Rheem Manufacturing Co.

52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Rheem Manufacturing Co. and United Electrical Radio and Ma- chine Workers of America, (UE), Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC- 2600. April 5,1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William Draper Lewis, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings 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 Petitioner and the Intervenors, Local 169, Industrial Divi- sion, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen & Helpers of America, AFL, and the United Steelworkers of America, CIO, referred to herein as the Teamsters and the Steel- workers, respectively, are labor organizations which claim to repre- sent certain employees of the Employer. 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner originally requested a unit of production and main- tenance employees of the Employer without reference to any particu- lar division. At the hearing, testimony developed by the Employer showed that there were actually two separate plants in operation at the Philadelphia premises,' one, known as the research and develop- ment division, and the other, the container division. Although the Employer took no specific position on the unit issue, it generally ex- pressed the view that the employees of the two divisions should not be combined into a single unit. The Teamsters urged that all Phila- delphia employees engaged in production and maintenance work should constitute one single unit for bargaining purposes. The Peti- tioner and the Steelworkers took no position on the inclusion of the research and development employees, but suggested that a globe-type election for these employees would be acceptable to each. In a brief submitted after the hearing, the Teamsters stated as an alternative position their willingness to participate in an election limited to a single plant. The research and development division, which is the older of the two, is engaged in developing electronic and mechanical items for the defense effort. The container division is the usual type of manufac- 1 The Philadelphia plants do not constitute the entire operation of the Employer. 112 NLRB No. 8. RHEEM MANUFACTURING CO. 53 turing plant engaged in making equipment containers . Although both divisions, which have certain functions in common,2 are located in the same physical building, a permanent wall separates the two. Each has its own shipping and receiving docks. Each has its own staff of employees, its own supervisor, does its own hiring and firing and develops its own payroll and accounting. The employees in each punch their own time clocks and use separate facilities . There is no transfer or interchange. The employees in the research division must be carefully screened for security purposes . Moreover, although many classifications are the same, the skills required in the research division, are much greater and more diversified than in the other. Thus, the work in the container division is more or less repetitive in character; on the other hand , that of the research division is not. The record does not reveal a history of collective bargaining. We believe, in view of the above, and particularly because of the present nonintegrated character of the operations of the two divisions that a single overall unit of production and maintenance employees is not appropriate , but that the employees of each division properly constitute a separate appropriate unit .3 We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute separate appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : 4 (a) All production and maintenance employees including truck- drivers of the container division of the Employer 's Philadelphia plant, excluding 5 office and clerical employees, professional employ- ees, draftsmen, technical employees, all salaried employees , leadmen,6 watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) All production and maintenance employees including truck- drivers of the research and development division of the Employer's Philadelphia plant, excluding office and clerical employees, profes- sional employees , draftsmen, technical employees , all salaried employ- 2 Both division heads report to the regional manager and all employees enjoy the same general company benefits. 3 Capehart Farnsworth Company, etc, et als., 111 NLRB 800. Under the circumstances set forth above, we find no occasion for the application of the "Globe" doctrine. I Petitioner made an adequate showing of interest for its proposed unit. However the Board is now directing elections in two smaller units. The Petitioner's proof of interest does not reveal whether it has the required 30 percent showing in each unit. The Re- gional Director is therefore instructed to recheck the Petitioner's proof of interest to ascer- tain whether at the hearing it had a 30 percent showing in each unit. If neither the Peti- tioner nor either of the Intervenors is able to furnish proof of such showing, the Regional Director is directed not to conduct an election in such unit, but to dismiss the petition as to such employees. 5 The parties stipulated as to the exclusions indicated in (a) and (b) units. "The Petitioner and both Intervenors agreed to exclude two leadmen on the ground that the Employer claimed they responsibly directed the work of some 10 to 20 employees and had the power to recommend discharge. On the basis of the evidence, we find that the leadmen in question are supervisors. 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ees, leadmen,' watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] MEMBER LEEDOAt took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Elections. 7 See footnote 6, supra Seattle Cedar Lumber Manufacturing Company and Local No. 193, International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 19-RC-1591. April 6, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Rachel Storer, hearing of- ficer. 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Farmer and Members Murdock and Rodgers]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organization 1 claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion 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 operates a lumber manufacturing plant at Seattle, Washington. The plant consists of a shingle lnill, a sawmill, a planing mill, drying kilns, and a powerplant. At the sawmill and planing :mill, cedar logs are processed into finished lumber, siding, and mold- ing; no stock millwork items are produced. This manufacting opera- tion is continuous and highly integrated. Recently, as a stop-gap measure caused by a scarcity of logs, the Employer purchased and processed some rough lumber. However, in all the years that the plant has been in operation, 99 percent of its production has been based on the processing of cedar logs. Since 1935, the Intervenor has represented all of the plant's production and maintenance employees, with the exception of the employees working in the shingle mill. The 1 Local No 2519, Lumber and Sawmill Workers, AFL, was allowed to intervene on the basis of its current contractual interest. 112 NLRB No. 26.