Burd Piston Ring Co.

In the Matter of BURR PISTON RING COMPANY , EMPLOYER and UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER Case No. 13-R-41436.-Decided January 20, 194.8 Messrs. F. M. White, A. H. Bates, and M. E. Wahlstrom, of Rock- ford, Ill., for the Respondent. Messrs. Harry Lehnert and Thomas E. Sullivan, of Rockford, Ill., for the Petitioner. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Rockford. Illinois, on July 24, 1947, before Max Rotenberg, hearing officer' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board' makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Burd Piston Ring Company, an Illinois corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of piston rings and automobile heaters at its two plants in Rockford, Illinois, known as the main plant and the Harrison Avenue plant, with which plants we are here concerned. The Em- ployer annually purchases over $100,000 worth of materials from points outside the State. Its annual sales exceed $150,000, of which over $100,000 worth represents shipments to points outside the State. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 1 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned board members [Houston, Murdock , and Gray]. 75 N. L R. B, No. 110. 879 880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. TIIE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees until the Peti- tioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The employees whom the petitioner seeks to represent are described by the parties as "shop production clerks who record units produced and also record time spent on production." In the main plant they are located at stations throughout the plant proper; at the Harrison Avenue plant they are stationed in the main office and receive in- formation from production employees by means of an inter-com- munication system. It is their function to receive from the produc- tion employees data concerning the number of units produced and time consumed in the various operations. The reported data is then prepared by them in triplicate, one, copy going to the Pay Roll De- partment, another to the Production Department and a third to the employee concerned. They also inform production employees of the sequence of operations, a function which is routine in character and apparently does not call for any exercise of discretion. It would thus appear that the employees in question are in effect production clerks whose duties include timekeeping, a classification customarily regarded as timekeepers in determining an appropriate unite The Employer opposes the establishment of a unit of these employees on the grounds that: (1) in compiling information from which pay rolls are made up, these production clerks are performing a function of management, (2) these employees are excluded from the current bargaining contract with the petitioning union covering the Em- ployer's production and maintenance employees at both plants, and (3) these employees constitute a numerically small group. As to ground one, the Board has frequently rejected the contention that employees engaged in timekeeping perform duties involving managerial func- 2 Matter o f New Jersey Worsted MtiUs, 63 N L R. B. 455. BURD PISTON RING COMPANY 881 tions.3 As to the exclusion of these employees from the existing pro- duction and maintenance unit, it would appear that the existing unit was not established as a result of any Board proceeding: Moreover, we have frequently held that the express exclusion of employees from the coverage clause of a contract 4 does not constitute an agreement not to seek to represent such employees and the contract does not bar a petition for representation of these employees by the contracting unions Accordingly, we find these contentions to be lacking in merit. With respect to the contention as to the size of the unit, while we find it unnecessary to pass upon that contention in view of our conclusion herein, we wish to point out that we have frequently held that one employee may not, but that more than one employee may, properly constitute an appropriate units As already noted, the employees whom the Petitioner seeks to repre- sent have considerable community of interest with the production employees and have duties analogous to those of plant clerical em- ployees. Moreover, with particular reference to timekeepers, it has become increasingly evident, since our decision in the Northwest Engineering Corporation case 7 that, in the absence of an already established unit of plant clericals, such employees are more properly included in a production and maintenance unit." Therefore, we shall establish a voting group of the requested employees and shall afford them an opportunity to determine through an election whether or not they desire to be represented as part of the production and maintenance unit. If these employees select the Petitioner as their 'bargaining representative, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the existing unit of production and maintenance employees and the Petitioner may bargain for them as part of such unit. Accordingly, we shall direct an election among all shop production clerks who record units produced and time spent on production, ex- cluding relief operators 9 and supervisors. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with Burd Piston Ring Company, Rockford, Illinois, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as 3 Matter of Northwest Engineering Corporation , 73 N L R 13.40. 4 Although the established unit does not expressly exclude this category it would appear that the parties regarded the excluded categories as embracing these employees. splatter of Standard Lime and Stone Company, 74 N. L R B.'893 9 Matter of A S. Campbell Co., Inc., 69 N. L. R. B. 1285. 7 See footnote 3, supra. s Matter of International Detrola Co., 73 N. L. It. B. 1358 ; Matter of P. A. Geier Co., 74 N. L. It. B. 103, Matter of Art Metal Construction Co., 75 N. L. It. B. 80. B No issue has been raised with respect to the exclusion of these employees who relieve shop production clerks for short periods of time. 882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the'.date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions-Series 5, among the employees in the voting group described 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, excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Automobile, Aircraft Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW-CIO), for the purpose of collective bargaining.