Renuart Lumber Yards, Inc.

RENUART LUMBER YARDS, INC. 631 Renuart Lumber Yards, Inc. and Carpenters District Council of Miami, Florida and Vicinity, affiliated with the United Brother- hood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner.) Case No. 12-RC-975. February 21, 1961 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 Claude B. Calkin, 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 [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Kimball]. 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 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 operates retail lumber and building supply busi- nesses at four Florida locations : Miami Shores, Coral Gables, North Miami Beach, and Perrine. The Petitioner currently represents all mill employees at the Employer's lumber mills located at Miami Shores and Coral Gables. It now seeks a unit of all other employees at the four locations including truckdrivers, truckdriver helpers, fork- lift operators, yardmen, steelcutters, and a maintenance man, but excluding the mill employees, hardware department employees, sales- men, and material handlers. The Employer disputes the exclusion of the hardware department employees and material handlers. The Petitioner contends that the hardware business is an entirely separate department and that material handlers, who work in both the lumber- yard and hardware departments, are essentially salesmen. At two locations, Coral Gables and Miami Shores, the businesses are divided into lumberyard and hardware store departments for payroll and cost accounting purposes, and the departments are separately supervised. At the other two locations, North Miami Beach and Perrine, there is no departmental separation. Each of the four loca- i The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing. 2 This case was originally consolidated with Case No. 12-RC-969 , involving the Em- ployer herein . After the hearing the Petitioner in that case , Building & Construction Materials, Alcoholic & Carbonated Beverages , Processing & Distribution Drivers and Employees , Local 290, IBTCW & H of A, withdrew its petition and advised the Regional Director that it does not desire to participate in this proceeding. 130 NLRB No. 78. 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions is in charge of a branch manager who in turn is responsible to the general manager. There is some interchange of employees among the various towns, with more occurring between Coral Gables and Perrine and between Coral Gables and Miami Shores. In view of the foregoing, including the centralized management, the frequent interchange of employees and the functional integration of all the operations involved, we find that the requested unit is inappro- priate 3 but that a single overall unit, joining the mill employees cur- rently represented by the Petitioner with the employees employed in the lumber and hardware operations, which would be employerwide in scope, is appropriate.4 We now turn to the unit placement of the material handlers. The material handler's duties in both the lumber and hardware operations include loading, unloading, packing, pricing, and storing materials. On occasion, when salesmen are busy, they may sell an item to a customer although this is not a regular part of their duties. Their hourly rates range from $1.30 to $1.75 while salesmen 's rates are about 20 cents higher. They are the only employees, other than salesmen, in the hardware departments, and they work interchange- ably as needed between the yard and the hardware stores. At North Miami Beach and Perrine they work in all operations. We find that the duties of the material handlers are not essentially the duties of salesmen and, contrary to the Petitioner's contention, we include them in the unit. As the lumber and hardware employees, who we have found above should be included in the overall unit, have heretofore been unrepre- sented, we may include them with the currently represented mill employees only after first affording them a self-determination elec- tion5 We shall, therefore, direct an election in the voting group de- scribed below to ascertain whether these employees desire to be added to the existing unit represented by the Petitioner. Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting group : All employees of the Employer at its operations located at Miami Shores, Coral Gables, North Miami Beach, and Perrine, Florida, including material handlers and regular part-time em- ployees,' but excluding office clerical employees, mill employees, salesmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in the voting group described above vote for the Petitioner, they will have indicated their desire to be 8 Marvin Lumber and Cedar Company, 117 NLRB 363 , 364-365. 'Western Electric Company, Incorporated, 98 NLRB 1018, 1032. 6 Waikiki Bnltmore, Inc , 127 NLRB 82. 6 The Petitioner would exclude temporary employees or college students . The Employer's comptroller and personnel director stated that the Employer has no temporary employees. The record shows that there may be one or two college students employed . The record is indefinite as to their duties and to the regularity of their employment We shall, there- fore, permit them to vote subject to challenge. THE PROCTER AND GAMBLE MANUFACTURING CO. 633 represented by the Petitioner as a part of a single overall unit, which in these circumstances we find appropriate, and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of results of election to such effect. As the voting group established above encompasses more employees than that originally sought by the Petitioner, the Regional Director is instructed not to proceed with the election until he shall have deter- mined that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest among the employees in the aforementioned voting group. In the event that the Petitioner does not wish to proceed in an election in such broader voting group, we shall permit it to withdraw its petition upon notice to the Regional Director within 10 days from the date of issuance of this Direction and shall thereupon vacate the Direction of Election. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] The Procter and Gamble Manufacturing Company and Inter- national Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and The Procter & Gamble Employees' Independent Union. Case No. 16-RC-2706. February 01, 1961 ORDER AMENDING CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to stipulation for a consent election, an election was held among the Employer's employees at its Dallas, Texas, plant, on May 11, 1960. Thereafter, on May 18, 1960, The Procter & Gamble Em- ployees' Independent Union, herein called the Intervenor, having re- ceived a majority of the valid votes cast in the election between the Intervenor and Dallas Employees Association, Independent,' was cer- tified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the aforemen- tioned employees. On October 3, 1960, the Intervenor filed a motion to amend the certification by substituting the name "Independent Oil and Chemical Workers of Dallas" in place and stead of the name "The Procter & Gamble Employees' Independent Union." The Em- ployer filed a statement in opposition to the motion, alleging mainly that the proposed amendment would produce confusion in the minds of the employees as to the identity of their bargaining agent. The motion to amend undisputably establishes that the labor or- ganization which was certified to represent the Employer's employees has continued without change in structure or function and that the Intervenor is thereby merely seeking to amend its certification so that the certification will reflect its changed name. The Employer's pre- The Petitioner withdrew from the ballot prior to the election. 130 NLRB No. 63.