Guild Industries Manufacturing Corp.

GUILD INDUSTRIES MANUFACTURING CORP. 127 [The Board certified that the majority of the valid ballots was not cast for the Unions in the appropriate units of the Employers listed in Appendix A attached to the Regional Director's report (except at Trans Maintenance Inc., et al., 57th Street Management Corp., et al., and Super Operating Corp., et al. ) and that said labor organizations are not the exclusive representatives of the Employers in the appro- priate units.] [The Board certified the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Taxi Drivers and Terminal Employees, Local Union 826, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the units found appropriate at the Trans Maintenance, Inc., et al., (2-RC-10003) and at Clinton Taxi Corp., et al., (2-RC-9956) and also certified Metropolitan Taxi Work- ers Union as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate at the 57th Street Man- agement Corp., et al. (2-RC-10290.).] MEMBER FANNING, dissenting in part : The Petitioner contends that the Regional Director did not rule consistently on challenged ballots. There was a total of 64 such ballots and the Petitioner's brief cited 17 of them as examples in support of its position. My colleagues concede that 4 of these 17 may have been wrongly decided by the Regional Director but dispose of them on the ground there has been no prejudice in those specific instances. I cannot agree with this procedure. The nature of the Petitioner's position requires an examination of the rulings on all the challenges. That the Petitioner has raised a substantial issue as to the correctness of the rulings amply appears from the finding of the majority itself that almost 25 percent of the rulings examined were dubious. I do not attempt at this time to say whether the Regional Director was right or not. But I think that an issue has been fairly raised which requires that we examine all the rulings on challenges. In all other respects I concur in the Board's decision. Guild Industries Manufacturing Corp.' and Florida State Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 12-RC- 1079. April 19, 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 Alan D. Greene, hearing ' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 131 NLRB No. 24. 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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, Leedom, and Fanning]. 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 Employer contends that the Petitioner is not a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, asserting that it does not perform the function of bargaining with employers but acts only in an advisory capacity while assisting local unions in their negotiations with employers. As a matter of record, the Peti- tioner sits in on and assists its local unions in contract negotiations with various employers. The Petitioner also has the authority to sign contracts with employer associations on behalf of the local unions. The Board recognizes trade councils as labor organizations in appropriate circumstances when they act as bargaining agents for their affiliated unions.2 As the testimony shows that the Petitioner exists in whole or in part for the purpose of dealing with employers concerning wages, hours, and working conditions of employees, we accordingly find that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.' 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 4. The parties are in general agreement as to the appropriateness of the unit requested by the Petitioner, but have not agreed concern- ing the unit disposition of the following individuals. The parties referred to the Board the question of the supervisory status of Carl Salmari, Ann Edwards, Steve Twardowski, and L. C. Painter. These individuals are hourly paid and work under the over- all supervision of General Plant Foreman Steve Wichenski, in the 2 The American Brass Company , 120 NLRB 1276 , 1278, footnote 3; Montgomery Ward & Company, 110 NLRB 256, footnote 1. 3 Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, 130 NLRB 1031; Graham Transportation Company, 124 NLRB 960. We find no merit in the Employer's contention that if Petitioner now qualifies as a labor organization the Board has no choice but to revoke all certifications of all locals in the State of Florida during the time that the Petitioner was not in compliance with Section 9 ( f), (g), and (h) of the Act when these sections were in full force and effect. 4 The record shows that the Employer failed to reply to the Petitioner's request for recognition made before and during the hearing . Accordingly, we find that the Employer has refused to grant recognition to the Petitioner, and its related motion to dismiss is denied. See Foothill Electric Corporation, 120 NLRB 1350 For the reasons indicated herein, the Employer's motion to dismiss on other grounds is also denied GUILD, INDUSTRIES MANUFACTURING CORP. 129 baby furniture and kitchen cabinet operations. None of them has any authority to hire and fire or effectively to recommend such action, nor does it appear that they possess any of the other statutory indicia of supervisory status. While charged with some leadership responsibili- ties, their direction of the work of others is routine in nature and does not require the use of independent judgment. Accordingly, we find that Salmari, Twardowski, Painter, and Edwards are not super- visors and shall include them in the unit.' Elizabeth Mulladose works in the general office area handling the shipping and billing details. She is responsible for the completion of bills of lading and sight drafts and works closely with the shipping clerk and office manager. Her job takes her from the main office into the production department regularly for about 1 hour a day to check on the status of orders, but she does not handle any of the material or do any physical checking. As the interests and work functions of Mulladose are substantially different from those of the production employees, and are similar to those of office clerical employees, we shall exclude her from the unit as an office clerical." Harvey Edwards is an over-the-road truck-driver who drives the Employer's truck and trailer to and from New York City, but does no local local driving. When at the plant, he checks in loads and signs bills of lading, but he does no production work within the plant. As no reason appears for his exclusion from the production and maintenance unit, we shall include him. Leo Bivona, called a cleanup man, spends about 75 percent of his time cleaning the general premises. He helps out whenever needed in the loading and unloading of lumber from trucks and freight cars and in cleaning down cabinets. We shall include him.' Accordingly, 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 and yard employees of the Em- ployer at its St. Petersburg, Florida, plant, including the over-the- road truck driver and the janitor, but excluding all office clerical, professional and technical employees, guards, and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 5 See Phalo Plastics Corporation, 127 NLRB 1511 ; Lampcraft Industries, Inc, at al, 127 NLRB 92. 6 See Stein, Hall and Company, 126 NLRB 1078; Mead-Atlanta Paper Company, 123 NLRB 306. v Natsonal Gypsum Company, 128 NLRB 315. 599198-62-vol. 131-10