Rockwell Manufacturing Co.

116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Page Line 587 10 Strike "wanted to" and insert "had" and in the same line strike "interview" and substitute "interviewed." 593 16 Strike "sixth" and substitute "six." 593 18 Strike "not." 603 25 Strike "beside" and substitute "The side." 604 2 Strike "on." 608 1 Strike "467" and substitute "648." 618 19 Strike "parents of the" and substitute "parent." 637 24 Strike "in" and substitute "at the." 644 23 Strike "substance" and substitute "substantive" and in the same line strike the period after "case" and substitute a comma. 644 25 Strike the period after "Respondent" and substitute a comma. 648 13 Strike. "has been entered" and substitute "is pending." 650 11 Insert "going" after "was." 651 13 Strike "your" and substitute "the." 651 20 Strike "and." Volume 7 654 12 Strike "the," the first word in the line. 654 14 Strike "has" and substitute "had " 655 13 Strike "where," the first word in the line , and substitute "that" in the same line strike "a" and substitute "such," and strike "testified" and substitute "testify." 662 21 Insert "which " after the word "made." 664 8 Strike "bar" and substitute "box." ARCADE MANUFACTURING DIVISION OF ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY and DISTRICT No. 101, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-1897. September 10, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a, petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herman J. DeKoven, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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- member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 96 NLRB No. 8. ARCADE MANUFACTURING DIVISION 117 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 •(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to merge a single timekeeper into the pro- 'duction and maintenance unit which it currently represents at the Employer's Freeport, Illinois, plant. The Employer asserts that its timekeeper is an office clerical employee and, accordingly, should not be, added to the existing production and maintenance unit from which he has been excluded in the past. Since 1937 the Employer, or its predecessor, has recognized the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of its production and maintenance employees consisting of all tool makers, die and gauge makers, electricians, maintenance mechanics, production ma- chinists, packers, welders, inspectors, specialists, semiskilled and un- skilled workers at the Freeport plant, excluding office workers, clerical employees, foundry employees, cleaning and grinding workers on foundry work, employees in the polishing and plating department and all supervisors? The most recent contract covering these em- ployees became effective on July 1, 1950, for a period of 1 year. At the time of the hearing, the parties were engaged in the negotiation of a new agreement which would supplant the 1950 contract. The ,Petitioner does not seek an election and certification in the historical bargaining unit. The timekeeper, the only employee in this classification in the plant, collects and records information concerning the working hours and the amount of individual piecework production of the plant workers. He has frequent contact with the production and maintenance employ- ees while performing his duties. Although the timekeeper is under the immediate supervision of the cost accountant in the main office, lie is quartered in a plant office located adjacent to the production area about 150 to 200 feet from the general office. Unlike the office em- ployees who are paid on a salary basis, the timekeeper is paid at an hourly rate in the same manner as the production and maintenance employees. He also punches a time clock, and works approximately the same number of hours as the latter. As it is clear that the timekeeper is a plant clerical employee, we find, in accordance with the Board's well-established policy, that he may be represented as a part of the existing bargaining unit if he so desires 2 1 The foundry workers and the polishing and plating department employees are currently represented by other labor organizations under separate bargaining agreements. 2 Northwest Engineering Company, 73 NLRB 40; Goodman Manufacturing Company, 93 NLRB 1001; and Foster Wheeler Corporation, 94 NLRB 211. Cf. Waterous Company, 92 NLRB 76. 974176-52-vol. 96-9 118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We shall therefore direct that a self-determination election be held in a voting group composed of the timekeeper in the Employer's Freeport plant, excluding all other employees and supervisors.3 If he votes for the Petitioner, he will be taken to have indicated his de- sire to be included in the production and maintenance unit currently represented by the Petitioner. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] S Cf. Southwestern Sales Corporation (Radio Station KVOO ), 92 NLRB 936. CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION, LOCAL 320, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL, AND R. L. SLATER, ITS OFFICER AND AGENT and JAMES FELLOWS and EDWARD F. WILSON. Cases Nos. 36-CB-42 and 36-CB-43. September 10, 1951 Decision and Order On May 15, 1951, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and .take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.2 1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act by causing the Com- 1Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in respect to this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]; 2 The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's characterization of the Company as a "multistate enterprise ," in connection with his jurisdictional findings. Whether or not the Company is a multistate enterprise within the meaning of that term as used in prior Board decisions, we find , in view of the fact that during 1949 the Company performed services outside the State-of Oregon exceeding $25,000 In value , that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case . See Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618 ; Starrett Bros. and Eken, Inc., 92 NLRB 1757. 96 NLRB N'o. 12.