Luminous Processes, Inc.

In the Matter of Lu_YrINOUS PROCESSES, INC., EMPLOYER and PLAY- THINGS, JEWELRY & NOVELTY WORKERS, C. I. 0., PETITIONER Case No. 13-R-3643.-Decided October 18, 1946 IlIr. R. E. Turner, of Ottawa, Ill., for the Employer. Messrs. Walter Ignatowicz and Henry J. Henry, of Chicago, Ill., for the Petitioner. Mr. Elmer P. Freischlag, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Upon an amended petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, on June 18, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among em- ployees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the par- ties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 86 eligible voters, that 83 of these eligible voters cast ballots, of which 66 were for the Petitioner, 10 were against, and 7 were challenged. Thereafter, hearing in the case was held at Ottawa, Illinois, before Sidney Grossman, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS or FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Luminous Processes, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is engaged at its Ottawa, Illinois, plant in the coating with luminous substances of dials and hands of meters and clocks. During the year 1945, the Em- ployer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $100,000, of which approximately 80 percent represented shipments to this plant from points outside the State of Illinois. During the same period, the 71 N. L. R. B., No. 59. 1 405 406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employer-sold finished products amounting in value, to over $100,000, about 25 percent of which represented 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. 11. THE 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 employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em- ployees at the Ottawa, Illinois, plant of the Employer, including in- spectors, but excluding technical employees, office employees, and supervisors. The sole disagreement between the parties relates to the inspectors. At the hearing, the Employer sought to exclude these employees from the unit; In its brief, it argued, in the alternative, that a separate election should be conducted among the inspectors to de- termine if they desire to be included in the, unit- of production, and maintenance employees. There are seven employees in the disputed classification. In general, these inspectors spend approximately 70 percent of their time in per- forming inspection duties and the remainder in packing finished prod- ucts for shipment. In addition, five of these employees rotate, on a monthly basis, in weighing and issuing to production employees lumi- nous substances used in the production process. The inspectors work in close proximity with the production employees, receive comparable rates of pay, enjoy a similar vacation policy, and are under the same supervision as the production employees. Furthermore, during emer- gencies in the past, production employee's have temporarily served in the capacity of inspectors. The inspection duties of the employees in issue consist mainly of checking the quality of the Employer's finished products. In this LUMINOUS PROCESSES, INC. 407 connection, it appears that the inspectors do not work with testing instruments or according to fixed norms or specifications, but rely in- stead on their own judgment in determining whether the articles will meet the customers' requirements. As to work found defective, the inspectors may either reject the articles or return them to the operators for correction and in the event of repeated deficiencies, may report the matter to the supervisor who takes whatever action she deems nec- essary. However, the inspectors have no authority to hire, discharge or effectively recommend a change in the status of employees whose work they inspect. The Employer opposes the inclusion of the inspectors, in effect, on the grounds that : (1) such inclusion would interfere with the faithful performance of their duties, inasmuch as there would be a tendency to pass inferior work and to handle less efficiently the distribution of luminous and other materials which constitute the controlling factors in the Employer's costs; (2) in the event of grievances relating to rejections, the Employer would be at a disadvantage, inasmuch as it would have to rely on its inspectors who exercise virtually sole and final judgment as to the quality of work produced; and (3) the inspec- tors, in rejecting faulty work, may affect the earnings and status of production employees and, therefore, they should be excluded from the unit as supervisory or managerial employees. We find no merit in these contentions. With respect to grounds (1) and (2), it is clear that improper inspection work and inattention to duties by the in- spectors would necessarily redound to their own disadvantage by affecting their positions with the Employer. Moreover, we have fre- quently held that there is no incompatibility between the faithful per- formance of duty and the enjoyment of benefits under the Act., As to the contention that the inspectors are supervisory or managerial employees, we are of the opinion that the inspectors' authority to reject and, in certain instances, to report on defective work is insufficient to constitute supervisory or managerial authority within the Board's customary definition of these terms.' Accordingly, inasmuch as the evidence fails to establish that the in- spectors are managerial, confidential, or supervisory employees, and it appears from the record that a community of interest in the condi- tions of employment exists between the inspectors and the produc- tion and maintenance employees, we shall, consistently with prior 1 See Matter of Harvester War Depot, Inc., 63 N. L. R. B. 249, and Matter of New York World-Telegram Corporation, 58 N. L. R. B 1149. Matter of The Schaible Foundry tend B•ra88 Works Company, 69 N. L. R. B. 527 ; Matter of Schuler Axle Company, Inc., 64 N. L. R. B . 740; and Matter of General Cigar Co., Inc., 64 N. L. R. B. 300. 408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unanimous decisions of the Board, reject the unit contentions of the Employer and include the inspectors in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.3 We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's Ottawa, Illinois, plant, including inspectors, but excluding technical employees, office employees, supervisors and all other super- visory employees with authority to hire, pronnote, discharge, discipline, or-otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The results of the election held prior to the hearing show that the Petitioner received a majority of the valid votes cast. Inasmuch as the number of challenged ballots and our present determination with o respect to the disputed category of employees in no way affect the results of the election, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the unit found appro- priate. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Playthings, Jewelry R Novelty Workers, C. I. 0., has been designated and selected by a majority of all produc- tion and maintenance employees of Luminous Processes, Inc., at its Ottawa, Illinois, plant, including inspectors, but excluding technical employees, office employees, supervisors, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec- ommend such action, as their representative for the purposes of col- lective bargaining, and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., dissenting in part : Since the duties of the seven inspectors whose ballots are in question demand the exercise of individual judgment and discretion rather than the routine application of previously prepared standards, and since a Matter of Cameron Machine Company,' 67 N. Ti R. B.'1066 ; 'Matter of"TVZer Fixture Corporation, Southwest Div., 67 N. L. R. B. 945; Matter of The Whitney Blake Company, 66 N. L. R. B. 491; Matter of United States Gypsum Company, 65 N. L R. B. 575; and Matter of The Babcock d Wilcox Co , 65 N. L. R B 83. LUMINOUS PROCESSES, INC. 409 the determinations thus concluded directly affect the remuneration of the production workers involved in this election, I would sustain the objections of the Employer. In the objective execution of their duties these inspectors are performing an important final step in the management technique and hence I do not discern the community of interest which I consider desirable in collective bargaining groups.