Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co.

344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of reinstatement, less net earnings,23 to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294. Earnings in any one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back- pay liability for any other such period . It will also be recommended that the Re- spondent preserve and make available to the Board upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of back pay due. As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent were of a character striking at the roots of employees' rights safeguarded by the Act, and disclose a propensity on the part of the Respondent to continue , although not necessarily by the same means , to defeat self-organization of its employees , it will also be recom- mended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the employee rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Office Employees International Union , Local No. 21, AFL, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Frederick B. Danese, thereby discouraging membership in the Union , the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ,Recommendations omitted from publication.] 29 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 447-498; Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7. Brown Instruments Division, Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company i and District #1, International Union of Electrical, Radio, & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,2 Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-2765. February 7,1956 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 Morris Mogerman , 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 labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A 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. 4. The Petitioner seeks to add to an existing unit of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant in the Philadelphia, 1 The name of the Employer appears its amended at the hearing, The AFL and CIO having merged subsequent to the hearing In this proceeding, we are amending the Identification of the affiliation of the Petitioner accordingly. 115 NLRB No. 60. BROWN INSTRUMENTS DIVISION 345 Pennsylvania, area, approximately 43 salaried employees performing expediting, dispatching, and allied production control functions in those plants. The Petitioner contends that these employees are plant clerical employees and may be appropriately included in the unit of production and maintenance employees, or, in the alternative, may con- stitute a separate appropriate unit. The Employer contends, on the other hand, that the employees sought have interests in common with its other salaried clerical employees which preclude either unit sought by the Petitioner. Production control functions at the Employer's plants are performed by employees in a separate production control department, and by em- ployees in the Employer's operating divisions.' A large number of the employees sought by the Petitioner fall into the second group. These ,include employees classified as dispatchers in departments D-1 and D-22; expediters A in D-4, D-6, D-8, D-9, D-21, and the contracts division; expediters B in D-4, D-6, D-8, D-21, and the contracts divi- sion; expediters in D-1, D-3, and the panel division; expediter- planners in D-6, D-9, D-21, and D-27; and scheduler-expediters in the parts depot. As is suggested by their titles, all these employees perform, at least in part, expediting or dispatching functions in the plant manufactur- ing and assembly departments. They are assigned to the various de- partments and are under the supervision of production control super- visors who are, in turn, under operating division heads 4 All these employees are located either in factory areas or in factory offices shared in most instances by factory supervision and factory clerks in the pres- ent production and maintenance unit. Their duties require them to spend substantial portions of their time in production areas and to contact production supervision and personnel. Some of them also have contact with the production control department and the purchas- ing department. Their duties include maintaining records necessary for processing production orders in the various departments, releasing orders for processing through the departments, expediting parts on shortage lists for their own and other departments, accumulating parts for assembly, and maintaining floor stock records and seeing that neces- sary stock levels are maintained.5 It appears from the above that these employees, by virtue of their functions, locations, and supervision, are all similar to expediters and dispatchers who have been found by the Board in previous decisions to 8 These divisions are parts division , parts depot, panel division , assembly division, Olney division , and contracts division . Some of the divisions are further subdivided into operat- ing departments. * Thus, although the production control employees are not under the supervision of operating department foremen, both the foremen and the production control supervisors are directly responsible to the operating division heads. 5 None of the employees in question perform all these functions , but each performs one or more of them. 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ' RELATIONS BOARD be plant clerical employees and have been included in production and maintenance units.' The Employer opposes their inclusion in the existing production and maintenance unit because they are salaried and receive various eco- nomic benefits shared by all salaried clerical employees' and not given to the hourly paid production and maintenance employees. The Em- ployer further contends that their functions are so related to those of the employees in the production control department not sought by the Petitioner as to preclude their separate representation. However, differences in the mode of payment and remuneration re- ceived by clerical employees do not preclude their inclusion in produc- tion and maintenance units, where other factors, such as those sum- marized above, indicate that their interests are allied with production and maintenance employees.' Also, while all production control em-' ployees perform functions related to controlling the flow of -work through the plant, it appears that there is a substantial difference between the functions of the employees in the production control, department and those discussed' above. Thus, the employees in the production control department are responsible for the original analy- sis and breakdown of orders into various production operations, assignment of required operations to the departments, and scheduling the order of processing. The employees engaged in expediting and dispatching functions are charged with effectuating the flow of work set up by the production control department. Although there is some contact between the two groups of production control employees, those in the production control department are under separate supervision, are located in the office area, and have little or no contact with produc- tion employees or the production process. The production control employees assigned to operating departments on the other hand are located in factory areas under supervision of the operating depart- ments, and have direct and continuing contact with operating person- nel. Accordingly, we reject the Employer's contention that all these employees must be represented in the same unit,9 and find that the above employees performing expediting and dispatching functions are plant clericals who may be added to the production and maintenance unit.10 A. C. Smith Corporation, 102 NLRB 1116; General Electric Company, 106 NLRB 364, at 369 ; The Yale and Towne Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1268. 7 These include paid sick leave, pension and retirement benefits, severance pay, and a more liberal vacation plan 8 A. 0. Smith Corporation, supra. General Electric Company, 106 NLRB 364, at 369. 10 One of the expediters A in the contracts division is principally concerned with expe- diting material received from outside sources for assembly by the contracts division, and only on occasion assists the other expediter A in expediting work performed within the contracts division As he is located in the main office area , and most of his contacts are with other office sections of the Employer and with outside suppliers , his interests appear to be more common with those of other office clerical employees , and we will exclude him from the unit. BROWN INSTRUMENTS DIVISION 347 There remains for consideration scheduler-expediters in the ship- ping department, order analysts and expediters in the special products orders or SPO section, planner. B at the Olney plant, and clerk-sched- .ulers in D-1, whom the Petitioner also seeks to include in the unit, as well as several classifications in the contracts division whom the Peti- tioner 'is willing to represent if the Board finds that they appropri- ately belong in the unit. The scheduler-expediters in the shipping department ,and expedi- ters in the SPO section, unlike the employees discussed above, are under the ultimate supervision of the production control department and may be promoted to other jobs within that department. How- ever, they are located in factory areas and perform expediting func- tions similar to those of the other expediting employees in the plant, requiring contact with production 'supervision and personnel. Ac- cordingly, we find that they may be included in the unit." The order analysts-in the SPO section are also under production control department supervision and perform functions substantially the same as order analysts in other'sections of the production control department, who are excluded from the unit. They have considerable contact with the other production control department sections as well as'some contact with the SPO expediters and production personnel.l3 Accordingly, we will exclude them from the unit. . The clerk-schedulers in D-1 are under the same ultimate supervision as the expediter and dispatchers in D-1, but are directly supervised by a scheduler. They are located in a separate office area on the first floor of the main plant, apart from D-1 and the expediters-and dispatchers. Their functions are largely clerical and pertain to planning operations in D-1 to insure proper distribution of work among the machines in D-1 and their full utilization. In view of their isolation from the other employees in the unit and the fact that their functions are essen- tially office clerical and pertain to creating plans rather than effectu- ating them, we will exclude the clerk-schedulers from the unit.13 The planner B in the Olney plant is apparently under the produc- tion control department, although it is not clear from the record who supervises him. He is located in a factory office with expediters A and B in D-4 and D-21. Some of his functions appear to be similar to those of order analysts and planners in the production control de- partment and some appear to be similar to those of the expediters. As 11 General Electric Company, supra v The order analysts are presently located with the SPO expediters in an office area on the factory floor However, the Employer plans to move the order analysts, but not the expediters , into the production control department office during the first quarter of 1956. 11 The functions performed by these employees were not performed in the plant prior to 1955. The Employer plans to move the scheduler and clerk -schedulers into the production control department offices and transfer them to production control department supervision during the first quarter of 1956. 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD it is not clear from the record in which capacity he spends a major portion of his time, we will make no determination as to him but will permit him to vote subject to challenge. If a major portion of his time is spent in expediting functions, he will be included in the unit. Otherwise, he will be excluded. The employees remaining in question in the contracts division are the planning clerk, inventory control clerk, expediting clerk, and shipping control clerk. All these employees are located in the office area of the contracts division and perform essentially clerical func- tions requiring little or no contact with production employees; other- than the expediters. Accordingly, we find that they do not have suffi- cient interests in common with the production and maintenance em- ployees to be included in the unit. As the various employees found above to be plant clericals have been previously excluded from the existing production and maintenance unit, and the Petitioner now seeks to add them to that unit,, we shall grant the plant clericals an opportunity to express their desires as' to whether or not they should be added to the existing production and maintenance unit. We note, in this connection, that the contracting union representing the existing unit is Local 116 of the Petitioner's international union, rather than the Petitioner District #1, and that the Petitioner indicated at the hearing that if it won the election, the bargaining relationship will be administered by Local 116. Accord- ingly, we deem it appropriate to place Local 116 on the ballot rather than District #1.14 We shall therefore direct an election in the following voting group, which we find may appropriately be added to the existing production and maintenance unit at the Employer's plants in Philadelphia, Penn- sylvania: All expediters in the panel division, the SPO center, and depart- ments D-1 and D-3; expediters A in D-4, D-6, D-8, D-9, D-21, and in the plant area of the contracts division ; expediters B in D-4, D-6, D-8, D-21, and the contracts division; scheduler-expediters in the parts depot and the shipping department; expediter-planners in D-6, D-9, D-21, and D-27; and dispatchers in D-1 and D-22; but exclud- ing order analysts in the SPO center; clerk-schedulers in D-1; the planning clerk, inventory control clerk, expediting clerk, shipping control clerk, and expediter A in the main office of the contracts division; and all other employees, guards, and supervisors 15 as defined in the Act. If the majority of the employees in the voting group vote for Local 116, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in 14 See Penn-Dixie Cement Corporation, 107 NLRB 251, at 253. 15 The parties stipulated that the scheduler in D-1, the departmental planners in D-4, D-6, D-8, and D-21, and the chief planner, chief expediter, and planners in the contracts division are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., INC. 349 the production and maintenance unit currently represented by Local 116, and the Regional Director shall issue a certification of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Work- ers of America (UAW, AFL-CIO), Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC- 2928. February 7,1956 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to stipulation for certification upon consent election ex- ecuted by the parties, an election by secret ballot was held in a unit of tirechangers employed by the Employer at the Detroit Greyhound garage on October 20, 1955, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region. At the conclusion of the election the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots showing that there were 4 eligible voters, that all of them cast ballots, that 2 were for Petitioner and 1 against it, and that 1 ballot was challenged. This was a challenge by the Petitioner on the ground that Emmons, the % voter in question, was a supervisory employee. Inasmuch as the challenged ballot affects the results of the election, the Regional Director caused an investigation to be made of the issue raised by the said challenge, and thereafter, on December 2, 1955, issued and served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots in which he-recommended to the Board that the challenge be sustained and the Petitioner certified as the bargaining representative of the employees in question. On December 12, 1955, the Employer duly filed its exceptions to specific paragraphs of the report, including the finding that Emmons is a supervisor, but not including that paragraph of the report finding that Emmons' superior is stationed in Cleveland and spends only 2 to 3 days every second month in Detroit, and that in his absence Emmons is in charge of the tirechanging operation at the Detroit garage. The Employer requests a hearing to show that Em- mons is the working leader of a 4-man crew, rather than a supervisor of the other 3 men. , The Board has reviewed the stipulation of the parties, the Regional Director's report on challenged ballots, and the Employer's excep- tions. Uponthe entire record in the case, it makes the following find- ings of fact : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 115 NLRB No. 59.