Lamson Corp.

LAMSON CORPORATION 667 position was clearly different from those of the other employees per- forming color matching work., We find therefore that as such, his interests were more closely allied with those of the salesmen than with the production workers included in the unit. We therefore adopt the recommendation of the hearing officer that the challenge to his ballot be sustained.16 Because, as the tally shows, a majority of the valid ballots were cast for the Petitioner, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit. Certification of Representatives IT Is HEREBY CERTIFIED that Oil Workers International Union, CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of the Employer's production and maintenance employees at its Philadelphia, Pennsyl- vania, plant, including the head dry mixer, dry mixer and apprentices, head millman, mill"men and apprentices, table hands and apprentices, assistant aniline man and apprentices, head shipper, assistant shipper, color matcher, receiving clerk, formula clerk, foreman of day pro- duction, foreman of night production, general maintenance man and janitors, but excluding the head of the aniline department, the sales- man-trainee, laboratory employees, chemists, office employees, the technical representative who does selling, watchmen, and all super- visors as defined in the Act, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such employ- ees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. MEMBERS Houston and Styles took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives. 18 Brighton Mills, Inc., 97 NLRB 774; Baltimore Transit Company, 92 NLRB 1260. LAMSON CORPORATION and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-833. August 18, 1952 Supplemental Decision and Direction Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election, dated February 12, 1952,1 an election by secret ballot was duly conducted on March 12, 1952, by the Regional Director for the Third Region. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was served upon the 198 NLRB No S. 100 NLRB No. 109. 668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD parties, which showed that, of approximately 47 eligible voters, 22, voted for, and 18 voted against, the Petitioner; 1 ballot was void and' 6 were challenged. Because the six challenged ballots were sufficient to affect the re- sults of the election, the Board ordered a hearing which was held on June 3, 1952, before William Naimark, hearing officer, for the purpose of adducing evidence for the appropriate disposition of them. Fol- lowing the hearing, the hearing officer issued and served upon the parties a report in which he found that all six were eligible to vote and recommended that their ballots be opened and counted. The Petitioner filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report, specifically urging reversal by the Board as to five of the employees challenged. The Employer filed an answer to these exceptions. 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]. The Board has reviewed the hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul- ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the hearing officer's report, the Petitioner's exceptions, the Employer's answer, and the entire record in the case, and finds as follows : Louis Doelling and Lou McMahan: These employees were chal- lenged on the ground that their employment at jobs within the unit found appropriate was only temporary. Doelling and McMahan both were transferred into these jobs in January 1952, before the Board's Direction of Election, and transferred out in April and May, respec- tively. The hearing officer found that both these employees were transferred to the plant from field offices *for an indefinite period, which would be less than a year, in order to give them "wider experi- ence." Unlike the Employer's "trainees," they were put on the plant payroll and did the work of, and were considered, regular employees, with the same conditions of employment. The hearing officer con- cluded that they were temporary employees with a substantial interest in common with the other employees in the unit at the date of the election and were entitled to vote. The Petitioner contends that the two employees were transferred only to complete a special assignment. The record reveals that they were transferred into the unit previous to the time they were assigned to the specific task referred to and that they continued to work at jobs within the unit for a period after the special assignment was completed. We are satisfied from the record that the transfers were for an indefinite period which could reasonably have been expected to last up to a year. We therefore agree, and so find, that these employees had a sufficient interest in the election to be eligible to vote. LAMSON CORPORATION 669 For this reason we overrule the challenges to the ballots of these two employees, and we shall direct that their ballots be opened and counted.2 Austin D. Vanderbilt, Howard S. Maguire, and Elmer Syrene: At the time of the election these three employees were industrial engineers, sometimes called methods engineers. As the evidence adduced at the hearing relating to their inclusion within the unit was insufficient to make a determination before the election, the Board, in its Decision and Direction of Election in this case, provided that they vote subject to challenge. The challenges were made on the ground that these employes performed duties dissimilar to those of the employees in- cluded in the unit. The unit found appropriate in this case consists of technical em- ployees, classified as engineers and draftsmen, in the Employer's engineering departments at its Syracuse, New York, plant." ' The three industrial engineers in question worked in the factory engineer- ing department. Their duties fell into the following categories : Analyzing employees' suggestions and making their own suggestions for improving plant layout and the manufacturing process, draw- ing plans for these improvements, making cost analyses of them, and writing factory work standards. The hearing officer concluded that, while their drafting work is more simple than that done by regular draftsmen, they were technical employees with interests sufficiently similar to those of the other engineering and technical employees to warrant their inclusion in the unit and to warrant their eligibility to vote. The Petitioner argues that these employees were in fact glorified "set up" or efficiency men who repair and place equipment, spending only 10 percent of their time at a drafting board. According to the undisputed testimony, their work required technical knowledge of the machinery and plant process. Each has studied engineering or draft- ing. They spend a minor portion of their time drafting, described by one of them as being 20 to 25 percent. In our opinion the high degree of skill exercised by these employees confirms the finding that these industrial engineers are technical employees with duties similar Y See Fall River Gas Works Company/, 82 NLRB 962 ; Florida Shipbuilding Corporation, 60 NLRB 1126 - 3 The Board 's unit finding is as follows "All draftsmen and engineers employed in the Employer 's engineering department at its Syracuse plant, including the service engi- neers in the electrical department , the proposition engineers and draftsmen ( estimators) In the conveyor sales engineering and commercial sales engineering departments, the draftsmen in the blower division,' the tool draftsmen in the factory engineering depart- ment, the design engineer in the mechanical department, and the research tester and draftsmen in the experimental development department , but excluding the contract engi- neers in the contract engineering department , the squad leaders, the mechanical experi- mental and electrical development engineers , the assistants to the manager of the contract engineering department , production and maintenance employees , office and clerical em- ployees, professional employees , guards , and all supervisors 6 as defined in the Act." (Footnotes deleted.) 670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to those of the other engineers and draftsmen in the unit. Therefore, we find, as did the hearing officer, that they are included in the unit and eligible to vote in the election .4 We therefore overrule the challenges to their ballots and shall direct that they be opened and counted. Marshall H. Bishop: As no specific exception was taken to the hear- ing officer's finding that this employee was a technical employee eligible to vote in the election, we adopt his finding as to this employee. Therefore, we overrule the challenge and shall direct that Bishop's ballot be opened and counted. Direction As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for purposes of collective bargaining with Lamson Corporation, Syracuse, New York, the Regional Director for the Third Region shall, pursuant to National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count the ballots of Louis Doelling, Lou McMahan, Marshall H. Bishop, Austin D. Van- derbilt, Howard S. Maguire, and Elmer Syrene, and thereafter serve upon the parties a second revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of these ballots. 4.The Petitioner also asserted that Vanderbilt , one of the industrial engineers, was in any event not eligible to vote because at the time of the election he performed the duties of a salesman . This employee was temporarily detailed to solicit defense work for the Employer and was expected to return to his position as industrial engineer , although he did not do so. The hearing officer found that at the date of the election Vanderbilt's interests still lay with those of the other industrial engineers . Therefore, he found that Vanderbilt was eligible to vote . We find , as did the hearing officer, that Vanderbilt had a substantial interest in common with the other employees in the unit at the time of the election and is entitled to vote . Epp Furniture Company, et at., 86 NLRB 120. HERBERT MEN'S SHOP CORPORATION and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER. Case No.18-RC-1779. August 19, 1952 Supplemental Decision and Order and Direction of Second Election On June 13,1951, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election' issued by the Board on May 25, 1951, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc- tor for the Thirteenth Region. The tally of ballots issued after the election showed that of the 16 eligible voters in the unit, 14 cast valid ballots, of which 3 were for, and 11 were against, the Petitioner. 194 NLRB 842. 100 NLRB No. 110.