Underwood Corp.

UNDERWOOD CORPORATION 25 In view of the foregoing factors, particularly the integration of plant functions and the history of bargaining on a multiplant basis, we find that Armorcast is an extension of the Birdsboro operations and that, therefore, a unit restricted to the Armorcast plant is not appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act 5 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.° Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in this case be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Hawthorne-Mellody Farms Dairy of Wisconsin, Inc., 99, NLRB 212; cf. Delta Tank Manufacturing Company, Incorporated (Shell Division), 1010 NLRB 364. 9 The Petitioner expressly declined to represent the employees on a multiplant basis. UNDERWOOD CORPORATION, PETITIONER and LOCAL UNION No. 24092, OFFICE MACHINE REPAIRMEN, A. F. OF L. UNDERWOOD CORPORATION and VINCENT J. HALM, ET AL., PETITIONER and LOCAL UNION No. 24092, OFFICE MACHINE REPAIRMEN, A. F. OF L. Cases Nos. 18-RM 112 and 18-RD-74. October 21, 1952 Decision, Order, and Direction of Election Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Harry Irwig, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioner in Case No. 18-RD-74, employees of the Em- ployer, assert that the Union, a labor organization which was certified in February 1947 as the bargaining representative of certain em- ployees of the Employer, is no longer the bargaining representative of these employees, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act. I The hearing officer referred to the Board the Petitioners' motions to amend their re- spective petitions to include alternative unit descriptions and the Union's motion to dismiss the Employer's petition. The Petitioners' motions to amend their petitions are hereby granted. For the reasons stated in paragraph 4, infra, the Union 's motion to dismiss is hereby denied. 101 NLRB No. 4. 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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.2 4. The appropriate unit : On February 6, 1947, following a consent election, the Union was certified by the Regional Director as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of the mechanical service employees employed at the Em- ployer's Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, branch offices. The Employer and the Union thereafter entered into a series of collective bargaining agreements covering the employees in this unit, the most recent of which expired on April 30, 1952. In March 1952, however, following the Union's requests to negotiate a new contract, the Em- ployer refused to recognize the Union as the collective bargaining representative of these employees pending Board determination of the appropriate unit and certification of the Union as the representa- tive of the employees in such a unit. The Employer, the Petitioner in Case No. 18-RM-112, seeks an election in two separate units composed of the mechanical service employees employed at its Minneapolis and St. Paul branches , respec- tively. At the hearing, however, the Employer moved to amend its petition to include, as an alternative unit description, in the event that the Board finds two separate units inappropriate, a single unit composed of mechanical service employees employed at both these branch offices. The Petitioner in case No. 18-RD-74 requests an election in the unit for which the Union was certified in 1947, that is, one composed of employees in both the Minneapolis and St. Paul offices. Like the Employer, however, it moved, at the hearing, to amend its petition to include, as an alternative unit description, one limited to mechanical service employees employed at the St. Paul branch. The Union, which contends that only an over-all unit of em- ployees employed at both branches is appropriate, moved to dismiss the Employer's petition on the ground that the unit set forth therein is inappropriate. In view of the fact that the Employer has amended its petition to include, as an alternative unit description, the over-all unit of employees which the Union claims to represent and which we find to be appropriate, the Union's motion to dismiss is denied.3 The Employer, which is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and serv- icing of typewriters and other office equipment, conducts its operations on a Nation-wide basis. Its main office and national headquarters, located in New York City, are responsible for the establishment and S As the issues raised in Case No. 18-RD-74 will, in accordance with our decision herein, necessarily be resolved in the election directed in Case No. 18-RM-112, we shall dismiss the petition in Case No. 18-RD-74. Rose City Tours, Incorporated, 92 NLRB 1254; Atlas Cork Works, Inc , 88 NLRB 574 3 A. d M. Karagheusian, Inc., 100 NLRB 917. UNDERWOOD CORPORATION 27 issuance of all policies and procedures, including labor relations poli- cies, which are administered throughout the country. For adminis- trative purposes, however, the Employer's operations are divided into a series of geographical districts, which, in turn, are subdivided into regions and branches. The Employer's Minneapolis and St. Paul offices, with which we are concerned herein, are located in the western district, which is headed by a district manager, whose headquarters are in Chicago, Illinois. The western district, which covers approxi- mately 10 midwestern States,4 contains 11 regions, each headed by a regional manager and each comprised of one or more branch offices. The Employer's Minneapolis region, which covers Minnesota, North Dakota, and parts of South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Iowa, contains, in addition to approximately 27 or 28 exclusive sales and service agencies,a 3 branch offices, located at Minneapolis, Minnesota; St. Paul, Minnesota ; and La Crosse, Wisconsin. The Minneapolis office, which serves as headquarters for the Minneapolis region, operates as both a regional and a branch office and is headed by a regional and branch manager rather than by a branch manager. However, apart from the fact that the manager and service manager of the Minneapolis office supervise the administration of the branch offices and sales agencies within the region, the operations of the Minneapolis office are identical with those in the Employer's other branch offices. Thus, each branch office is headed by a branch manager and a branch serv- ice manager, who have authority to hire and discharge the employees in their respective branches and, within the limits of the over-all pol- icies established by the Employer's New York City headquarters, and subject to the general supervision of the regional manager and regional service manager, are responsible for the operation of their respective branches.6 Moreover, the mechanical service employees in all the branch offices have similar duties, skills, and working condi- tions, and those employed in the Minneapolis and St. Paul branches receive identical rates of pay. Although each branch office is operated independently of the other branches in the region, each having its own distinct territory, separate sales and service quotas, and separate book- keeping, and interchange of employees among branches is not com- mon, in emergencies employees are transferred from one branch to another on a temporary basis. In view of the physical proximity of 4 Included in this district are Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin , Minne- sota, Nebraska , North Dakota , and South Dakota. 6 These agencies operate under their own names and are independently owned. They are, however , subject to the supervision of the Employer's regional manager. 6 The branch service managers, who are responsible for the operation of the service departments in the branch offices, supervise and have authority to hire and discharge the mechanical service employees involved herein . There are also service managers at the regional and district levels, who administer the policies and procedures established by the general service department of the Employer's New York office. 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Employer's Minneapolis and St. Paul branches, which are only about 10 miles apart, and the Employer's policy of securing employees for temporary details from the nearest branch, interchange of em- ployees between the Minneapolis and St. Paul branches occurs more frequently than between either of these branches and the La Crosse branch, which is approximately 150 miles away. Similarly, because of the slight distance between the Minneapolis and St. Paul branches and the fact that they cover contiguous territories, there is more per- sonal contact between the employees of these offices than ordinarily exists among employees of different branches. As set forth above, in February 1947 the Union was certified as the bargaining representative of the mechanical service employees in both the Minneapolis and St. Paul branch offices and, since May 1, 1947, the Employer and the Union have entered into a series of contracts cover- ing the employees in this two-branch unit. Although all labor rela- tions policies are formulated in the Employer's New York City office and all collective bargaining agreements must be approved by the home office, bargaining negotiations between the Employer and the Union have always been conducted on a local level and on the basis of a two-branch unit. Thus, all contracts have been signed by the Minneapolis regional and branch manager, on behalf of the Employer, and by employee representatives from both the Minneapolis and St. Paul branches, on behalf of the Union, and employees from both the Minneapolis and St. Paul offices have participated in all contract negotiations. As the Employer asserts, there are certain factors, such as the degree of local autonomy which the branch offices exercise and the infrequent interchange of service employees between branches, which point toward the appropriateness of separate branch units; and, in the absence of any bargaining history affecting the employees involved herein, separate units of the service employees employed at the Min- neapolis and St. Paul branches might well be appropriate. However, the bargaining history between the Employer and the Union has estab- lished a fixed pattern of bargaining on the basis of a two-branch unit, including employees of both the Minneapolis and St. Paul offices. Although this bargaining pattern does not correspond to any admin- istrative sector of the Employer's operations' and ordinarily the Board seeks to establish a unit pattern which does conform to the Employer's organizational structure, the Board is reluctant to disturb a pattern of bargaining which has been established, with the consent of the Employer and without regard for administrative lines, over a 7 As pointed out above, there are three branch offices located in the Minneapolis region. The mechanical service employees of the La Crosse branch, however, have never been included in the bargaining unit. UNDERWOOD CORPORATION 29 5-year period." Accordingly, in view of the similar skills, duties, and working conditions of the mechanical service employees in both the Minneapolis and St. Paul branches, the geographical proximity of these two branches, and particularly in view of the 5-year bargaining history on a two-branch basis, we reject the primary unit contention of the Employer and find that a single unit of mechanical service employees employed at the Minneapolis and St. Paul branches is appropriate.9 We find that all mechanical service employees employed at the Em- ployer's Minneapolis, Minnesota, and St. Paul, Minnesota, branch offices, excluding dispatchers, shipping clerks, secretaries, and all other office and clerical employees, branch service managers, the fore- man of the Minneapolis branch service department, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act io Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 18-RD-74 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 8 The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company , 98 NLRB 355. See H. A. Satin & Company, Inc., 97 NLRB 1001 . Apparently, bargaining with respect to the mechanical service employees in the Employer 's other offices throughout the country has not proceeded according to any fixed pattern and has not necessarily conformed to the Employer's organizational structure. Thus, in the Employer's Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania, region, which is part of the eastern district, mechanical service employees in the Pittsburgh regional branch office and in the Johnstown , Pennsylvania, branch office are included in a single two-branch unit, while those employed in the three other branches located in that region are not represented by any union. In the Employer's Boston, Massachusetts, region and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, region, both located in the eastern district, and in the St. Louis, Missouri, region, which is a part of the western district , there has been some bargaining on the basis of single -branch units. In the Employer's New York district and Pacific district, bargaining has been conducted on a district -wide basis. Cf. Underwood Corporation (Pacific District ), 99 NLRB 416, where the Board found appropriate a district- wide unit of the Employer's service employees primarily because the 10-year bargaining history established a fixed pattern of bargaining on a district -wide basis. Moreover , apparently there is no established bargaining pattern in the industry. A representative of the Union testified , however, that, in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, the Union has entered into contracts with three other manufacturers of office equipment, Royal Typewriter Company, L. C. Smith , and Thomas A. Edison Corporation , Ediphone Sales Division, which maintain offices in both Minneapolis and St. Paul ; and that these three contracts , entered into after consent elections, include the mechanical service employees of these respective companies in single two-branch units. 9 Lever Brothers Company, 97 NLRB 1240 ; The Reliance Electric & Engineering Company, 98 NLRB 488. 10 The parties stipulated as to the composition of this unit.