The New Britain Machine Co.

I In the Matter of THE NEW BRITAIN MACHINE COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, (C. I: 0.) Case No. R-4907.=Decided March 17,19J3 Jurisdiction : metal products manufacturing industry. 'Investigation and Certification of Representatives: 'existence of question : com- pany refused to accord union recognition on ground that it did not know whether or not the union represented a majority within an appropriate unit; part-time employees regularly employed by the company and working on its half-time or 4-hour shifts, held eligible to vote notwithstanding that they also happened to have regular employment elsewhere ; election necessary. 'Units Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : (1) all production' and mainte- nance employees with specified exclusions; specified, groups excluded notwith- standing contention of one of the labor organizations that they should be included when their interests and work differed from employees within the unit and there was absent any evidence of a persuasive character tending to establish the appropriateness of their inclusion; (2) all guards and plant-protection employees, excluding captains and sergeants who were excluded from the industrial unit, notwithstanding that one of the organizations desired their inclusion and 'company's objection to their affiliation with the same organiza- tion representing the production and maintenance employees. Mr. H. H. Pease and Mr. R. T. Frizbie, of New Britain, Conn., for the Company. Mr. David Scribner,•of New York City, and Mr. Nicholas Tomasetti, of New Britain, Conn., for the C. I. O. Mr. David L.'Nair, of New Britain, Conn., Mr. Bernard Blacker, of West Hartford, Conn.; and Mr. Howard Y. Stearns, of New Britain, Conn., for the Association. - Mr. Arthur Leff, of counsel to the Board. . DECISION AND - DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon amended petition duly filed by ,United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, (C. I. O:), herein called the C. I. O., alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees .of.The New Britain Machine Com- pany, New Britain, Connecticut, herein called the Company, the 48 N. L. R. B.,'No. 34. 263 264 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Thomas H. Ramsey, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at New Britain, Connecticut, on February 17, 1943. The Company, the C. I. 0., and The New 'Britain Machine Social & Benefit Association, herein called- the Association; appeared; partic- ipated, and were afforded full opportunity to, be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the' issues. The Trial, Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : ' ' FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The New Britain Machine Company is a Connecticut corporation engaged in the manufacture of machine tools, screw machine products, airplane engine parts and projectors. It operates plants at New Britain, Connecticut.. The Company uses raw materials consisting of steel, gray iron castings, lubricants, and mill 'supplies, the annual cost of which exceeds $5,000,000. Approximately 50 percent of the raw materials used 'by the Company is shipped to its New Britain, Connecticut, plants from points outside the State of Connecticut. The gross annual sales of the Company exceed $7,500,000,• and more ,than 50 percent of the Company's finished products is shipped from -its plants in New Britain, Connecticut, to points outside the • State of Connecticut. The Company admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce, within the meaning of the National-Labor Relations Act. U. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations and The New Britain Machine Social & Benefit Association, unaffiliated, are labor organiza- tions admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Prior to the hearing; the C. I. O. requested' recognition as 'the sole collective bargaining agent of employees of the Company, but the ,Company refused to accord such recognition upon the ground that it did not know whether the C. I. O. represented a majority of employees within the appropriate unit or units. At the time said request was ' made the Company had a contract with the Association dated March 3, 1942, which by its terms expired on March 1, 1943. The ' Company does not assert this contract to be a bar to these proceedings. ' r'<T', '.THE. NEW:BRITAIN MACHINE,COMPANY'_i`-` t- 265- A statement of the Regional Director; introduced in evidence -at the hearing shows that the C. I. 0. represents a substantial number of employees in the units hereinafter found'to be appropriate.' ' We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation. of ,employees at the Company's New Britain plants within,the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS The C. I. 0., the Association, and the Company are.agreed that all production and maintainance employees should be included in the appropriate unit, and that all executives, salesmen,, foremen, assistant foremen, rate setters, time setters, captains, and sergeants of the plant- protection guard, and administrative employees should be excluded. The Association would also include, but the C. I. 0. would exclude, . expediters, stock chasers, hurry-clerks, dispatchers, timekeepers, cler- ical employees, cafeteria employees, and technical department em; ployees consisting of engineers, draftsmen, designers, detailers, trac- ers, and blueprint and photostat machine operators .2 The C. L 0. requests that all guards and plant-protection employees, excluding captains and sergeants, be included in a separate appropriate unit,3 but the Association asserts that these employees should be included in a single unit with other employees of the Company.' As to guards and plant-protection employees, the Company's position is that they should be excluded both from the unit urged by the C. I. 0. and the unit urged' by the Association and should in no event be permitted to vote for bargaining representatives who may also represent production and maintenance employees of the Company. In support of its position that the employees in the disputed cate- gories should be included in a single appropriate unit with the pro- duction and maintenance employees, the Association points to the fact that since March 1942 it has had a contract with the Company, under which it has been recognized as the exclusive bargaining representa- I The Regional Director reported that the C I. 0 submitted as proof of representation 1,826 membership authorization cards of which 1,214 appear to bear genuine original sig- natures of persons whose names were on the Company's pay roll for the period including January 16, 1943. The said pay roll contained a total of 3,118 names in the unit which prior to the amendment of the petition, as below noted, the C. I. 0. had claimed to be appropriate . In said alleged unit there were approximately 63 plant-protection employees including 6 corporals, and 40 cards bore apparently genuine signatures of such employees. The Association submitted no proof of representation but rested on its contract with the Company. , 2 The Company took no position with respect to these disputed employee categories. 3In its amended petition upon which the hearing was directed, the C. I. 0. had requested that the guards and plant-protection employees be included with other employees of the Company in a single appropriate unit. At, the hearing the C. I. 0, moved further to amend its petition so as to request a separate appropiiate unit for guards and plant-pro- tection employees Decision upon this motion was reserved for the Board. For the rea- sons herein indicated, the said motion to amend is hereby granted. 266 DECISIONS OF .NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive for all nonsupervisory employees of the Company. The record discloses, however, that the Association in' practice has not negotiated wage rates for the job classifications within the disputed categories,, and, except for the consideration of grievances in certain isolated instances, has not otherwise in practice represented employees within these groups. On the basis of the evidence presented we are unable to find any previous bargaining history of sufficient weight to impel us to depart from our usual policies regarding such disputed employees categories. Expediters, stock chasers, hurry-clerks, dispatchers. All, of these employees perform similar functions and the terms are often used synonymously, except that expediters appear to have a higher status than the others and in at least one department of the plant exercise certain supervisory functions over hurry-clerks. It is the. duty of these employees to follow particular jobs through various departments in the plants for the purpose of expediting the completion of orders and assuring adherence to production time schedules. When stop- pages in the flow of work occur or when^criticism or advice is in order, the matter is usually taken up by them with the foreman of the department then handling the work. These employees do not directly participate in production and maintenance work. In the past we have excluded employees performing like functions from units comprised of maintenance and production employees, and since no special cir- cumstances have been shown in this case to support a departure from our previous practice, we shall exclude them here.4 Timekeepers and clerical employees. The timekeepers record the work done and prepare information for the pay roll. Their work is essentially clerical. It is obvious that the status and function, of the timekeepers as well as that of clerical employees is different from the status and functions of employees who perform manual labor. Since no affirmative showing has been made or any compelling argument advanced as to why 'we should depart from our usual practice of excluding clerical employees from a unit principally composed of production and maintenance employees, we shall exclude timekeepers and clerical employees from the unit. Technical Department employees. This group is composed of en- gineers, designers,' draftsmen,, detaile'rs, tracers, and blueprint and photostat machine operators. All of them perform work of a profes- sional or technical nature. In view of the fact that they are engaged in clearly definable technical work, and in the absence of any evidence of a persuasive character tending to establish the appropriateness of 4 See Matter of The Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company and International Association of Machinists Lodge 539, A. F. of L., 44 N. L R. B. 1259; Matter of Julien P. Friez & Sons, Division Bendix Aviation Corp. and Aircraft Radio Association, 47 N. L. R. B. 43. THE NEW BRITAIN MACHINE COMPANY 267 their inclusion in a production and maintenance unit,; we shall' ex- clude'these employees from the unit.5 Cafeteria employees. For the convenience of its employees, the Company maintains a cafeteria which is housed in a separate building, and in connection with its operation has a number of employees in- eluding dietitians, chefs, and waitresses. Until comparatively re- cently, the cafeteria was operated by a concessionaire. It does not appear that either of the labor organizations herein involved has ever attempted to organize the cafeteria employees. Under these circum- stances, and in view of the fact that their work is not directly related to production and maintenance, we shall exclude them from the unit. Guards and plant-protection employees. As already noted,, the Company takes the position that its guards and plant-protection em- ployees should not be permitted to select bargaining representatives who may also represent production and maintenance employees. The Company contends that the organization of such employees and their affiliation with the same labor organization which represents the Com- pany's production and maintenance workers, whose activities they watch and guard, would be incompatible with the proper discharge of their duties and responsibilities. As we have previously held, there is no necessary conflict between self-organization for collective bargain- ing and the faithful performance of duty, and it would be repugnant to the purposes of the Act to deny such employees the right to select a bargaining representative of their own choosing solely because such representative may likewise have been chosen by other employees. However, as we have also held, such employees should not as a matter of general policy be included in a unit of production and maintenance workers, but rather in a-separate unit restricted to employees of their own class. We shall therefore include the guards and plant-protection employees excluding captains and sergeants, who we find are super- visory employees, in a separate unit as requested by the C. I. 0.6 We find that all production and maintenance employees, excluding all executives, salesmen, foremen, assistant foremen, rate setters, time setters, guards, and plant-protection employees, administrative em- ployees, expediters, stock chsers; hurry-clerks, dispatchers, time- keepers, clerical employees, cafeteria employees, and technical depart- ment employees consisting' of engineers, draftsmen, designers, de- s See Matter of The Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company and'International Associa- tion of. Machinists Lodge 539, A F. of L , supra, Matter of American Propeller Corporation, Toledo, Ohio and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural 1 a- plement Workers of America (C. 1. 0 ), 43 N. L. R B 518. 6 See Matter of Chrysler Corporation, Highland Park Plant and Local 11 4, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 44 N. L. R. B. 881; Matter of Julius Peterson and Marine Metal Trades Council of the Port of New York find Vicinity, et al , -46 N. L. R. B 1049; Matter of Lord Manufacturing Company and United Rubber Workers of America, 47 N. L. R. B. 1032. 268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tailers, tracers, aid blueprint and photostat machine operators, con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. We further find that all guards and plant-protection employees of the Company, excluding captains and sergeants, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by elections by secret ballot among the em- ployees in the appropriate units who were employed during the pay- roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Elec- tions herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. At the hearing, controversy developed with respect to the eligibility of certain part-time employees to vote at the election. It appears that the Company has a number of employees who, although regularly employed by the Company throughout the week in capacities similar to full-time employees, work on half time, 4-hour shifts. Some of these part-time employees also hold full-time positions with other employers. The C. I. 0. contends that part-time employees who also have full-time employment elsewhere should be declared ineligible to vote. The Association, on the other hand, contends that those work- ing on 4-hour shifts are employees of the Company to the same extent as the employees who work on 8-hour shifts and should not be denied the right to vote because they may also be employed elsewhere. Act- ing on the principle that employees who do sufficient work to give them an interest in the conditions of employment also have a sufficient interest in the outcome to entitle them to vote in an election, we have frequently in the past declared regular part-time employees eligible to vote.7 We believe this principle to be no less applicable in the case of regular part-time employees who also happen to have regular employment elsewhere, for this circumstance, alone, can neither de- stroy nor reduce the interest which such employees would otherwise have to participate in the selection of a bargaining representative. We therefore find that all part-time employees regularly employed by the Company and working on its half-time or 4-hour shifts should be eligible to vote. I See Seattle Times Company and Seattle Newspaper Guild Local 82, American News- paper Guild, 47 N. L. R. B. 8; Matter of Max Kaplan and Jacob Kaplan, doing busi- ness as Kaplan Brothers and Textile Workers Union of America, Greater New York Joint Board, 46 N. L. It. B. 1057; Elton R. Awry, et al. and United Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Employees of America, 44 N. L. R. B. 801, and cases there cited; Mat- ter of Hillsdale Screen Company and United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., 39 N. L. R. B. 612. THE NEW BRITAIN MACHINE COMPANY 269 DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series '2, as amended, it is hereby - I " . I ' DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain repre- sentatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The New Britain Machine Company, New Britain, Connecticut, elections by secret ballot shall be conducted as, early as possible, bur, not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Re- gion, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees of The New Britain Machine Com- pany, New Britain, Connecticut, within the units found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation, or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in per- son at the polls, but excluding any who have since quit or been dis- charged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, (C. I. 0.), or by The New Britain Machine Social & Benefit Association, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. MR.- JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 1