Palmer Manufacturing Corp.

812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD PALMER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and UNITED AU- TOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, (UAW-CIO), Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-3051. June 29, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Norman H. Greer, 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 Murdock, Styles, and Peterson] . Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:' 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep- resentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit of all modelmakers in the Em- ployer's model shop, excluding supervisors.' In the alterna- tive, the Petitioner states that it is willing to represent a larger unit of hourly rated employees in the Employer's engineering department, excluding salaried employees, office clerical employees, and supervisors. The Employer contends that the requested unit is inappropriate because of the small number of employees in the model shop, because of the nature of the modelmakers' work, and because of the close relation- ship of the modelmakers and the other employees in the engi- neering department, of which the model shop is a part. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of coolers and furnaces. There are a number of different departments in the plant, one of which is the engineering department here in question. Following an election pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election,' the Petitioner was certified by the Board as the representative of the Employer's production and maintenance employees. The experimental department em- ployees involved in the present proceeding were specifically excluded from the production and maintenance unit in the 'The petition and other formal papers are hereby amended to show the correct name of the Employer as it appears in the caption. 'In the record, the model shop is also referred to as the experimental department. ' Palmer Manufacturing Company, 103 NLRB 336. 105 NLRB No 122. PALMER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 813 Board's decision . Office clerical employees , engineers , print- ing department employees , advertising department employees, and production control clerks were also excluded fromthe pro- duction and maintenance unit. The Employer ' s engineering department is divided into several divisions , 1 of which is the regular engineering staff composed of 2 sections , 1 concerned with the engineering of evaporative coolers and 1 concerned with the engineering and development of gas -fired furnances . The other divisions are the test engineering laboratory and a model or experi- mental shop. A chief engineer is in charge of all engineering department operations . A project engineer in charge of furnaces directly supervises the test engineering laboratory employees and the employees in the engineering and development of gas-fired furnaces section. A project engineer is in charge of the engi- neering of evaporative coolers section. The model shop em- ployees work under the separate immediate supervision of a model shop foreman. Test engineering laboratory employees all are classified as test engineers ." No formal engineering education is required for the position of test engineer . The test engineers work in the testing laboratory . The employees working inthe engineer- ing and development of gas -fired furnaces section are classi- fied as project engineers , design engineers , senior draftsmen, and junior draftsmen . These employees also work in the testing laboratory . The employees working in the engineering of evap- orative coolers section are classified as senior draftsmen, junior draftsmen, and departmental clerks . These employees sometimes work in the testing laboratory and sometimes in the model shop . All employees in the latter two sections , except the department clerks, are required to have an engineering degree or its equivalent in experience. At the time of the hearing there were 5 or 6 modelmakers working in the model shop , which is a separate room approxi- mately 50 to 60 feet from other engineering department units. The model shop is engaged in the hand production of full-scale operating models of items which the Employer intends to manu- facture. They build models of both the evaporative type coolers and the gas-fired furnaces . Although the modelmakers get their work orders directly from the model shop foreman, their work originates in the drafting room of the engineering depart- ment. The test engineers check the models in the model shop for accuracy . If they reject the model, they may send it back to the model shop with instructions for correction . This is done under the direction of the chief engineer who works very closely with these two sections. 40f the 3 test engineers employed at the time of the hearing , 2 had been promoted from the classification of modelmakers and the third had formerly worked for the Employer as a production inspector. 8 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Modelmakers are paid on an hourly basis. Their pay rates range from $ 1.50 to $ 1.86 an hour . All other employees in the engineering department are paid on a salary basis. The salaries of test engineers range from $ 250 to $ 350 a month. Salaries for employees in the engineering and development of gas-fired furnaces and inthe engineering of evaporative coolers sections range from $ 250 to $500 a month. The Petitoner contends that only hourly rated employees should be included in the unit . We find this contention to be without merit . The Board has frequently held that the method of payment is not determinative of the scope of an appropriate bargaining unit.5 The record does not show the skills or training of the model- makers or the requirements for the position . Nor does it show the precise nature of the duties of these men . The entire record , as here presented , concerning the employees sought by the Petitioner would not , in our opinion , support a finding that the modelmakers constitute a unit of craft employees. Nor do the modelmakers constitute an appropriate unit of technical employees , as they appear to be but a segment of a larger group of technical employees in the engineering department." The evidence in this case shows a close functional relationship between the modelmakers and other employees in the engineer- ing department . The only apparent reason for the Petitioner's request for a unit of only the modelmakers is the extent of its organization of the employees in the Employer ' s engineering department. Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act precludes a unit finding on that basis alone.7 As the modelmakers are neither crafts- men, nor do they otherwise constitute a distinct and homogeneous group, with interests different from those of other employees, such as we have recognized may be separately represented, we find that they do not constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. Accordingly , we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition. ] 5 Electro Metallurgical Company, a Division of Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation, 97 NLRB 230; Ford Motor Company, Aircraft Engine Division , 96 NLRB 1075; Arnold Hoffman & Co., Incorporated, 95 NLRB 907 6Cf The Monarch Machine Tool Co , 98 NLRB 1243; The De Laval Separator Company, 97 NLRB 544; Navajo Freight Lines, Inc , 96 NLRB 156 7Hampton Roads Broadcasting Corporation (WGH), 98 NLRB 1090; Kress Dairy, Inc., 98 NLRB 369; Utter- McKinley Mortuaries, 98 NLRB 450