Gillette Motor Transport, Inc.

GILLETTE MOTOR TRANSPORT, INC. 471 the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In particular, I will recommend that, upon request by the Union , negotiations between it and the Respondent be renewed and that the Respondent furnish to the Union such record information and other probative material as will substantiate the Respondent's claim of its inability to pay overtime premium rates and will enable the Union to dis- charge its function as the statutory representative of the employees in the unit herein found appropriate. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CoNCLusIoNs of LAW 1. Lodge 1877, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid labor organization at all times material herein has been, and is, the duly designated exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent 's employees for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act in the following appropriate unit: All production and maintenance employees at Respondent 's Odessa, Texas, facility, including mechanics and their helpers , radiator men and porters, exclusive of all other employees, partsmen, salesmen, office clerical employees, professional em- ployees, guards, watchmen , and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 3. By refusing on October 24 and 26, 1961, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in said appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices by its conduct on October 1 , 1961 , in discontinuing the payment of daily overtime and double time, without the consent of the Union. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Gillette Motor Transport, Inc. and Office Employees Interna- tional Union, Local 45, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC- 2744. June 1, 1962 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING . CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On July 19, 1961, following a Board-directed election, the Regional Director certified the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining repre- sentative of all office and clerical employees, with certain specified exclusions , at the trucking operation of Gillette Motor Transport, Inc.,' hereinafter called Gillette, at Dallas, Texas. Thereafter, on or about December 1, 1961, the Petitioner filed a motion for clarification, requesting in effect that a group of approximately nine employees be included in the appropriate unit, although they are nominally em- 'Although this corporation was occasionally referred to in this proceeding as Western Gillette Motor Transport , Inc., the above is its correct name. 137 NLRB No. 58. 472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees of Voss Truck Lines, Inc., hereinafter called Voss. On or about December 12, 1961, Gillette filed an answer to the motion. On February 6, 1962, the Board issued an Order remanding the matter to the Regional Director for the purpose of holding a hearing on the issues raised by the Petitioner's motion and Gillette's response thereto. The hearing was held on February 20, 1962, before Joseph P. Parker, hearing officer. After the close of the hearing, the Employer filed a brief, in which it stated, inter alia, that it took no position with respect to the inclusion of the office and clerical employees of Voss here involved in the unit of office and clerical employees of Gillette at its Dallas operation, for which the Petitioner is certified. 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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Petitioner's motion, the Respondent's answer and brief, and the entire record herein, and hereby makes the following findings. In August 1960 Gillette and Voss entered into a contract whereby Gillette agreed to purchase, and Voss agreed to sell, all the capital stock of the latter corporation. Thereafter, Gillette applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission, hereinafter called the ICC, for permission to complete the purchase and in September 1960, by order of the ICC, was granted temporary management control of the Voss operation. Thereafter, in a proceeding before the Interstate Com- merce Commission it was recommended to the Commission that the requested purchase be approved. However, one of the original Pro- testants filed an exception to the recommendation and consideration thereof is now pending before the Commission. Pending final disposition of the proceedings before the ICC, Voss, by order of the Commission must be, and is, maintained as a separate corporation, with a general office and its own separate records, books, and accounts. Further, its earnings during the period are kept segre- gated from those of Gillette. However, with respect to the office and clerical employees involved in this proceeding there has been a merger of operations. Thus, in late 1960, the Voss operation was moved from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to Dallas, Texas, and since that time all the employees whose unit placement is here questioned have worked together with Gillette employees at that Company's Dallas operation. The employees in both the Voss and Gillette groups perform office and clerical duties. And though they appear on separate payrolls and have separate seniority, they have the same classifications, perform similar work duties for both companies, have the same wage rates, work under the same immediate supervision, and have the same work- THE GENERAL TIRE OF MIAMI BEACH, INC., ETC. 473 ing conditions and employee benefits. There have been at least two transfers between the groups, both involving the same employee. It is evident from the foregoing that the Voss employees not only fall into the classifications already included within the appropriate unit but work within, and are an integral part of, such unit. Further- more, as a result of the operational integration of the Voss office oper- ations with those of Gillette, it is clear that, under the existing cir- cumstances,,Gillette is an employer of the Voss employees whose unit placement is in dispute. Consequently, we shall in view of the above considerations include the Voss employees in the unit. We shall, how- ever, make provision for the contingency that the Commission does not approve this purchase, in which case complete control of all Voss operations shall revert to that company and its central office may be returned to Oklahoma City. Accordingly, in the event the Commis- sion disapproves the purchase, the Voss employees who are to leave Gillette's operations and return to their former status under Voss shall no longer be part of the certified unit. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the certification issued in this proceeding to Office Employees Internation Union, Local 45, AFL-CIO, be, and it hereby is, clarified, subject to the condition set forth above, to include office and clerical employees of Voss Truck Lines, Inc., at Gillette Motor Transport, Inc., Dallas, Texas, operation. The General Tire of Miami Beach , Inc.; The General Tire of Miami, Inc.; M. O'Neil Properties and International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 320. Cases Nos. 12-CA-14541-1,12-CA-1454-2, and 12-CA-1454-3. June 4, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On February 16, 1961, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.' 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- 1 The Respondents filed a request for oral argument. However, as the record , excep- tions, and briefs adequately set forth the issues and positions of the parties, the request for oral argument is denied. 137 NLRB No. 55.