Textile Machine Works, Inc.

In the Matter of TEXTILE MAC[-LINE WORKS, INC., EMPLOYER and UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 4-R-2342.-Decided January 14, 1947 Messrs. Joseph S. Kleinbard and Geoffrey Cunniff, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Employer. Messrs. Frank Donner and Andrew Kondrath, of Washington, D. C., for the Petitioner. Mr. Philip Licari, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Reading, Pennsylvania, before Helen F. Humphrey, hearing officer. At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss the instant petition on the ground that no Regional agent's report on the prima facie showing of interest by the Petitioner in the unit which it alleges to be appropriate was introduced in evidence. The motion is denied? 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 National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Textile Machine Works,-Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal office and place of business at Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of braiding and knitting machines. During the year 1945, the Employer purchased raw materials valued at more than $1,000,000, of which 25 percent was shipped from points outside the State of Pennsylvania. During the same period, the Employer produced finished goods valued at more than $10,000,000, of which 85 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Pennsylvania. I See Matter of 0 D JennInys & Company, 68 N L R. B. 516. 72 N. L. R. B, No 12. 56 TEXTILE MACHINE WORKS, INC. 57 The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. IT. 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 mean- ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The parties agree that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding drafts- men, time-study employees, salaried and clerical employees, shop clerks, time clerks, guards, chauffeurs, fire truck drivers, power plant employees, assistant foremen and foremen, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. They are in dispute, however, with respect to the inclusion in the unit of the following categories of employees : Job setters, leaders, and inspectors: The Employer has approxi- mately 53 job setters, 50 leaders, and 40 inspectors. The job setters are highly skilled workers who set up machines for other employees. The leaders are more experienced workers who, because of their superior skill, are usually assigned to instruct other production em- ployees. The inspectors usually examine the finished products of each employee and report any defective work to the chief inspector.2 The Employer seeks the exclusion of the job setters and leaders from the unit on the ground that they are supervisory employees, whereas the Petitioner desires their inclusion. With respect to job setters and leaders, the record shows that these employees act as foremen of a department only in rare instances when both the assistant fore- man and foreman are absent because of illness or other reasons. Since these employees exercise supervisory authority only at sporadic and 2 The evidence shows that defective work Is sometimes returned to the employees for cor- rections However, it is not too clear how far this affects the earnings of the employees involved herein 58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD infrequent intervals, we are of the opinion that they are not super- visory employees within our customary definition thereof.-, As to inspectors, the Employer opposes their inclusion in the unit because (1) their reports on defective work may, at times, lead to the discharge of the employee whose work is found defective, or may affect his earnings; and (2) such inclusion would interfere with the faithful performance of their duties, inasmuch as there would be a tendency to pass inferior work in order not to injure fellow members of the union. On this record, we find no merit in these contentions. With respect to the first contention, we are of the opinion that the inspectors' authority to reject, and in certain instances to report, de- fective work, is insufficient to constitute supervisory authority within our usual definition.' They have no authority to recommend dis- charge. As to the second contention, it is clear that improper inspec- tion work and inattention to duties by the inspectors would necessarily rebound to their own disadvantage by affecting their positions with the Employer. Moreover, we have frequently held that there is no incompatibility between the faithful performance of duty and the enjoyment of benefits under the Act.5 Accordingly, we shall include job setters, leaders, and inspectors in the appropriate unit. Erectors: The Employer has approximately 150 erectors whose functions are to install and service machinery produced at the plant in various hosiery mills for which they are purchased. These em- ployees are mechanics usually recruited from among the production and maintenance employees in the plant and given special courses of instruction to become highly skilled in the installation and operation of various knitting and braiding machines. Although they spend 60 percent of their working time away from the plant, they are paid on the same hourly and incentive basis as the other production and maintenance employees and participate in the Employer's established vacation, pension, and hospitalization plans set up for all the em- ployees in the plant. Moreover, when these employees return to the plant, they are there assigned to various maintenance and production jobs. The Petitioner opposes their inclusion in the unit on the ground that they have no community of interest with the other production and maintenance employees. Despite this contention, it is clear that the fact that the erectors spend the greater portion of their working time in outside work does not diminish their concern with conditions 8 See Matter of Union Switch and Signal Company, 63 N L R B 975 4 See Matter of The Schaible Foundry and Brass Works Company, 69 N L R B 527; Matter of Schuler Axel Company , Inc., 64 N L R B. 740 , and Matter of General Cigar Company, Inc, 64 N L R B 300 ' 5 See Matter of Luminous Processes, Inc, 71 N. L R B 405 , and cases cited therein ( Member Reynolds , dissenting). TEXTILE MACHINE WORKS, INC. 59 of employment in the plant. Nor is the variability of the situs of employment such a divergent factor as to make their presence in the same unit with employees employed wholly within the plant in- compatible. Accordingly, we shall include the erectors in the appro- priate unit. We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, plant, including job setters, lead- ers, inspectors, and erectors, but excluding draftsmen, time-study em- ployees, salaried and clerical employees, shop clerks, time clerks, guards, chauffeurs, fire truck drivers, power plant employees, assistant foremen, foremen, and all other supervisory employees with author- ity to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, -or effectively recommend such action, con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION, OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Textile Machine Works, Inc., Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, an election by secret ballot shall be con- ducted as 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 Fourth 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 Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appro- priate 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 em- ployees in the armed forces of the United States who present them- selves 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 United Steel Workers of America, CIO , for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.