Chase Brass & Copper Co., Inc.

62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ularly to devote a substantial portion of their time to the work of classification within the unit, we find that they are also eligible to vote in the election.8 As mentioned above, the Petitioner raised a question as to the in- clusion of the newly hired part-time employee in the unit, apparently asserting that his employment is only temporary. Although the rec- ord is not clear as to this employee's duties, it appears that he must spend at least a portion of his time at work in the service department. Upon being hired, the employee was apparently assured of employ- ment until called up for service in the Armed Forces. As that con- tingency may not arrive for an indefinite period, if at all, we believe that he cannot be said to be without a reasonable prospect of continued employment at work within the unit. We find that he is not a tem- porary employee, and if in fact he regularly spends a substantial portion of time at work within the unit, he is eligible to vote in the election. Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: all employees of the Employer at South Bend, Wisconsin, including regular part-time employees, but excluding all sales and office clerical employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] S Lone Star Boat Mfg. Co., supra. CHASE BRASS & COPPER Co., INCORPORATED (CLEVELAND MILL DIVISION) and OFFICE EMPLOYFu s INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 17, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER . Case No. 8-1i'C-1800. January 7, 1953 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 Edward A. Grupp, 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, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 102 NLRB No. 14. CHASE BRASS & COPPER CO., INCORPORATED 63 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all employees in the time-study and time-standards departments maintained by the Em- ployer at its Cleveland Mill Division, Euclid, Ohio. The Employer contends that its current contract with the Petitioner, which will terminate on September 1, 1953, operates as a bar to the instant peti- ion, because the contract excludes "time-study and job evaluation employees" 1 from its coverage of "all office, clerical and technical em- ployees," 2 and provides further that "Exceptions to this unit coverage, as defined, shall be handled by separate memoranda, signed by the parties, after mutual agreement." It is plain, however, that the pro- visions in the contract relied upon by the Employer contain no prom- ise, express or implied, that the Petitioner will refrain from seeking to represent the employees involved herein at some future time. In these circumstances, we find, contrary to the Employer, that the cur- rent contract between it and the Petitioner does not bar a present determination of representatives.s We find, accordingly, that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. As previously mentioned, the Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all employees in the time-study and time-standards departments at the Employer's Cleveland Mill Division. The Employer contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate for the reason that it would join technical employees with clerical employees' There is no his- tory of collective bargaining affecting any of the employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent. The Employer is engaged in the production of copper and copper alloys. Its Cleveland Mill Division consists of two plants located at Upson and Babbitt Roads in Euclid, Ohio. The Employer main- tains a time-study department at each of those plants, and a tim6- standards department at the Upson Road plant. 1 The parties regard this excluded category of "time-study and job evaluation employees" as embracing the employees involved in this proceeding. 2 On October 25, 1948, following a consent election , the Petitioner was certified as the bargaining agent for this unit of employees . Case No. 8-RC-273, not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions e Bard Piston Ring Co., 75 NLRB 870; Martin Parry Corporation, 95 NLRB 1506. Cf. Briggs Indiana Corporation, 63 NLRB 1270, upon which the Employer relies, -wherein the union had expressly contracted not to seek to represent certain employees for a certain period. As indicated above, there is no such agreement between the Employer and the Petitioner affecting the employees involved in this proceeding. 4 The Employer also opposes the inclusion of all the requested employees in any bar- gaining unit on the ground that their representation by a labor organization would result in its not being "fairly represented" in the administration of the incentive system covering its production employees . We find no merit in this contention . There is no incom- patibility between the faithful performance of duty and the enjoyment of benefits under the Act. Luminous Processes, Inc., Ti NLRB 405,; Capital Transit Company, 99 NLRB 141. 64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The employees in the time-study departments are classified as time- study analysts, time study-study methods analysts, observers, statis- ticians, and time-study clerks. Except for the time-study clerks, the employees in the time-study departments are collectively engaged in determining production standards, which are necessary to the Em- ployer's wage incentive plan 6 The Employer considers a "formalized education in time study in industrial engineering" to be desirable, but not necessary, for the work they perform. To train them for their duties, these employees are given on-the-job training and courses of classroom instruction. The time-study clerks perform routine cleri- cal tasks, such as typing and filing. The time-standards department is comprised of employees classified as assistant statisticians and a typist-clerk. The assistant statisticians are engaged mainly in applying the production standards developed by the time-study personnel to the daily production sheets and other documents required by the payroll department for payroll purposes. Only a high school education is required for their work, which is similar to that performed by the payroll clerks, who are included in the bargaining unit currently represented by the Petitioner. At the hearing, the Employer indicated that the assistant statisticians may be transferred to the payroll department upon the completion of the incentive system now being installed in its plants. The typist-clerk performs the typing and other clerical tasks within the department. Upon the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record, we find, as the Employer contends, that the unit sought by the Petitioner em- braces certain technical and clerical employees e It further appears that, although the Employer, in this proceeding, is opposed to joining technical and clerical employees in the same unit, there are technical and clerical employees employed by the Employer outside the time- study and time-standards departments who have been represented by the Petitioner in the same bargaining unit since a consent election conducted by this Board in 1948? So far as the record shows, all the technical and clerical employees at the plants involved in this proceeding are either currently represented by the Petitioner in the existing technical and clerical unit or are included in the unit re- quested by the Petitioner in this proceeding. Under all the circum- stances, we are of the opinion that the establishment of a unit con- 6 The Employer contends that its methods analysts are managerial employees because a "very close tie-in" exists between their work in fixing production standards and the Employer's operating costs. This contention is plainly without merit . Bulldog Electric Products Company, 96 NLRB 642; Kearney and Trecker Corporation, 93 NLRB 890 s The Petitioner does not contend otherwise. From 1946 to 1948, this bargaining unit was represented by a labor organization not a party to this proceeding. As in the case of the Petitioner , that labor organization's representative status was also established via a consent election . Case No. S-RC-2194, not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions. THOMAS RIGGING COMPANY 65 fined to the technical and clerical employees of the Employer not presently represented by the Petitioner is not warranted. We do find, however, that those employees have a sufficient community of interest with the office, clerical, and technical employees in the estab- lished unit now represented by the Petitioner to render appropriate their inclusion in that unit. Accordingly, we find that an exception is warranted in this case to the Board's general practice of not in- cluding technical employees in the same unit with clerical employees where any party objects to such grouping,8 and we shall accord all the employees in the time-study and time-standards departments an op- portunity to determine through an election whether or not they desire to be added to the existing unit of office, clerical, and technical employees. We shall direct an election among all the employees employed in the time-study and time-standards departments at the Employer's Cleve- land Mill Division, Euclid, Ohio, excluding all supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of these employees cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the office, clerical, and technical unit currently represented by the Petitioner, and the Regional Director shall issue a certificate of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 8 See Bethlehem Steel Company, Shipbuilding Division, 97 NLRB 1072. THOMAS RIGGING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS CARPENTERS UNION, LOCAL No. 642, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CAR- PENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL , AND HARRY CECIL, BUSINESS AGENT OF LOCAL No. 642 and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA- cmNISTS. Cases Nos-.O-CA-640 and 0O-CB-$22. January 8, 1953 Decision and Order On June 12, 1952, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs were separately filed on behalf of the Respondent Company, and on behalf of the Respondent 102 NLRB No. 1.