Industrial Cleaning Machines, Inc.

INDUSTRIAL CLEANING MACHINES, INC. Industrial Cleaning Machines, Inc. and Teamsters Auto- motive Workers, Local 495, International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Petitioner . Case 21-RC-11429 April 27, 1970 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS Pursuant to ,a Stipulation for Certification UponICon- sent Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 7, 1969, under the direction and supervi- sion of the Regional Director for Region 21, among the employees in the stipulated 'unit described below. At the conclusion of the election, the 'parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approxi- mately 18 eligible voters, 16 cast ballots, of which 8 were for the Petitioner, 5 were against the Petitioner, and 3 were challenged. The challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. No objections to the conduct of the election were filed. 'In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and' Statements of Proce- dure, Series 8, as amended, the' Regional Director con- ducted an investigation of the challenges and, on Decem- ber 9, 1969, he issued and duly served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots in which he recommend- ed that challenges to two of the ballots' be sustained, and that the Petitioner be certified as the bargaining representative of the employees involved. As to the remaining challenged ballot, the Regional Director rec- ommended that if it was determinative of the results that it could be best resolved through a hearing. There- after, the Employer filed timely exceptions and a support- ing brief to the Regional Director's report, and the Petitioner filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con- nection with this case to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization which claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the follow- ing 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 employees employed by the Employer at its plant located 181 at 10640 South Garfield, South Gate, California; excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered -the Regional Director's report, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and finds as follows: We find, as did 'the Regional Director with respect to the challenged ballot of Edward Chaffey, that he is a technical employee. The stipulation provided for a unit of production and maintenance employees only, and excluded all other employees. We find that it was the clear intention of the parties to include only produc- tion and maintenance employees as specifically designat- ed in the stipulation, and to exclude all other employees.' The • unit established by the parties does not violate any clearly established Board policy and where there are no such competing interests the primary question is what the parties intended. Therefore, we-reject the Employer's contention that it was the intention of the parties to. include Chaffey and adopt the Regional Director's recommendations to sustain the challenge to his ballot.' Moreoyer, we find that Chaffey is employed in the engineering department which is located separate and, apart from the production area; that he' is identified with the:engineering department as distinguished from production employees; that any actual production work performed by him is occasional and minimal; and that his. interests are diverse to those of' the employees in the appropriate unit.' Accordingly, as we have sustained the challenge to the ballot of Chaffey, and as the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE It is hereby certified that Teamsters Automotive Work- ers, Local 495, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees in the unit found appropriate above as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the said labor organization is the exclusive representative for all employees in such unit for purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 160 NLRB 1394 In view of our finding that the challenge to the ballot of Chaffey be sustained, we do not find it necessary to pass upon the challenged ballots of Holt and Dolan as they would not be sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. , Member Brown would exclude Chaffey solely because his community of interest is diverse to that of the unit employees 182 NLRB No. 25