Federal Cartridge Corp.

FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CORPORATION 529 Having found that none of the units sought is appropriate for severance, we shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition." [The Board dismissed the petition]. Chairman Herzog took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. itln view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to rule upon other issues raised by the Employer and the Intervenors in their motions to dismiss FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CORPORATION and FEDERATION OF ARSENAL ENGINEERS, Petitioner. Case No. 18-RC-1908. June 11, 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 Clarence A. Meter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's ruling 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 Peter- son]. 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. 3. 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. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of small arms ammunition at its Brightwater, Minnesota, plant. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of professional employees of the Employer consisting of production engineers, quality control engineers , engineers II and III, chemists I, II, and III , senior process engineers , senior planning engineers, section heads in the planning division, excluding maintenance contact men, guards, all other employees, and supervisors as defined by the Act. The Employer agrees that production engineers , quality control engineers , engineers II and III, and chemists I can appropriately constitute a unit of professional employees. It contends, however, that the contact maintenance men are also professional employees and should be included in such a unit. The Employer further claims that the senior planning engineer should be excluded from the unit because he is a managerial employee and that the chemists II and III, the 105 NLRB No 62. 530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD senior process engineers, and the section heads in the planning division should be excluded because they are supervisors. The contact maintenance men: These individuals are a subcategory of engineers II, a category which the Petitioner seeks to represent except for the contact maintenance men. The chief function of the contact maintenance men is to see that the craftsmen perform the work according to the blueprints prepared by the planning section. They also make estimates of costs and methods of repair. Except for minor engineering work consuming less than 5 percent of their time, contact maintenance men do no engineering or designing work. There are no specific educational requirements for the job and the job does not require the exercise of independent judgment. Under these circumstances, we find that the contact maintenance men are not professional employees and shall exclude them from the unit.I Senior planning engineers : These employees correlate the work necessary to reactivate buildings at the Employer's plant. They make plans for such reactivation, but all of these plans, except minor ones, are forwarded to a review board which may accept or reject them. The planning engineers can make only minor changes without consulting the review board. In connection with their work, they consult with vendors of machinery and with officials from the Army Ordnance Depart- ment. However, they cannot, on their own, commit the Employer to any course of action vis-a-vis these individuals. Under these circumstances, we find that the senior planning engineers are not managerial employees and shall include them in the unit.z The Alleged Supervisors Final authority concerning disciplinary action at the Employer's plant rests with the grievance committee. This committee acts on the recommendations of the employee's immediate supervisor and his department head andmay conduct investigations on its own. Pending final disposition of his case by the grievance committee, an employee may be suspended by his immediate supervisor or the department head. New employees are subject to 30-, 60-, and 90-day appraisal reports which contain ratings of their work in detail and upon which their eventual retention and rating depend. The senior process engineers and the section heads of the planning division: These individuals assign work to and are responsible for the work of several of the engineers and engineering aides working under their direction. They make recommendations to the grievance committee concerning disciplinary action to be taken against employees working under their direction and, pending final action by that committee, may suspend an employee. Senior process engineers and section heads make appraisal reports on employees' progress. The 'See Sonotone Corporation, 90 NLRB 1236. 2See Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 97 NLRB 1271. FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CORPORATION 531 senior process engineers attend foremen ' s meetings and the section heads meet each morning with their department head. Senior process engineers are consulted as to what employees are to be laid off in a reduction in force and section heads have interviewed job applicants and had their recommendation that they be hired , accepted . Under these circumstances , we find that senior process engineers and section heads of the planning division are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit. The chemists III: The various control laboratories, the analytical laboratory , and the metallurgical laboratory of the Employer are each supervised by a chemist III. Chemists III assign work to and are responsible for the work done by the chemists II and I working under their direction . They make recommendations concerning disciplinary action to the griev- ance committee , and can suspend employees , pending final action by the grievance committee . Chemists III make appraisal reports on employees ' progress . They are required to attend foremen's meetings . Under these circumstances , we find that chemists III are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and shall exclude them from the unit. The chemists II: The Employer ' s control laboratories operate on a 24 -hour , 3-shift basis. One chemistIlI is in charge of each of these laboratories for the full 24 hours. He arranges his shift in such a way as to be personally in charge of each of the 3 shifts at sometime during the week . During the period when no chemist III is in charge , each of the control laboratories is under the direction of 1 of the chemists II who then exercises the same authority concerning personnel matters as does the chemist 111.3 The chemists II assigned to the control labora- tories attend foremen ' s meetings. Apparently the metallurgical and analytical laboratories never operate under the direction of chemists II, several of whom are employed in each of the laboratories together with chemists I and technicians . Chemists II assigned to the metallurgical and analytical laboratories do not attend fore- men's meetings, some of them do not have any employees working under them. However , the record indicates that those chemists II who do have employees working under them possibly may have authority such as to suspend employees. We find that all those chemists II who regularly substitute for chemists III and those who are otherwise vested with supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act are supervisors and we shall exclude them from the unit as chemist II supervisors . Those chemists II who donothave such author- ity, we find not to be supervisors and we shall include them in the unit asj chemists U nonsupervisors. Accordingly, we find that the following employees employed at the Employer ' s Brightwater, Minnesota , plant constitute a 3On each shift in the control laboratories there is only 1 chemist II, except in 1 of the laboratories on 1 shift where there are 2 chemists II. 532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section9 ( b) of the Act : All production engineers, quality control engineers , senior planning engineers , engineers II and III , chemists I, and chemist II nonsupervisors , excluding contact maintenance men, guards , all other employees , senior process engineers , section heads in the planning division, chemists III , chemists II supervisors , and all other supervisors within the meaning of the Act.4 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 4 As the Petitioner has indicated its willingness to have an election held in any unit found appropriate by the Board, the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner failed to propose an appropriate unit is denied. DIAMOND HOSIERY CORPORATION and AMERICAN FEDER- ATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, AFL. Case No. 11-CA-444 (Formerly Case No. 34-CA-444). June 11, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On March 17, 1953, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board ' 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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, 2 and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions , modifications , and additions set forth below.3 1. We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that Super- visor Ina Amos' accusing employees McLamb and Freeman of being "ringleaders with the Union," and her statement that employee Worrell was "with the Union," were violations of Section 8 ( a) (1). These remarks were in the form of statements rather than questions, and the language employed was not of the type which we have held is intended to elicit a reply con- '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]. 2 The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied, because the record, exceptions, and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 3 The date "October 1951" in paragraph numbered 10 of Conclusions of Law is hereby corrected to ''April 1952." 105 NLRB No. 66.