The Parsons Investment Co.

192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Car Traders, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Production Workers, Local 424, Independent, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER It is hereby recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. Donald H. Parsons and James C. Holmes, d/b/a the Parsons In- vestment Company and Local 79, Building Service Employees' International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC- 6490. A pril 27,1965 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION On October 22, 1964, the Acting Regional Director for Region 7 issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding, dismiss- ing the petition on the ground that the requested unit confined in scope to certain employees employed at one of the Employer's two office buildings was not appropriate. Thereafter, the Petitioner, in accord- ance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, filed with the Board a timely request for review of such Decision and Order on the ground that the Acting Regional Director erroneously applied Board prece- dent in concluding that the requested unit was inappropriate. The Employer filed an opposition to the request for review. The Board by telegraphic Order dated November 19, 1964, granted the request for review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con- nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Jenkins]. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the Acting Regional Director's determination under review, includ- ing the positions of the parties as set forth in the request for review and the opposition thereto, and makes the following findings : The Employer, a Michigan partnership, owns the Ford Building and the Dime Building in Detroit, Michigan. The two office buildings are managed by the Lewis and Ford Company, a property manage- 152 NLRB No. 14. THE PARSONS INVESTMENT COMPANY 193 ment firm . James B. Lewis and H. E. Ford are partners in the man- agement firm. Lewis maintains an office in the Dime Building and Ford has one in the Ford Building. Each partner handles the day-to- day management of the building in which his office is located. The two buildings are located less than a block apart on the same street, being separated by an alley, an office building, and a main street. They are connected by a tunnel, approximately 10 feet in diameter, through which public utility pipes and lines are routed. Both build- ings are heated by steam supplied by the Detroit Edison Company. The steam is routed to the Dime Building and then flows to the Ford Buildings through pipes which go through the tunnel. Similarly the electricity for both buildings is received by the Dime Building and is conducted through the tunnel to the Ford Building. The buildings also have a central switchboard located in the Dime Building. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all building service employees at the Ford Building and would exclude the plumbing and utility crew who are supervised by a chief engineer whose office is in the Dime Building. The seven employees on this crew report to and work out of the Dime Building and though they perform their functions for both buildings, spend the majority of their time working in the Dime Building. The Employer contends, and the Acting Regional Director found, that the only appropriate unit must include all the buildings service employees at its two office buildings. There is no bargaining history and no labor organization is seeking to represent the more comprehensive unit. Although there is no dispute concerning the appropriateness of the more comprehensive unit urged by the Employer, there are factors present which indicate that the Petitioner's requested unit limited to building service employees employed at the Ford Building is also appropriate.' The record shows that each building has its own super- intendent who is located in an office in that building. The building superintendents do the actual hiring and firing and order the bulk of materials used in their respective buildings. The building superin- tendent in the Ford Building supervises 3 painters, a carpenter, an electrician , an elevator starter, a freight elevator operator, and 27 to 30 janitresses who normally perform their services solely in that build- ing. The Dime Building also has its own carpenters, painters, elec- tricians, elevator operators , janitresses, and other building service ' There is nothing in the statute which requires that the unit for bargaining be the only appropriate unit, or the ultimate unit, or the most appropriate unit; the Act re- quires only that the unit be "appropriate ." Morand Brothers Beverage Co, et al., 91 NLRB 409, 418. 789-730-66-vol. 152-14 194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees who normally perform their services solely in the Dime Building under the supervision of the superintendent of that building. The janitresses in each building work under the direction of a forelady located in that building. The electrician in the Ford Building occa- sionally works in the Dime Building during busy periods or vacations. Although the elevator starter in the Ford Building does not perform any services in the Dime Building, she is replaced during her vacation by an operator from the Dime Building. The building service employ- ees in each building submit their attendance reports to their respective supervisors. There are separate employee lounges in each building. On the foregoing evidence we can not conclude that the unit re- quested by the Petitioner, limited to the building service employees at the Ford Building, is inappropriate. In the circumstances of this case, including especially the degree of autonomy that exists in the operation and maintenance of each building, reflected in the control each building superintendent exercises in the day-to-day operation of his building, the separate supervision of employees in the group sought, the lack of any substantial interchange of such employees with simi- larly classified employees in the Dime Building, the absence of any bargaining history, and the fact that no labor organization seeks to represent the more comprehensive unit, we conclude that the employees at the Ford Building have a community of interests apart from the employees in the Dime Building,2 and that the requested single-build- ing unit will assure to the employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by the Act and is, therefore, an appropriate unit 3 Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act: All building service employees employed by the Employer at the Ford Building, Detroit, Michigan, including janitors, janitresses, ele- vator operators and starters, painters, carpenters, and electricians, but excluding office clerical employees, the plumbing and utility crew, 2 While there may be a common use of the plumbing and utility crew , it is clear that these employees are separately supervised, separately located, and spend the majority of their time working in the Dime Building We are not persuaded that the plumbing and utility crew share such a community of interests with the building service employees at the Ford Building as to require their inclusion in the requested unit. We shall, accord- ingly, exclude them from the unit. 3 Gordon Mills, Inc., 145 NLRB 771, and Dixie Belle Mills, Inc, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bell Industries, Inc., 139 NLRB 629. We are unable to agree with our dissenting colleague that the determination made by the Acting Regional Director is supported by "ample Board precedent." The cases cited by the Acting Regional Director , to which the dissent adverts , may not fairly be read as controlling the specific situation present in this case. THE PARSONS INVESTMENT COMPANY 195 watchmen , guards, foreladies , building superintendent , and all other supervisors , as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting : Unlike my colleagues , I would not disturb the Acting Regional Director's Decision and Order in this case. In my view the request for review was improvidently granted. The Petitioner's request for review is grounded on the assertion that the Acting Regional Director erroneously applied Board precedent in making his determination. I do not find this assertion to be supported by the record in this case. The Acting Regional Director found that such factors as ownership of both buildings, central management and control (above the imme- diate supervisory level), central determination of labor policy, identi- cal wages and fringe benefits, identical hours and working conditions, performance of identical duties and use of similar skills, and inter- change of employees to a limited degree, warranted the conclusion that a unit embracing the employees of both buildings was the appropriate unit. On the basis of the record facts here, it can not be said that the Acting Regional Director was clearly wrong. Indeed, there is ample Board precedent to support the Acting Regional Director's determina- tion based upon consideration of the above factors .4 On the basis of the foregoing, I am not persuaded that the Peti- tioner has clearly established that the Acting Regional Director has misapplied existing Board precedent. Board procedure requires that a party seeking review of a Regional Director's Decision under Section 102.67(c) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, must show convincingly that the Decision violated one or more of the carefully circumscribed grounds set forth in that section.5 Absent i See the following cases cited by the Acting Regional Director in support of his de- termination: G. L Webster Company, Incorporated, 133 NLRB 440, 442, Pine State Creamery Company, Inc, 130 NLRB 892, 893 ; S G Tilden. Incorporated, 129 NLRB 1096. Brown Engineering Company, Inc, 123 NLRB 1619; Medrose Hosiery Malls, Inc., 114 NLRB 1166 Also compare Mad-West Abrasive Company, 145 NLRB 1665, 1668 5 Section 102 67 (c) : The Board will grant a request for review only where compelling reasons exist therefor Accordingly, a request for review may be granted only upon one or more of the following grounds • (1) That a substantial question of law or policy is raised because of (a) the absence of, or (b) a departure from , officially reported Board precedent. (2) That the regional director' s decision on a substantial factual issue is clearly erroneous on the record and such error prejudicially affects the rights of a party. (3) That the conduct of the hearing or any ruling made in connection with the proceeding has resulted in prejudicial error (4) That there are compelling reasons for reconsideration of an Important Board rule or policy. 196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a clear demonstration of error, I find no basis in reason or logic for the Board to upset the Decisions and Orders of the Regional Directors. To do so defeats the very reasons for delegating authority to the Regional Directors to make these determinations. As I find that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate convincingly that the Acting Regional Director's Decision is in error, I would sus- tain the Decision and Order and dismiss the petition. Moulton Manufacturing Company and International Ladies' Gar- ment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-5648. April 08, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On January 19, 1965, Trial Examiner Rosanna A. Blake issued her Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There- after the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision 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-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, Moulton Manufacturing Company, Moulton, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed on March 11 and April 27, 1964, by the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, the General Counsel, acting through the Act- 152 NLRB No. 23.