Walker-Roemer Dairies, Inc.

430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Walker-Roemer Dairies, Inc. and General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 270, affiliated with the International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case 15-RC-4406 November 6, 1970 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Joseph G. Norton. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. After the close of the hearing the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs with the Board. 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. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the briefs, and makes the following findings: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer's operation consists of a process- ing plant, offices, and a garage facility at Metairie, Louisiana, plus branch offices in three towns 40 to 60 miles distant. Only the employees at the garage facility are sought by the Petitioner. This group comprises a lead mechanic, five mechanics, two body shop men (one a painter), two utility men and a mechanic helper-relief driver. Their work is typical automotive maintenance, including motor overhaul, transmission and clutch work, brakes, wiring, oiling, and tire changing. The Employer contends that the unit should be systemwide, excluding processing plant employees and presumably office clericals. In effect, it urges a unit of garage employees and drivers. There is no bargaining history for its employees. In 1965 a consent election was conducted in a unit of wholesale and retail route drivers and route supervisors, excluding all other employees. The Union lost. The garage or shop is in a separate building, approximately 75 feet from the loading dock. The employees sought regularly work from eight to five, except that one mechanic comes in early to handle incidental maintenance problems during the period from 4 a.m. to 6 a.m. when the route drivers are loading.' Unless ill or on vacation, the same mechanic regularly takes this early assignment, according to the mechanic who testified. The mechanic helper, who also serves as a relief driver, spends 35 to 40 percent of his time relieving van drivers and occasionally taking out a substitute truck in case of breakdown. Mechan- ics also go to the branches to repair trucks, normally returning the same day. They also leave the garage to make on the spot repairs or, in the case of a utility man, to change a tire on the road.2 Some of the mechanics were hired with automobile training; the lead mechanic has been trained to work on diesels. The Petitioner's witness, a mechanic, testified that he is able to rebuild an engine or transmission by himself. Garage employees have their own immediate supervision. They are hired by fleet manager Graves, who also purchases trucks. They are directed in their work by lead mechanic Warden, who makes the initial inspection as to what sort of repair is needed, assigns the work and tells the men "which way to do it", inspects it, and can require it to be done over. Warden is paid approximately 25 cents more per hour and does no mechanical work himself. Warden also orders parts. The Petitioner's witness testified that, at the time he was hired 5 months earlier, he was told by Graves that Warden was the shop foreman and would tell him "what to work on." The parties stipulated that Graves is a supervisor, but the Employer contends that Warden is not because his direction of the work of others is routine and he cannot authorize wage increases or overtime. On this record we conclude that Warden does responsibly direct the work of the other garage employees, and that this function and his assignment of work require the exercise of independ- ent judgment. Accordingly, we find Warden to be a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Garage employees are hourly paid and have their own timeclock. They share rest rooms and vending machines with other employees. Fringe benefits are "basically the same" for all employees. Route drivers, who constitute over 90 percent of all of the Employ- er's drivers, are paid on a commission basis and directly supervised by several route supervisors who ' In addition there are three van drivers who serve the branches and six 2 The Employer has approximately 130-132 pieces of rolling equipment, tank drivers who pick up raw milk . There are also route drivers who work and 100 to 110 route drivers, of whom 30 to 36 are stationed at the out of the branches. branches. 186 NLRB No. 66 WALKER-ROEMER DAIRIES, INC. 431 can hire and discharge them. These supervisors are responsible to the Employer's vice-president and general manager Walker, with whom they normally consult on the tenure of route drivers. Truck assign- ment is accomplished by fleet manager Graves after consulting with the route supervisors. The tank truck drivers are supervised by plant processing supervisor Branyon, who is also in charge of procurement of milk. Walker testified that he himself has jurisdiction over van drivers, except that two of the three live in the area of branch offices and it appears that they are subject to supervision by route supervisors. The van and tank drivers are hourly paid. Route drivers return to the plant about 11 in the morning and, according to the Employer's witness, spend possibly 15 to 20 minutes in the garage area . If a mechanic is called out on the road to make a repair, there is also opportunity for contact between drivers and garage employees, but drivers are not expected to do mechanical work. If necessary, they may assist, but this appears to be uncommon. They do wash their own trucks at a wash rack beside the shop. Occasionally, mechanics repair a truck while it is at the loading dock. The Employer's witness testified that although a former mechanic had worked as a route driver before becoming a mechanic, at present no mechanic has ever driven a truck for the Employer, nor have any of the route drivers worked in the garage. The Employer contends that the garage employees have daily contact with drivers and spend only 30 percent of an average work day in the shop itself. The Petitioner's witness, a mechanic, who testified after the Employer's witness, estimated that the mechanics spend 90 percent of their time in the shop. On the basis of the entire record, we think the latter figure is more probable. It is the position of the Employer that these garage employees are not a group of skilled craftsmen or a readily identifiable group with a distinct community of interest. It contends that employerwide units have been found appropriate in the dairy industry and, in general, that garage employees are "rarely placed alone." Several bargain- ing contracts to which Petitioner is a party were introduced in evidence by the Employer to show area 3 The existence of the dual function mechanic helper who relieves van drivers does not negate this fact. 4 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, NLR.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 U S. 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility practice with respect to garage employees, both as grouped with route salesmen and "with other employ- ees." These involve the dairy and baking industries. The current request for garage employees alone is opposed by the Employer as extent of organization. In Mc-Mor-Han Trucking Co., 166 NLRB 700, a case involving the over-the-road transportation of fluid milk, the Board has found appropriate a unit of drivers excluding mechanics, whom the Employer would have included. The drivers there involved drove within a three-State area. As here, however, they worked different hours from mechanics and did no mechanical work, and there was no progression from mechanics to drivers, or vice versa. Also, most of the mechanical work was done in the garage. The Board distinguished the functions saying that the over-the-road hauling of milk is "both different and separate from the work performed by mechanics." We conclude that the same distinction in function holds true here with respect to the selling of milk and milk products by retail and wholesale route drivers, and the transporting of milk by the van and tank truck drivers, as compared with the work performed by garage employees.3 We find that the garage employees, as shown by this record, are in fact a readily identifiable group with separate immediate supervision and a distinct com- munity of interest apart from driving employees and constitute a unit such as the Board has found appropriate on initial organization. In these circum- stances, the extent to which the employees have organized is not a controlling factor in finding appropriate the unit sought. On the basis of the foregoing, and the record as a whole, we find that the following employees consti- tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes. All employees of the Employer at its Metairie, Louisiana garage, including mechanics, body shop men, utility men, and the mechanic helper-relief driver, but excluding the lead mechanic, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election4 omitted from publication.] list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 15 within 7 days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election. The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed.