials utilized in the construction and maintenance of sewer pipe. All production is done at its main plant in San Leandro, California. The Petitioner and the Intervenor seek a unit of all production and maintenance employees at this plant, plus one service representative assigned to the San Leandro area, but would exclude certain other employees, as enumerated below. The Employer would include all persons employed by it. Construction-site laborers and truckdrivers: Part of the Employer's business consists of repairing leaks in sewer pipes. These jobs may occur either in California or in neighboring States, and frequently necessitate the hiring of truckdrivers and laborers on the site to help with the particular project. Such employees vary in number from 1 to 10 or 12 at any one time, and their employment may last from several days to several months. While they are not specifically told of the temporary nature of their employment, in all but isolated instances they leave the Employer's employ at the end of the particular job. These employees are paid the prevailing wage rate in the area, while the Employer's own employees dispatched to the project are paid either their regular rate or the prevailing rate, whichever is higher. ' Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Linen Supply Drivers Union, Local 209, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, was per- mitted to intervene on the basis of a showing of interest. 125 NLRB No. 66. 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As it appears that the aforementioned construction-site employees are hired for one job only, and have no substantial expectancy of con- tinued employment, we find they are temporary employees and exclude them from the unit .2 Service representatives: Except for the one service representative assigned to the San Leandro area, these employees are stationed -away from the main plant, in the vicinity of commercial warehouses in neighboring States, where the Employer stores supplies for service to customers. They are responsible for maintaining an adequate inventory at the warehouses, and for advising contractors in their respective areas as to the installation and maintenance of the Employ- er's products. The service representatives have no contact with the main plant except to make an occasional visit to obtain information on new products and procedures. We find the service representatives do not have sufficient interests with main plant employees to be included in the unit, and we shall exclude them.' Although the parties .agreed to include the one service representative stationed in the vicinity of the main plant, the record discloses that his status is exactly like that of the other service representatives, except that he procures materials directly from the main plant because of his proximity to :San Leandro. We shall exclude this employee along with the other service representatives. President: The Employer contends that its president should be included in the unit, as he may engage in manual labor while attending to various matters at construction sites. However, the record indi- cates, and the Employer admits, that the president clearly has the authority to hire other employees. I''Ve find he is a supervisor and exclude him from the unit.' Clerical employees: These three employees work in an enclosed office area, and perform various clerical functions for the Employer, including bookkeeping, billing, and the preparation of bills of lading. We find they are office clericals and shall exclude them from the unit.' Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's main .plant in San Leandro, California's excluding all service representa-: 2 See Del Rio & Winter Garden Telephone Company, 85 NLRB 199, 203. 8 The Sheffield Corporation, 123 NLRB 1454; The Woodman Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 1784. 4 The Employer would include in the unit all supervisors, "if possible." This is not possible, as supervisors are specifically excluded from coverage of the Act. 5 See Frederickson Motor Express Corporation, 121 NLRB 32. e The parties agreed that all regular production and maintenance employees at San Leandro should be Included in the unit, even though seasonally some are sent out on field jobs as truckdrivers or laborers. HUSSMANN REFRIGERATOR COMPANY 621 tives, temporary construction-site laborers and truckdrivers, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, the president, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Hussmann Refrigerator Company and Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District, AFL- CIO, Marine Allied Workers Division, Petitioner. Case No.. 4-RC-3955. December 4, 1959 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 Howard S. Simonoff, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. 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 employees of the Employer.2 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 of production and maintenance em ployees, including inspectors, expediters, and factory clerks at the. Employer's plant in Delaware Township, New Jersey. The Sheet Metal Workers agrees with the Petitioner that inspectors, expediters,. and factory clerks should be included in the unit. The IAM's position is not clear. At the time of the hearing, there were no employees in these three job categories. For this reason, the Steelworkers and the Employer urged the Board not to make a unit determination with respect to inspectors, expediters, and factory clerks. However, the, Steelworkers indicated that if the Board should order an election and 1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition. on the ground that it was prematurely filed. For the reasons stated hereinafter the motion is denied. 2District #1, International Association of Machinists, Sheet Metal Workers Interna- tional Association, and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred' to as IAM, Sheet Metal Workers, and Steelworkers , respectively, were permitted to Inter- vene on the basis of separate showings of interest. 125 NLRB No. 73.