Lindeman Power Equipment Co.

In the Matter of LINDEMAN POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , LODGE No. 1531, PETITIONER Case No. 19-R-1845.-Decided November 12, 1946 Messrs. Nat U. Brown, Paul H. Austin, and Charles M. Thorn, all of Yakima, Wash., for the Employer. Messrs. C. L. Bentley and I. A. Peck, both of Seattle, Wash., and Mr. Ed Foster, of Yakima, Wash., for the Petitioner. Mr. Warren H. Leland, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Yakima, Washington, on August 13, 1946, before Daniel R. Dimick, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought was inappropriate. The hearing officer referred this motion to the Board. For reasons stated in Section IV, infra, the motion is hereby denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Lindeman Power Equipment Company, a Washington corporation maintaining its plant at Yakima, Washington, is engaged in the manufacture of agricultural machinery. During the 9-month period preceding March 30, 1946, the Employer purchased raw materials, consisting of steel , iron, brass, and moulding sand, valued at ap- proximately $200,000, of which about 65 percent was received from points outside the State of Washington. During the same period, the Employer sold finished products valued at approximately $885,000, of which about 85 percent was shipped to points outside the State. 71N L R B,No.99. 647 648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employers. 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 DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Petitioner seeks to represent all inspectors employed at the Employer's plant, excluding the foundry inspector and, the super- visory inspector. The Petitioner wishes to represent these employees as part of the unit of production and maintenance workers,' or in the alternative, it desires to represent them in a separate unit. The Em- ployer does not object to specific inclusions in and exclusions from the unit. It contends generally that its inspectors do not constitute an appropriate unit because such employees are representatives of man- agement, presumably asserting thereby that they are not employees within the meaning of the Act. The record reveals that inspectors check the first part produced by each new machine set-up in the machine shop. They may either reject or accept these parts. If the part is accepted, operation of the machine continues; if the part is rejected, production on the machine ceases until the set-up is changed. After production is started and accepted, the inspectors make periodic spot checks for imperfections. If the spot check shows that an imperfect part is being manufactured by any machine, the inspectors have the authority to stop production on that machine until a supervisory employee permits continuance of the job. Assembly inspectors may stop the assembly line at any time if products do not conform with required standards. During the performance of their work, inspectors use hand tools such as microm- eters, calipers, rules and service plates, service gauges, and depth gauges. They do not possess supervisory authority and are hourly paid, as are production workers. Supervisory employees are all paid on a monthly basis. 1 The Petitioner presently represents the Employer's production and maintenance em- ployees. A contract executed by the parties on May 1, 1946 , did not include inspectors. LINDEMAN POWER EQUIPMENT 649 We have frequently considered the status of inspectors similar to those involved in this proceeding, and have held that they are em- ployees within the meaning of the Act, and may be included in the same unit with production and maintenance employees? We per- ceive no valid reason for departing from our prior determinations. We shall, however, permit the preference of the inspectors to determine whether or not they shall be added to the existing production and maintenance unit, and to that end' shall order a self-determination election. If, at such election, inspectors select the Petitioner they will thereby have indicated their desire to be included in the unit of pro- duction and maintenance employees, and the Petitioner may accord- ingly bargain for them as a part of such unit. We shall direct that an election by secret ballot be held among all inspectors employed by the Employer, excluding the foundry inspec- tor, the supervisory inspector, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Lindeman Power Equipment Company, Yakima, Washington, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted t,s 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 Nineteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu- lations-Series 4, 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, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but 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 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1531, for the purposes of collective bargaining. 2 See Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 54 N. L. R. B. 1 1303, Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 031. and Matter of The Whitcomb Locomotive Company, 60 N L R. B. 1160.