Sprague Electric Co.

SPRAGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY 533 SPRAGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER . Case No. 1-RC-0536. March 11, 19510 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 Robert E. Greene, 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 this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer 2 3. The Employer and the Independent contend that their current contract covering the Employer's employees at its North Adams, Mas- sachusetts, plants bars this petition. We find no merit in this contention. On October 2, 1950, the Employer and Independent executed a con- tract effective from October 9, 1950, to March 26, 1952, and containing a 60-day automatic renewal provision. On September 7, 1951, the contracting parties began negotiations for a wage increase, and, on November 21, executed a new contract which, among other things, extended the expiration date of the 1950 contract to March 26, 1953. The instant petition was filed on November 16, 1951. Apart from any other considerations, as the new contract was a premature exten- sion of the original contract, and as the petition was timely filed with respect to the original contract, we find no bar to a present deter- mination of representatives.' We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees of the Employer at its Bennington, Vermont, plant, excluding executives, professional em- ployees, office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as 1 At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition because the unit requested is inappropriate . The motion, which was referred to the Board by the hearing officer, is denied for reasons set forth in paragraph numbered 4, below. 2 Local 2, Independent Condenser Workers' Union , herein referred to as the Independent, was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of its current contract with the Employer. On February 25, 1952, the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers , CIO, hereinafter referred to as I. U. E , was permitted to intervene for ,the purpose of appearing on the ballot, on the basis of, its interest showing submitted to the Board. 8 The Van Idersttine Company, 95 NLRB 966; A . Siegel & Sons, Inc, 94 NLRB 471. 98 NLRB No. 89. 998666-vol. 98-53-35 534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD defined in the Act. The Employer and Independent assert that the unit is inappropriate because the Bennington plant is merely an accre- tion to the Employer's plants in North Adams, Massachusetts. The Petitioner and Employer further disagree as to the unit placement of factory clerks and certain individuals whom the Employer designates as "supervisors," discussed below. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of capacitors, resistors, and ceramic coated wire. It operates three plants at North Adams, Massachusetts, where all types of these products are manu- factured; one plant at Bennington, Vermont, which produces only ceramic coated wire; and one plant at Nashua, New Hampshire, not involved in this proceeding, which produces resistors and capacitors.4 Since 1937, the Employer and Independent have had collective bargaining agreements covering the production and maintenance em- ployees at all three North Adams plants. The terms of the most recent contracts between these parties described in paragraph numbered 3, above, appear to have been applied to the Bennington plant, although the coverage clauses of the contracts refer only to North Adams employees. The Employer's North Adams plants are located on Marshall Street, Beaver Street, and Brown Street, from 11/2 to 2 miles apart. The ceramic wire coating department, which has been in operation for a number of years and employs about 74 employees, is situated in the Brown Street plant where the Employer's main offices are also located. In 1951, due to the increasing volume of orders for coated wire, the Employer acquired the plant in Bennington, about 18 miles distant, to augment its production of this product. Limited opera- tions began in July and full-scale production began in about September 1951. There are about 100 employees at the Bennington plant. Of these, about 28, who had previously worked at North Adams but lived in or near Bennington, were transferred to the new plant during the initial period of operation.5 The remainder of the employees was recruited from the Bennington area.6 The Bennington plant operates on a 3-shift basis and the employees are on the same payroll and subject to generally the same conditions of employment as those at North Adams. North Adams supervisors divide their time between the plants and a supervisor is present at all times, except on the third shift when no supervising personnel are present from about 1 a. m. to 4 The Employer also has a plant in Milwaukee , Wisconsin, the operations of which are not disclosed in the record. 6 At the time of their transfer, some of these employees were told by the employment manager at North Adams that their existing checkoff authority to the Independent was terminated. 6 Relatively few employees at North Adams live in the Bennington area. SPRAGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY 535 7 a. in. Some hiring is performed at the Bennington plant by personnel representatives from North Adams. Raw materials for the Bennington plant are purchased and received at North Adams, and the finished products are returned to North Adams for shipment. North Adams also furnishes services such as maintenance, engineering, and certain clerical work. Bennington, however, performs the complete manufacture of the ceramic coated wire and maintains some of its own production records 7 Over-all labor policy for all the Employers' plants, including Nashua, New Hampshire, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is formulated at North Adams. There is no interchange of employees between Bennington and North Adams and, since the original assignment of personnel, there has been virtually no transfer of employees between these plants. While certain of the factors detailed above and emphasized by the Employer and Independent, such as the interrelationship of the plants and identity of conditions of employement, indicate the propriety of including the Bennington plant in the North Adams unit, they are not so compelling as to require our holding that no other unit is appro- priate. Other factors here present also justify a unit confined to the Bennington plant, as requested by the Petitioner. In the latter con- nection we note : The conduct at Bennington of a complete manu- facturing operation, from raw material to finished product; the geographical separation of the plants; the substantially different areas of labor supply; the virtual lack of interchange and transfer of employees; and the absence of any controlling history of collective bargaining on a broader basis.8 In view of these circumstances, we believe that a separate unit of the Bennington plant employees may also be appropriate, depending upon the results of the election here- inafter directed.9 - There remains for consideration the unit placement of the following individuals : Machine and solution mixing "supervisors": The petitioner con- tends that these individuals should be excluded as supervisors while the Employer asserts they are not supervisors within\the definition of the Act. There are three machine "supervisors" and one solution mixing "supervisor." One machine "supervisor" works on each shift and the solution mixing "supervisor" works on the third shift. The 7 Limited spot inspection is performed at North Adams . However , full inspection of the finished product is conducted at Bennington before shipment to North Adams s Even assuming that the North Adams contracts covered the Bennington plant, that plant was in full-scale operation for only about 2 months before the filing of the petitioD, and a bargaining history of such short duration is, therefore , clearly not controlling. 'Brown Equipment & Manufacturing Co, Inc., 93 NLRB 1278; Sinclair Refinery Cow pany, 92 NLRB 643. In view of our determination herein, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Petitioner's request to reopen the record to receive in evidence an employee information booklet issued by the Employer to its Bennington employees and allegedly showing that the Employer treated the Bennington plant as a separate operation. 536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD machine "supervisors" see that the machines are kept running and that the production orders are handled in accordance with the instruc- tions left by the foreman. They help the machine operators repair their machines in case of breakdowns. If a machine does not function properly and they cannot correct it themselves, they have standing orders to shut down the machine and to start on another job. The solu- tion mixing "supervisor" follows a set of detailed instructions left by the foreman as to the solution to be mixed. These "supervisors" earn about 5 cents per hour more than the machine operators and do not attend training sessions established for foremen. They have no authority to hire, discharge, discipline, promote, transfer, or give time off to any employee or effectively to recommend such action. On the foregoing facts and the entire record, we find that the machine and solution mixing "supervisors" are not supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act and shall, accordingly, include them in the voting group.'° Factory clerks: The Petitioner contends, contrary to the Employer, that the two factory clerks should be excluded from the unit. These employees work in the plant under the supervision of the foreman. They maintain the production records and collect and distribute employee time cards. Upon the entire record, we find that these two individuals are factory clericals and shall include them in the voting group 11 We shall direct an election in the following voting group : All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Bennington, Vermont, plant, including factory clericals, machine and solution mixing supervisors, and watchmen,12 but excluding ex- ecutives, professional employees, office clericals, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees select the Petitioner or the I. U. E. as their representative, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be represented in a separate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certifi- cation of representatives to the Petitioner or I. U. E. for the unit de- scribed above which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority select the Independent, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the production and maintenance unit at the Employ- er's North Adams plants currently represented by the Independent, 10 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 87 NLRB 40. 11 See Continental Carbon, Inc., 94 NLRB 1026. 12 The parties agree, and we find, that the three watchmen are not guards within the meaning of the Act. SEABOARD MACHINERY CORPORATION 537 and the Regional Director shall issue a certificate of results of election to such effect. CHAIRMAN HERzoG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] SEABOARD MACHINERY CORPORATION and INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER. C ase No. 15-RC-617. March 11, 1952 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 J. M. Mitchell, 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer .2 3. On October 17, 1951, the Boilermakers, Teamsters, and Machin- ists concluded negotiations with the Employer for initial contracts covering all of its employees. The parties agreed that the production and maintenance employees at the Panama City plant could, on the basis of occupational classifications, be divided appropriately into three bargaining units, and the Employer consented to recognize each of the above unions as representative of its respective unit .P That same day, the Boilermakers and Teamsters signed identical i The motion to intervene of the International Association of Machinists , Lodge No. 1106, A. F. of L., herein called the Machinists , is granted for reasons stated in paragraph numbered 3. 2 Intervening in this case on the basis of current contracts with the Employer are the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 991 , herein called the Teamsters , and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America, Lodge No. 112 , herein called the Boilermakers. 2 The 86 employees then employed at the plant consisted of 79 employees in production and maintenance positions coming within the craft jurisdiction of the Boilermakers, 2 truck drivers , and 5 machinists. 98 NLRB No. 93.