Kearfott Co., Inc.

7 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive of the Union, make fraudulent, threatening, or coercive statements to either Utah Werley or J D. Whatley. On the entire record, the evidence considered as a whole, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned credits the testimony of Cecil Werley and Jesse Moore and finds that their account of the Kelley Cafe meeting and the statements made by Lamm thereat represents the accurate version thereof. The undersigned does not credit the testimony of Utah Werley and J. D. Whatley with respect to the statements made by Lamm at the Kelley Cafe meeting. The undersigned therefore finds that neither Utah Werley, J. D. Whatley, nor any of the employees of the Respondents were induced to join the Union by reason of threats , fraud, or coercion The undersigned finds that the Union at all times material herein represented an uncoerced majority of the Respondents ' employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining [Recommendations omitted from publication.] KEARFOTT COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, (UAW-CIO), Peti- tioner. Case No. 2-RC-5866. August 12, 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 Aaron Weissman, 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. 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 Section2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit confined to employees in the Employer's plant 1, excluding all engineering division em- ployees employed in plant 1 other than inspectors, salaried, professional, and office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors. The Petitioner contends that the employees in plant 1 whom it seeks to represent in a separate unit have interests apart from those in the Employer's four other plants because plant 1 is devoted to production work, whereas the other plants are devoted to engineering and research work. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one 106 NLRB No. 120. KEARFOTT COMPANY, INC. 717 embracing not only the above employees whom the petitioner seeks to represent, but all hourly rated production, main- tenance, inspection , service, and engineering employees at all five plants, excluding office clerical, professional, and salaried engineering division technical employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors. In the alternative, the Petitioner will accept any unit the Board finds appropriate and indicated its willingness to go to an election in a unit which conforms to that proposed by the Employer, if the Board should find that to be the appropriate unit. There has been no history of collective bargaining for the Employer's employees at any of its five plants. In 1952, a consent election was held for all hourly rated production, maintenance , inspection, service, and engineering department employees in the three plants then operated by the Employer, as a single unit.' The Petitioner in that case was the same labor organization as in the present case. The Employer is engaged in the design, development, and production of airborne instruments. Its operations, which began in January 1951, are located in 5 plants in Paterson, West Paterson, and Clifton, New Jersey. The 5 plants are located within a circular radius of 2 miles. The plants are designated as plants 1, 2, 4, and 5 and division 290. Originally, all of the Employer's operations were housed in plant 1. Because of rapidly expanding business the Employer had to rent additional space where available. Plant 4 went into operation sometime in the late fall of 1952. Plant 5 was opened the beginning of May 1953.2 At the time of the hearing in May 1953, the Employer was relocating various of its operating units because of the acquisition of plant 5.3 Division 290 was set up to handle the entire development and production of a classified navy contract. Because it is a no-profit contract, the Employer segregated this operation and housed it in a separate building in order to enable the Employer to accurately account the costs.4 The Employer' s operations are divided into two main divi- sions, the production and the engineering divisions. Both divisions are divided into various departments and the latter in turn are divided into sections . Each division is headed by an executive vice president, both of whom are responsible to the Employer's president and executive committee. The executive committee and the board of directors determine the overall operational policies for the entire Company. I A majority of votes were cast for no union. 2 Most of the engineering departments will be located in plant 5 but some will also be located in plants 1, 2, and 4 and division 290. 9 The Employer intends to again consolidate all of its operations in one building as soon as feasible. Under the present setup, it is necessary to have station wagons and trucks going constantly between the plants. 4There are 13 hourly rated employees in division 290. 7 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Although most of the Employer's large-scale production operations are carried on in plant 1, many sections of the engineering division located in the other plants also do production work. These sections in the engineering division are production units involved in short-run orders. Small-size production orders for newly developed products are placed in the engineering division because the production of these products requires skilled engineering supervision . When the product has been developed to the extent of large-scale production, the order generally is placed with one of the Em- ployer's subcontractors . Most of the sections in the engineering division, except the experimental machine shop , manufacture parts and products which are shipped directly to customers and also to plant 1. The record shows that there is a functional integration of the Employer ' s different operations . Approximately 20 to 25 percent of the products manufactured in plant 2 go to plant 1 for assembly . About 95 percent of the bearings made in the ball bearing section located in plant 2 are used in production operations in plant 1 . The remaining 5 percent are used in the laboratories in the engineering division . This necessitates close integration of the ball bearing section with the various production units, because failure of the bearing section to deliver the bearings can hold up production . About 20 percent of the time of the pilot plant, located in plant 2 , is applied to making motor generators for use in production assembly in plant 1.6 About 8 to 10 percent of the time of the winding section in the pilot plant is devoted to making wound components to be used in the assembly of gyros in plant 1. The record also shows that certain sections in the production departments in plant 1, make parts to be used by sections in the engineering division . Thus, in the 4 or 5 months preceding the hearing in this case , the toolroom and machine shop in plant 1 devoted about 30 percent of their time to making parts for engineering sections . During the same period , employees in plant 1 de- voted about 10 percent of their time to making wound com- ponents for engineering sections. There is also integration of work between the engineering and production departments . When employees in either of these divisions run into trouble with the work, they may call upon an employee from the other division to help solve the problem. After an engineering department has produced a short-run order , production employees are trained by em- ployees from the engineering division in techniques and procedures in assembling that particular item, when that item is going to be produced in large quantities in plant 1. Quite frequently there is interchange of equipment between engi- neering and production sections , when the Employer only has one of a particular type of apparatus , tool, or fixture. Ap- 5 The pilot plant in plant 2 is to be moved to plant 4. KEARFOTT COMPANY, INC. 719 proximately 25 percent of engineering or production equip- ment is constantly in a state of moving from one division to another for use for a special purpose. There is transfer of personnel as well as equipment between the Employer's 2 divisions. The maintenance depart- ment, whose headquarters are in plant 1, services all of the Employer's plants except division 290. A plant engineer is in charge of the maintenance department and has overall super- vision of all maintenance employees whether working in the engineering or production divisions. There are 2 maintenance foremen, 1 stationed in plant 1 and the other in plant 5. The latter is directly responsible to the plant engineer in plant 1. Some of the maintenance employees are assigned to specific locations in the various plants. Others circulate among the different plants as the need for their services arises. The inspection department,, whose headquarters are in plant 1, is a part of the engineering division. It assigns inspectors to all of the Employer's plants except division 290. It has super- vision over all inspectors, whether they work in engineering or production sections . Like the maintenance employees, some inspectors are permanently assigned to a particular location, while others circulate among the different plants. There are also permanent transfers of employees from the production to the engineering division, and from engineering to production. The record discloses that some of the employees in the engineering division whom the Petitioner would exclude from the unit do the same type of work as other employees working in plant 1, whom the Petitioner would include. The skills re- quired for these jobs, and the machinery and equipment used by these employees, are substantially the same.6 In addition to the functional integration of the Employer's different operations shown above, the record also shows that there is a centralized management and administrative policy for all of the Employer's plants. The Employer's purchasing department does the purchasing for the entire Company, re- gardless of division or department. A central accounting department does the accounting for all departments in both the engineering and production divisions. There is one payroll department which reports to the Employer's comptroller, and makes up the payroll for the entire Company. The personnel department does the hiring of hourly rated employees in all plants. Uniform personnel and industrial relations policies are applied to all hourly rated employees, regardless of the department in which they work. Moreover, all employees have the same general working conditions, receiving the same rates of pay for comparable job classifications, and enjoy the 6 There are wound component units in plants 1 and 2. There are also machine shops, in- strument assembly units, and heat treating units in both the engineering and production divisions. 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD same employer benefits such as vacations, paid holidays, temporary disability benefits, group life insurance, call-inpay, shift differentials, and separation pay. In view of the foregoing, particularly the integration and similarity of operations of all plants, the centralized control of labor relations and administration, and the uniformity of working conditions of all hourly rated employees in the Em- ployer's five plants, we find that a unit consisting of production and maintenance employees at all of the Employer's five plants is alone appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.? The only basis for establishing a separate unit of employees at plant 1 appears to be the extent of the Petitioner' s organi- zation.8 Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act precludes a finding on that basis alone.9 We therefore reject the Petitioner's initial unit request. As the Petitioner has indicated a willingness to repre- sent the employees in all five of the Employer's plants, and has made an adequate showing of interest in such a unit, we shall direct an election in the more comprehensive unit. The Petitioner asserts that if the Board finds appropriate a unit of all five of the Employer's plants, then the employees of Kearfott Manufacturing Corporation, hereinafter called KMC, should also be included in the unit. KMC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Employer, is located in Newark, New Jersey. Although it is a production subcontractor of the Employer, it is treated the same by the Employer as any of the other of its subcontractors. The record shows no integration of functions or personnel between the Employer and KMC. KMC has separate personnel, accounting, and industrial relations depart- ments. The Employer has no jurisdiction over industrial relations at KMC. The Petitioner was certified by the Board as collective -bargaining representative for KMC's employees after a consent election. A local of the Petitioner has had a collective-bargaining contract with KMC since about 1949. On these facts we see no justification for including the employees of KMC in a unit with the Employer's employees. 10 There remains for consideration the supervisory status of group leaders. There are 21 group leaders who instruct new employees and make routine work assignments to employees in their groups. Each leader has from 6 to 12 employees in ?Cf. Hawthorne-Melody Farms Dairy of Wisconsin. Inc., 99 NLRB 212; The Reliance Electric & Engineering Company, 98 NLRB 488; ScenicCitrus Coopeative, Inc., 98 NLRB 350; The Muller Company, Ltd., 98 NLRB 737; Andrews Company, 98 NLRB 11; Snively Groves, Inc., 98 NLRB 1146; Groveton Papers Company, Inc., 96 NLRB 1369; Phillips-Jones Corpo- ration, 96 NLRB 153; Riegel Paper Corporation, 96 NLRB 779 $It is clear from the record that the employees in plant 1 are not a readily identifiable and homogeneous group apart from the Employer's other employees. 9Hampton Roads Broadcasting Corporation (WGH), 98 NLRB 1090; Kress Dairy, Inc., 98 NLRB 369. 10Cf. Producers Rice Mill, Inc., and Producers Dryer, Inc., 106 NLRB 119; Jefferson Co., Inc., and Service Corporation of America, 105 NLRB X202; Kenosha Liquor Company, 104 NLRB 189; Vita Food Products, Incorporated, 103 NLRB 495. SPERRY GYROSCOPE COMPANY 721 his group. They do not have authority to hire, discharge, transfer, lay off, discipline, or change the status of any em- ployees in their groups. Nor do they have authority effectively to recommend such action. The foremen make independent investigations of all reports made by group leaders. The group leaders are hourly rated employees and are represented by the employee grievance committee, which represents all hourly rated employees in the Employer's plants. There are 3 group leaders who work on the night shift without super- vision by foremen the major portion of the time. These leaders follow a program which the foremen have outlined. They do not have any more authority over the employees in their groups than do the group leaders on the d4y shift. We find that the group leaders do not have power, responsibly to direct the employees under them or to make effective recommenda- tions regarding personnel matters. We find that they are not supervisors and shall include them in the unit. We find that all hourly rated production, maintenance, inspection, service, and engineering employees at the Em- ployer's Paterson, West Paterson, and Clifton, New Jersey, plants," including group leaders and watchmen-porters, 12 but excluding office clerical employees, technical employees, professional employees, confidential employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] "The parties agree that all salaried employees should be excluded from the unit. The five plants are: Plant 1, 1150 McBride Avenue, West Paterson; plant 2, 191-195 E. Railway Ave- nue, Paterson; division 290, 561 McBride Avenue, West Paterson; plant 4, 460 Totowa Avenue, Paterson; and plant 5, 1378 Main Avenue, Clifton, New Jersey. 12 Watchmen-porters spend a major part of their time on porter duties and not on duties with respect to guarding the Employer's property. We find that they are not guards and should, therefore, be included in the unit. SPERRY GYROSCOPE COMPANY and ENGINEERS ASSOCI- ATION, ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS OF AMERICA, Peti- tioner. Cases Nos. 2-RC-5524, 2-RC-5525, and 2-RC-5526. August 12, 1953 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Leonard J. Lurie, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rul- ings 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 106 NLRB No. 122.