The Univis Lens Co.

In the Matter of THE UNIvIs LENS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETI- TIONER Case No. 9-R-2378.-Decided January 15, 1947 Mr. Boyd M. Compton, of Dayton, Ohio, for the Employer. Messrs. Arthur L. Garfield and Lewis L. Kaplan, of Dayton, Ohio, for the Petitioner. Mr. Irwin C. Delscamp, of Dayton, Ohio, for the Independent. Mr. Henry W. de Kozmian, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, on October 11, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among employees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether they desired to be represented by the Petitioner, or by Univis Workers Independent Union of Dayton, Ohio, herein called the Independent, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 850 eligible voters of whom 735 cast valid votes, 382 of which were for the Peti- tioner, 257 for the Independent, and 96 for neither; there were 57 challenged ballots, and 1 void ballot. Thereafter, hearing in the case was held at Dayton, Ohio, on October 25, 1946, before Max Rotenberg, hearing officer. The rulings of the hearing officer 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 The Univis Lens Company is an Ohio corporation engaged in the manufacture of multi-focal lenses at its plant in Dayton, Ohio. Dur- ing the first six months of 1946 the Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $200,000, approximately 95 percent of which was 72 N. L. R. B., No. 23. 149 150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD shipped to the Employer from pointsoutsicle the State of Ohio. Dur- ing the same period the Employer sold products valued in excess of $1,000,000, approximately 60 percent of which was shipped to points outside the State of Ohio. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. TILE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. Univis Workers Independent Union of Dayton, Ohio, is an unaf- filiated labor organization, 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 parties agree generally that the appropriate unit should con- sist of all production and maintenance employees, excluding produc- tion control clerks, guards, nurses, full-time outside truck drivers, fore- men, assistant foremen, and all other supervisory employees. There is disagreement, however, as to group leaders and cafeteria employees. The Petitioner would exclude both categories, the Independent would include them, and the Employer would include the group leaders and exclude the cafeteria employees. Group leaders The Employer employs approximately 45 group leaders. They work alone or with groups of rank and file employees ranging from 1 to 25 in number. They are usually the most highly skilled operators in their respective departments. Unlike foremen and assistant fore- men, they are paid on an hourly basis as are the remaining rank and file employees. They are usually paid only from 3 to 5 percent more than the rank and file employees. As part of their duties they train I Of the 57 challenged ballots, 45 were cast by group leaders. THE UNIVIS LENS COMPANY 151 new employees and sometimes advise old employees on the proper per- formance of their operations. In addition, they supply employees with tools and materials, set up machines for employees and occasion- ally make necessary adjustments on the machines. Although they make daily reports to the foremen on the quantity produced, they do not report on the quality of the rank and file employees' work. Group leaders make out requisition orders to be approved by the foremen, but they do not have the authority to sign such orders. They sign passes for the rank and file employees per- mitting them to leave the building and occasionally substitute for foremen or assistant foremen when the latter are on vacation. While the amount of rank and file production work performed by group leaders varies considerablyin the different departments, on the average they devote from 15 to 25 percent of their time to actual production work. , It is true that some group leaders take courses designed to train them for positions as foremen and assistant foremen. But they do not attend supervisory meetings, as do foremen and assistant foremen. They are normally not invited to foremen's dinners although on one occasion group leaders attended a foremen's picnic. Group leaders have no authority to hire, promote, discharge, disci- pline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees. On occasion they reprimand rank and file employees. Nevertheless, they are not required to report infractions of the Employer's rules to the foremen. Some group leaders report such infractions to the foremen from time to time, but the foremen do not act on such reports without making an independent investigation. On the entire record, we are of the opinion that the group leaders do not possess sufficient inclicia of supervisory authority to warrant their exclusion. Accordingly, we shall include them in the appro- priate unit.2 Cafeteria Employees 3 The cafeteria employees, about 12 in number, work in the Em- ployer's cafeteria where they prepare and serve food to employees of the Employer. Inasmuch as the unit agreed upon by all parties is virtually all-inclusive, we perceive no persuasive reason to exclude this small group of employees, who are paid on the same hourly basis as production and maintenance workers. Accordingly, we shall in- clude the Employer's cafeteria employees in the appropriate unit.' 2 See Matter of Rohm and Ilaas Company, 63 N. L. R. B. 785 ; Matter of Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Company, 58 N L R B. 1118 0 The remaining 12 of the 57 challenged ballots were cast by cafeteria employees. 4 See Matter of The Rauland Corporation, 62 N. L. R B 248 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer's Dayton, Ohio, plant, including group leaders and cafe- teria employees, but excluding production control clerks, guards, nurses, full-time outside truck drivers, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other supetvisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis- charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESEN TATIvES As noted above, of the 57 challenged ballots, 45 were cast by group leaders and 12 by cafeteria employees. In view of our determina- tion to include group leaders and cafeteria employees in the appro- priate unit, we hereby overrule the challenges to the ballots cast by the 45 group leaders and 12 cafeteria employees. Since the challenged ballots of the 45 group leaders and 12 cafe- teria employees are sufficient in number to.affect the results of the election, we shall direct the Regional Director to open and count them. DIRECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Univis Lens Company, Dayton, Ohio, it is hereby DIRECTED that the Regional Director for the Ninth Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count the challenged ballots of the 45 group leaders and 12 cafeteria employees, and shall thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties 5, Supplemental Tally of Ballots, including therein the count of these 57 challenged ballots.