McCulloch Corp.

1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD McCulloch Corporation 1 and Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers & Helpers, Local 986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-9104. November 23, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer I. W. Ein. 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Mem- bers 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 labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer .2 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons: Early in 1963, the UAW filed a petition 3 seeking a unit of the production and maintenance employees of the Employer, which was engaged in the manufacture of outboard motors and chain saws in Los Angeles. In June 1963, pursuant to a decision of the Regional Director for Region 21, an election was held in a unit of all the Employer's production and maintenance employees, including ship- ping and receiving employees, printshop employees, and truckdrivers. Following the election, which the UAW lost, the UAW filed objec- tions. After the Regional Director overruled the objections, the UAW filed a request for review with the Board; this request for review is currently before the Board for consideration. In July 1963, about a month after the election was held, the Employer began operations at Redondo Beach, approximately 6 miles from Los Angeles. The Employer transferred to the Redondo Beach facility its shipping, service stores, and printshop operations, form- erly performed at Los Angeles, and transferred to the new location a number of employees who had performed these functions at the old ' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing 2 International Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work- ers of America , UAW, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as UAW, intervened for the purpose of moving that the petition be dismissed. 3 Case No. 21-RC-8228. 149 NLRB No. 95. McCULLOCH CORPORATION 1021 location. The Petitioner herein seeks a unit of the Employer's ware- house employees at the Redondo Beach facility .4 The Employer and the UAW moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought is inappropriate. Practically all the employees in the job classifications sought by the Petitioner had transferred to Redondo Beach from Los Angeles, where they had been similarly classified and performed similar duties. Two of the employees who transferred to Redondo Beach later trans- ferred back to Los Angeles. There are also frequent temporary transfers of employees in various categories from Los Angeles to do warehouse work at Redondo Beach. In addition, the Employer has continued to employ personnel at Los Angeles in the same job classi- fications performing the same kind of work as those at Redondo Beach sought by the Petitioner. In fact, some employees who are normally assigned to Redondo Beach actually work at Los Angeles. Employee benefits, wage scales, and labor relations policy are the same for both locations, seniority for promotions and layoffs is on a companywide basis within job classifications, and an employee retains his seniority within a prior classification after being placed in a new classification at either location. Overall supervision of ware- housing functions at both locations is centralized in Los Angeles. General supervision of the Redondo Beach operation is performed by the supervisor of service stores and the traffic manager, both of whom perform supervisory duties in Los Angeles as well. There are also four assistant foremen attached to Redondo Beach, one of whom spends part of his time at Los Angeles, where he supervises the employees assigned to Redondo Beach but who actually work at Los Angeles, as well as employees who drive trucks between the two locations. The employees at Redondo Beach who are sought by the Peti- tioner are essentially the same employees who were included in the overall production and maintenance unit. In view of all the circum- stances, including the integration between the Los Angeles and Redondo Beach facilities, the transfers between the two locations, the employee benefits, wage scales, supervision, and labor relations poli- cies common to both locations, and the pendency of the prior pro- ceeding, we find that the petitions seeking a separate unit at the Redondo Beach operation does not raise a question concerning repre- sentation in an appropriate unit. Accordingly, under all the circum- stances of this case, we shall grant the motions of the Employer and the UAW to dismiss the petition herein. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 4 The Petitioner alternatively requested a unit of employees in the designated ware- house classifications at both Redondo Beach and Los Angeles, but it did not present an adequate showing of interest for such a unit.