Extract
The General Tire of Miami Beach, Inc., 473 (1962)
THE GENERAL TIRE OF MIAMI BEACH, INC., ETC. 473 ing conditions and employee benefits. There have been at least two transfers between the groups, both involving the same employee.
It is evident from the foregoing that the Voss employees not only fall into the classifications already included within the appropriate unit but work within, and are an integral part of, such unit. Furthermore, as a result of the operational integration of the Voss office operations with those of Gillette, it is clear that, under the existing circumsfances,..Gillette is an employer of the Voss employees whose unit placement is in dispute. Consequently, we shall in view of the above considerations include the Voss employees in the unit. We shall, however, make provision for the contingency that the Commission does not approve this purchase, in which case complete control of all Voss operations shall revert to that company and its central office may be returned to Oklahoma City. Accordingly, in the event the Commission disapproves the purchase, the Voss employees who are to leave Gillette's operations and return to their former status under Voss shall no longer be part of the certified unit.ORDERIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the certification issued in this proceeding to Office Employees Internation Union, Local 45, AFL-CIO, be, and it hereby is, clarified, subject to the condition set forth above, to include office and clerical employees of Voss Truck Lines, Inc., at Gillette Motor Transport, Inc., Dallas, Texas, operation.The General Tire of Miami Beach, Inc.; The General Tire of Miami, Inc.; M. O'Neil Properties and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 320. Cases Nos. 1l-CA 1454-1,12-CA-1454-93, and .19-CA-1454-3. June 4, 1962 DECISION AND ORDEROn ,February 16, 1961, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report 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 three1 The Respondents filed a request for oral argument. However, as the record , exceptions, and briefs adequately set forth the issues and positions of the parties, the request for oral argument is denied.137 NLRB No. 55.member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom].The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.3 ORDERThe Board adopts the Recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with a minor modification.' 2 We do not rely upon William L Bailey's own statement that he was a supervisor Other evidence in the record discloses his supervisory status as reflected in the testimony of Jeranimo Oliveira, Lonne F. Hesters, and Douglas Morris 3 We affirm the Trial Examiner's finding that the Charging Party is...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
