Bugle Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc.

1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority do not vote for the Petitioner, these employees shall remain a part of the existing unit and the Re- gional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such 'effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Bugle Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc.; Industrial Laundry Corporation ; National Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc.; Standard Coat, Apron & Linen Service , Inc.; and Atlas Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc.' and Local 285, AFL-CIO, Laun- dry & Dry Cleaning International Union and Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 355, International Brotherhood ,of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioners. Cases Nos. 5-RC-3182 and 5-RC-3202. August 18, 1961 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held 2 before Robert K. Knadler, 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 delegated its powers in connection with this •case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. 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 the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section '9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 3 I The name of the Employer is amended to conform with the evidence and our findings therein. 2 The cases were consolidated for hearing by order of the Regional Director dated August 5, 1960. 3 The Employer's motion to dismiss on the grounds of inadequate showing of interest and extent of organization is denied . The sufficiency of a Petitioner's showing of interest Is an administrative matter not subject to litigation. Moreover, we are administratively reatisfied that the Petitioner's showing is inadequate . 0. D. Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516. The extent of organization contention is rendered moot by the Board's unit endings herein. 132 NLRB No. 104. BUGLE COAT, APRON & LINEN SERVICE, INC. ; ETC. 1099 4. The appropriate unit : The Laundry Union seeks a production and maintenance unit excluding truckdrivers and driver-salesmen, limited to Bugle and Industrial Laundry; the Teamsters seeks a unit of truckdrivers and driver-salesmen at Bugle and National. The Em- ployer urges an overall unit or, in the alternative, the-units sought by the Petitioners on an overall basis. The Employer is engaged in the rental of linen supplies to commer- cial establishments. It is composed of five corporations (which are commonly owned and have the same officers and board of directors) operating as an integrated business-Industrial Laundry Corpora- tion; Bugle Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc.; National Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc. (all at Baltimore, Maryland) ; Standard Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc., at Waldorf and Hagerstown, Maryland; and Atlas Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc., at Blades, Delaware. Industrial processes the laundry received from the other four corpora- tions. Bugle also receives clean laundry from Industrial, folds, sorts, and stores it, fills orders of the other corporations, and maintains a central purchasing, administrative, and clerical office for all the cor- porations. The other three corporations which serve as distribution points, together with Bugle, secure and service the customers. In view of all the foregoing and as the latter four companies are not self- sustained operations, but are adjuncts to the processing plant of In- dustrial, we conclude that all five. corporations constitute a single employer and that the units found appropriate hereinafter should be coextensive with the operations of all five corporations.4 The Laundry Union would exclude the engineers and certain cleri- cals whom the Employer would include. As the engineers operate and maintain the plant boilers and as no union seeks to represent them separately, we shall, in accordance with Board policy, include them in the production and maintenance unit.' The clericals, who the Employer contends are production clericals, are located in the same office, have the same benefits, and are under the same supervision as the admitted office clericals. The disputed clericals compute earning records for payroll purposes and maintain records involving driver-salesmen's commissions, sales volume, type of sales, sales summaries, and replacement information. As these cleri- cals are, in fact, office clerical employees, we shall exclude them from the unit. The Teamsters would exclude from the unit it seeks the sales super- visors and the canvasser; the Employer urges their inclusion. The driver-salesmen deliver linen to customers and pick up their soiled supplies. The truckdrivers pick up linen from Industrial 'Corporation and deliver it to the other corporations. 'The record * ,CP. Independent Linen Service Company of Mississippi, 122 NLRB 1002. 5 Bachman Uxbridge Worsted Corporation, 109 NLRB 868. 1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 'shows that 'the driver-salesmen and truckdrivers have regularly as- ,signed routes and that they regularly spend almost all of their time at their truckdriving duties. As there is no dispute as to the inclu- sion of the driver-salesmen in the truckdriver unit and the record Indicates that these employees perform job functions that are sub- stantially similar to those performed by the employees classified as -truckdrivers, we shall include them in a single overall unit of truck- ,drivers and driver-salesmen. Accordingly, we find that these em- ployees comprise a functionally distinct group which the Board has frequently found are entitled to separate representation and, there- fore, constitute an appropriate unit.' The sales supervisors at Bugle, National, and Industrial are under the supervision of the assistant general manager in charge of sales and his two assistants. The sales supervisors at Blades, Delaware, and Hagerstown, Maryland, are supervised by the branch managers who ,in turn are responsible to the assistant general manager in charge of ,sales. The sales supervisors were formerly driver-salesmen arid they substitute for driver-salesmen, and direct and teach new driver- salesmen in a routine pattern established by the assistant general manager in charge of sales. They are not permitted to deviate from the pattern. They cannot hire, discharge, or discipline driver- 'salesmen. They do, however, report orally on the progress of the new driver-salesmen which information is used by the assistant general 'manager together with other information to determine whether or not a new driver-salesman shall be kept or let go. Sales supervisors spend in excess of 50 percent of their time driving trucks themselves -and actually performing the duties of driver-salesmen for whom they substitute. It appears that the control which the sales supervisors ,exercise over the driver-salesmen is derived from their experience in the type of work involved rather than the responsible direction' of the driver-salesmen. Accordingly, we find that they are not super- -visors and shall include them in the unit. The canvasser performs essentially the same duties as the driver- 'salesmen who are included in the unit with the truckdrivers. They -drive trucks and secure and serve customers. Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit with the truckdrivers and driver-salesmen. We shall direct separate elections in the following appropriate units of the Employer's employees at its five corporations, namely, Bugle, Industrial, National, and Standard in Maryland and Atlas in Dela- ware,7 excluding office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act : e Maule Industries, Inc., 117 NLRB 1710, 1713; Interehemical Corporation, 116 NLRB 1443 7 As the production and maintenance employees (voting group B) appear to be em- ployed at the plants of Bugle and Industrial , this voting group is coextensive with the unit sought by Local 285. However, if such employees are located at other plants, they LOCAL 317, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1101 (A) All truckdrivers, helpers, relay drivers, driver- salesmen, ga- rage employees,' canvassers, and sales supervisors, but excluding pro- duction and maintenance employees. (B) All production and maintenance employees and engineers, ex- cluding truckdrivers, helpers, relay drivers, driver-salesmen, garage employees, canvassers, and sales supervisors. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] are also included in the unit. The drivers voting group (voting group A), is broader in scope than that sought by the Teamsters However, as the Teamsters has made an ade- quate showing of interest in the broader group, we shall direct an election therein. g The parties stipulated to the inclusion of the garage employees. Local 317, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Iroquois Door Company. Case No. 3-CC-122. August 18, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On February 23, 1961, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi- ate Report, and the entire record in this case, including the exceptions and the brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, to the extent consistent with our Decision herein.' [The Board dismissed the complaint.] MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Deci- sion and Order. I We agree with the Trial Examiner that the picketing conducted on Kuhn Road, a dead-end street, in front of Iroquois property was primary in character and protected by the Act, without reaching the question concerning applicability of "common situs" rules to the facts here involved. Even assuming that such rules are applicable in the circum- stances, as urged by the General Counsel, there is no showing on this record of an 8(b)(4)(B ) objective in the temporary stopping on Kuhn Road of trucks bound for .Chappel and Eastern. We find it unnecessary to pass upon the two incidents which occurred early in the strike, on September 22 and 23, at the premises of secondary employers Goetzman & Newman and Pascarella , as we consider these too isolated to form the basis of a finding. 132 NLRB No. 98.