Eastman Kodak Co.

EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY APPENDIX A 591 Norman Wilkie Eugene Anders Tony Hoots Vernon Rhodes Clyde Jones Joseph King R. L. Roper John London Parlie Baker Paul Hutchison Arthur Merrill John Hill William C. Thomas Willie Hoots Jack Gasperman Ralph W. McMinn Tommie L. Crouch Charlie E. Roberts James V. Brown Josephine Smith Kenneth Garrett Hugh Marshall Nora Dill Hugh Hoots Charles Burrell Madge Signam Joseph Brooks Millard Corn Leonard Tabor Estel Gordon Marion Corn Carm Quinn Adger Burns Lee Edwards Ella Mae Anders James L. Millinax Arthur Case Charles Wright Berlin Buckner Carrol Bryson Forest Souther Clarence Hill Rudolph Stepp Lester F. Emory Elbert Nanney Euston Lusk Richard Buckner Clyde Thomas Adger Sexton Bob Melton Wm. J. McLaughlin James R. Baker John Nix Billy W. Beddingsfield Vollie Whitaker William R. King Myrtle Livingston Wade Williams Herbert Capps Ridgeway Russell Vestil Edwards Orvale Hyder APPENDIX B Henry Russell George Justice James F. Sexton Thurn Bagwell J. D. McClure Joseph N. Boone Homer Isreal Laughran Stepp Od. D. Rhodes June Middleton Calvin Wright James Davidson Arvil Franklin James Hyder John J. Cagle Samuel Redrick Robert Bryson Edward Willis Tommy Young Ray Davis Ben Walden A. L. Fortner Willie Gibbs Charles Qualls E. S. Hamilton Hugh Rutledge Redmon Jackson William B. Higgins Paul Culberson James D. Thompson James Barnett C. F. Hollingsworth Vernon Drake John F. Bobo Ernest Justice Tom Collins Lige Franklin Clarence Stepp Stanbury Franklin Eastman Kodak Company and Film Technicians of the Motion Picture Industry, Local 683, of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Oper- ators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-4218. February 27,1956 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 Norman H. Greer, 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 employees of the Employer. 115 NLRB No. 91. 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 a unit of all employees engaged in processing film and in equipment maintenance at the Employer's Hollywood film laboratory, in Hollywood, California, excluding service department employees, cafeteria employees, office clerical and administrative em- ployees, professional employees, building service employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one which includes film handling and servicing employees, in addition to the film processing and equipment mainte- nance employees sought by the Petitioner, and would therefore include the service department employees; it would also include the cafeteria employees. The Employer's Hollywood film laboratory is devoted to processing, by means of its exclusive Kodachrome process, color moving picture and slide film, primarily for amateur photographers, but also for busi- ness and professional firms, commercial film laboratories, and defense agencies of the United States Government. The laboratory includes three adjacent buildings, together with a storage warehouse and a customer service building, situated one-half mile distant. Film re- ceived at the laboratory is sorted, identified, spliced onto larger reels, placed on special Kodachrome process machines for developing, passed through three color developers, dried, inspected, matched up with its incoming carton, slit or mounted-depending on whether it is moving picture or slide film-returned to its carton, and reshipped to the customer. The Disputed Categories Service department employees : The 25 service department em- ployees includes a general clerk, senior correspondent-service, corre- spondent-form letters, group leader-clerical services, receptionist, transcriber, and dispatcher. The service department employees estab- lish priorities in processing film,2 repair damaged film, handle customer inquiries, and inspect film for damage during processing. They are separately supervised and, unlike the processing employees, are salaried. On the other hand, they regularly spend approximately 20 percent of their time handling film, and they enjoy the same condi- 1 The Employer moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was signed by the Petitioner's attorney rather than by one of its officers. We find the contention without merit, inasmuch as neither the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , nor the Rules and Regulations of the Board require that a petition for certification of representatives be filed by an officer of the petitioning labor organization See General Electric Company, Appliance Service Center, 96 NLRB 566, footnote 1. 2 The priorities are accorded to customers such as preferred dealers and medical institu- tions The service department employees determine the order of these priorities and dur- ing the entire processing operation maintain a check on the handling of films accorded priorities. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 593 tions of employment as the other employees. In view of the close connection between their work and that of the processing employees, and their similar conditions of employment, we find that they are analogous to plant clerical employees, and we shall therefore include them in the unit which we herein find appropriate.' Cafeteria employees: The cafeteria is operated on a nonprofit basis for the exclusive use of the Employer's employees. It is manned by a working supervisor, a cook, three attendants, and, during busy periods, employees from other departments. The cafeteria employees have the same benefits, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment as do the processing employees. In accordance with our usual custom of including such employees in units of larger scope, particularly where their separate representation is not sought, we shall include the cafeteria employees in the unit herein found appropriate.' Accordingly, we find that all employees, more particularly described in Appendix A to this Decision, engaged in handling, processing, and servicing film and in equipment maintenance at the Employer's Holly- wood film processing laboratory in Hollywood, California, including service department employees, cafeteria employees, shipping and re- ceiving employees, and processing employees, but excluding office cler- ical and administrative employees, professional employees, guards, building service employees,5 and supervisors as defined in the Act, con- stitute 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.] aSheiold Ciystals, inc. 104 NLRT: 1072 Great Lakes Pipe Line Company. 88 NLRB 1370 4 Rheem, Hanufactunn© Company, 110 NLRB 904 r, The Employer and the Petitionei stipulated that the appiopi late unit should exclude building sei vice employees APPENDIX A Classifications Included in the Appropriate Unit Group leader-stockkeeping, stockkeeper, handler-checker, inspector- finished product, cook, cafeteria attendant, maintenance man-control instruments, maintenance man-machine, maintenance man-general, painter, tool crib attendant, instructor-preparation and finishing, ex- pediter, serviceman-production, inspector-processed film quality, in- spector-customer damaged film, receiver-regular orders, typist-fan- fold, shipper-special orders, shipper-regular orders, slitter-processed film, splicer-processed film, presplicer-customer film, supply girl, mounting operator, mounting press operator, special order operator, head tester-analytical, tester-analytical, con trol man-recirculation, mixer-processing chemicals, controlman-film process quality, inspec- 390 609-.i 6-vol 115-39 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for-film process, processor-film, processor's assistant-film, feeder- film process, takeoff operator-film process, staff assistant-loss control, technician-laboratory, supervisor-cafeteria, general clerk (other than those in the general office on the third floor), coordinator-recordak, senior correspondent-service, correspondent-service, correspondent- form letters, group leader-clerical services, receptionist, transcriber, dispatcher-dealer orders. Classifications Excluded From the Appropriate Unit Head building serviceman, building serviceman, entrance guard, gen- eral foreman-processing, staff assistant-production, supervisor-ad- ministrative staff, supervisor-engineering and maintenance, engineer industrial-work measurement, accountant, staff assistant-payroll, staff assistant-cost control, purchasing agent, supervisor-personnel, staff assistant-training, staff assistant-personnel, estimator-time standards, supervisor-quality control, engineer-quality control, medical doctor, payroll clerk, records clerk, statistical clerk, dispensary nurse, secre- tary, general clerk (those in the general office on the third floor), tele- phone operator, engineer-maintenance, section foreman, section fore- man-preparation, section foreman-finishing, section foreman-chemical services, section foreman-maintenance, shift foreman-preparation, shift foreman-finishing, shift foreman-processing, supervisor-service, representative-processing service. United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 231, AFL-CIO and Vernon L. Bryant and J. S. Brown-E. F. Olds Plumbing & Heating Corporation, Party to the Contract. Case No. 33-CB-5,°2. February ,°28,1956 DECISION AND ORDER On August 4,1955, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac- tices. Thereafter the Respondent and the General Counsel filed ex- ceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Re- spondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are 115 NLRB No. 90.