The Sheffield Corp.

THE SHEFFIELD CORPORATION 349 deauthorization election at this time .' Accordingly , we shall dismiss the petition without prejudice to the right of the Peti- tioner to refile at any time that a deauthorization election may be appropriate.2 [The Board dismissed the petition.] 'Member Murdock agrees that no useful purpose would be served by directing a union- deauthorization election now, but desires to make clear that in his view the sole reason is that if a rival union wins the representation election directed today in 4-RC-2197, the issue in the instant case would be moot. Should the incumbent Intervenor win the RC election, however, then the issue herein would not be moot and it would be the appropriate time to hold the UD election (toward the end of the present contract which expires May 15) under the views expressed in Member Murdock's dissenting opinion in Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 100 NLRB 1494. If the instant UD petition were held to await the outcome of the RC election, it would make it unnecessary for another UD petition to be filed then in the event of the Intervenor 's victory. 2In view of our disposition of the case, we find it unnecessary to discuss the various contentions and motions of the Union. THE SHEFFIELD CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL AS- SOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-2163. April 21, 1954 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 Orville E. Andrews, hearing officer. The hearing officer's ruling made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' 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 organizations involved claim to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer.3 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 for the following reasons: The Employer strenuously contends that the investigation provisions under Section 9 (c) (1) of the Act4 and Rule 101.17 of 1For reasons hereinafter noted, the Employer's motion to terminate the proceeding made at the beginning of the hearing was correctly denied by the hearing officer. 2 As the record and the Employer's brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties, the Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied, 3The United Steelworkers of America, CIO, was permitted to intervene at the hearing. 4 Insofar as it is pertinent to this proceeding, Section 9 (c) (1) of the Act provides: Whenever a petition shall have been filed, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Board- (A) by an employee or group of employees or any individual 108 NLRB No, 72. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Board ' s Rules and Regulationss have not been properly complied with in this proceeding , in that a thorough investiga- tion of the Petitioner ' s showing of interest prior to the issuance of the notice of hearing ,6 as required by these provisions, had not been conducted . In support thereof, it argues that at the time the Regional Director issued the notice of hearing, he had received no payroll data or statistical information from the Employer ,7 and thus, the Regional office had , ( 1) no accurate information as to the number of employees involved in the claimed bargaining unit; ( 2) no way of accurately determining whether the Board ' s 30 percent showing-of-interest rule had been complied with; ( 3) no means of knowing whether the names on any signed cards or petition submitted by the Petitioner were on the payroll list; and (4) no means of determining whether the signatures appearing on the Petitioner ' s showing of interest were genuine. The primary purpose in causing an investigation to be made of the Petitioner ' s showing of interest preliminary to -the hear- ing is to screen out those cases in which there is so little prospect of the Petitioner winning an election, if directed, as not to warrant the Board incurring the expense of further proceedings on the petition.' Such investigation has no bearing on the issue of whether a representation question exists. Nothing in the Act or in the Board's Rules and Regulations requires that the investigation of the showing of interest be completed prior to the issuance of the notice of hearing.' or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a substantial number of employ- ees (i) which to be represented for collective bargaining and that their employer declines to recognize their representative as the representative defined in section 9 (a) .. the Board shall investigate such petition and if it has reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation affecting commerce exists shall provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice... 5 Insofar as it is pertinent to this proceeding, Section 101.17 of the Board's Rules And Regulations states: Investigation of petition. -(a) Upon receipt of the petition in the regional office, it is docketed and assigned to a member of the staff, usually a field examiner, for investi- gation. He conducts an investigation to ascertain ... (4) whether, if the petitioner is a labor organization seeking recognition, there is a sufficient probability, based on the evidence of representation of the petitioner, that the employees have selected it to represent them. The evidence of representation submitted . . . is ordinarily checked to determine the number or proportion of employees who have designated the petitioner, it being the Board's administrative experience that in the absence of special factors the conduct of an election serves no purpose under the statute unless the petitioner has been designated by at least 30 percent of the employees. 6 The Employer urges that a thorough investigation requires, not merely a card check by the field examiner , but a complete check of employee signatures appearing on the Petitioner's authorization cards against the Employer's payroll list. 7 The petition herein was filed on January 25, the notice of hearing issued on January 29, and the payroll, requested by the Regional Director, mailed by the Employer on February 3, 1954. Subsequently, on February 17 and 18, 1954, the hearing was held. 8See J. I. Case Company, 95 NLRB 1493, at 1496-1498. 9The Board has held that a Petitioner's showing of interest presented at the hearing may satisfy the requirements of the Board. Fish Industry Committee, 98 NLRB 696, footnote 3. THE SHEFFIELD CORPORATION 351 For the above -noted reasons, and because it has long been established that all phases of the question concerning a peti- tioner's showing of interest is an administrative matter not subject to collateral attack,10 we find no merit to the Employer's contention; accordingly, we hereby deny the Employer's mo- tions to vacate the notice of hearing and to terminate the pro- ceeding. 4. The appropriate unit: The parties are in general agreement that all production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its Dayton, Ohio, operations, constitute an appropriate unit. However, the Employer would include approximately 75 designers, detailers, and draftsmen, whereas the Petitioner and Intervenor seek to exclude these employees. The Employer, who is primarily engaged in the manufacture of machine tools and gauges , precision measuring instruments, and accessories such as dies, jigs , fixtures , and cutting tools, handles both standard items and custom orders, with the greater emphasis placed upon the latter. In the filling of such orders, the designers prepare designs for standard and custom products, make the necessary calculations , and indicate the specifications to be used in their manufacture. They consult with the customers and with representatives of the Employer ' s sales, engineering, and manufacturing departments, concerning the preparation of particular designs. The detailers take individual portions of the designs and draw them in proper dimensions for use by toolmakers and other production employees in the manufacture of the Employer's products. They also calculate dimensions, indicate specifications, and show materials to be used. The electrical draftsmen perform comparable work. Substantially all the employees in question are assigned to divisions of the engineering department , work in areas apart from those of the productiom and maintenance employees, and serve under separate immediate supervision . While the design- ers, detailers, and draftsmen located at the plant regularly con- tact production employees, they report to work at different times and are not interchanged with the production employees. Moreover, although the training of the disputed employees is related to that of toolmakers, they perform no manual produc- tion duties but work exclusively at designing, detailing drafting. Under all the circumstances, we find that the detailers, design- ers, and electrical draftsmen are skilled technical employees whose work and interests differ from those of the production and maintenance employees . In view of the issue raised, we shall, therefore, exclude them from the unit." ii See The Borden Company, 103 NLRB No. 143; Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536 at 537; International Trade Mart, 87 NLRB 616 at 617. There is nothing in the amended Act which requires a change in the Board's practice in this respect. See J. I Case Company, supra, at 1497. nSee The Sheffield Corporation, 94 NLRB 1781 at 1782-1783 (and cases cited there- in), involving the instant Employer, where the same issue pertaining to the inclusion of de- 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that the following employees at the Employer's Dayton, Ohio, operations, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees, including machine operators, electrical technicians, and janitors, but excluding designers , detailers , electrical draftsmen , office clerical em- ployees , professional employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The determination of representatives: All new employees of the Employer are required and agree to serve the equivalent of a 3-month probationary period, during which time their future employment status is determined. These employees, whom the Petitioner and Intervenor would include among those eligible to vote and the Employer would exclude, are not generally accorded certain benefits , such as paid holidays, vacations , and leaves of absence , or participation in the group insurance , profit sharing , and pension plans . However, like the regular employees, they are paid on an hourly basis, are carried on the same payroll, are subject to the same shop rules, and serve with the regular employees . Because their general conditions of work and their employment interests are similar to those of regular employees , we find, in accordance with our policy in this regard, that probationary employees are entitled to vote.12 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication,] Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. signers and detailers was raised. Although the Employer's operations today place greater emphasis on custom orders, thereby necessitating more collaboration between the designers and detailers and the toolmakers and production employees, the record is clear that the duties and functions of the designers and detailers have not changed since the Board's earlier decision. 12 David S. Pearl and Ephraim Werner d/b/a National Torch Tip Company, 107 NLRB 1271 at 2 and 3. F. HILGEMEIER & BRO., INC. and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-993. April 21, 1954 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 W. Bruce Gillis, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 108 NLRB No. 74.