Witt-Armstrong Equipment Co.

WITT-ARMSTRONG EQUIPMENT CO Witt-Armstrong Equipment Co. and Teamsters Local Union No. 841, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America. Case 1-RC-13370 November 6, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On June 21, 1974, Teamsters Local Union No. 841, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter called the Petitioner, filed a petition for certification of representatives. The Petitioner filed the petition for the purpose of obtaining the right for separate representation of all parts department em- ployees employed at the Employer's three plants in Hopkinton, Mattapoisett, and South Hadley, Mas- sachusetts. These parts department employees have been included since 1953 in a service unit for which Petitioner and the International Association of Ma- chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Lodge 1898, hereinafter called Intervenor, were jointly certi- fied. Included in that unit, in addition to parts de- partment employees, are mechanics and helpers. A hearing on the petition was held on July 10, 1974, before Hearing Officer Tamara A. Gilman. Following the hearing, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C., pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National La- bor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended. No briefs have been filed by any of the parties. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul- ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case and finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner and Intervenor constitute labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following rea- sons: The Petitioner seeks an election in a unit com- 721 posed of all parts department employees at three plants where the Employer is engaged in the sale and service of farm machinery. The collective-bargaining history shows that the Petitioner and Intervenor were jointly certified in 1953 to represent a unit of service employees, including all mechanics, helpers, and parts employees.' Thereafter, Petitioner and Interve- nor engaged in joint bargaining, and signed succes- sive contracts covering the certified unit. Most of the approximately 13 parts department employees are members of the Petitioner; several are members of the Intervenor. The approximately 88 other employ- ees are members of the Intervenor, except for 3 em- ployees who are members of the Petitioner. Whereas Petitioner contends that a separate unit for the Employer's parts department employees is an appropriate unit, the Employer maintains that the historical unit is the only appropriate unit. The Em- ployer and Intervenor contend, in addition, that the petition should be dismissed because there is present- ly in effect a valid collective-bargaining agreement which constitutes a bar to an election. Based on our consideration of the record herein, we find merit in the contention that, in the circumstances of this case, the employees sought by the Petitioner would not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.' We reach this finding for the following reasons. Pursuant to the joint certification of May 26, 1953, the Unions have executed a number of collective- bargaining agreements. At least since the Employer took over its predecessor's operations in 1967, collec- tive bargaining has been conducted on a joint basis by the Unions and contracts arrived at have estab- lished standard working conditions for all employees, irrespective of their union affiliation.3 There is a sin- gle grievance procedure covering all employees. Sep- arate lines of seniority for parts department and ser- vice department employees have been established. However, the contracts have permitted the Employer to transfer employees, permanently or temporarily, between departments. Both Petitioner and Interve- nor are signatories to the contract, which refers to both as the "Union" party to the contract. Approximately 50 percent of the parts department employees' time is devoted to stocking and filling or- ders for customers. The remainder of their time is spent supplying part demands for the other service employees. The parts department and service areas ' When the certification issued in May 1953, the employer was Perkins Machine Company, Inc However, in 1967 the present Employer took over Perkins Machinery Company's operations , there is no contention that the Employer is not a successor to Perkins 2 In that we are dismissing the petition on the basis that the unit sought is inappropriate, we find it unnecessary to consider the contract-bar issue l Presumably, this was the bargaining pattern prior to 1967, but the re- cord is silent with respect to this matter 214 NLRB No. 118 722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD are immediately adjacent to each other , and parts department employees are often in the service area and service employees are often in the parts depart- ment. In rush situations, the service employees secure their own parts and fill out the required inventory orders. At the Employer's two smaller plants in Mat- tapoisett and South Hadley , the workflow is not suf- ficient to justify full-time parts department employ- ees and, therefore, the parts department employees also work in the service department . At Hopkinton, there is at least one service employee who is presently working in the parts department , and the record indi- cates that, depending on the workflow , it is a com- mon occurrence for some service and parts depart- ment employees to shift back and forth between the rated along parts department or service department lines. Upon the entire record, it is clear, and we find, that the parts department employees for whom Peti- tioner now seeks separate representation do not have an identifiable community of interests which are suf- ficiently distinct and separate to warrant their estab- lishment as a bargaining unit . We shall therefore dis- miss the petition.4 ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. two departments. The Employer's payroll is not sepa- 4 See Pharmaseal Laboratories, 174 NLRB 1139 (1969)