Technicolor New York Corp.

588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the employees; and (4) the Employer's employees had no voice at the merger convention. The Board has duly considered the motion and countermotions 3 The IBPM and the UPA at their respective special conventions held in Chicago, Illinois, on March 4 and 5,1957, duly called, approved the terms of an agreement for merger and an implementation agree- ment theretofore negotiated by the international officers of the IBPM and UPA. These agreements provided for the combination and con- tinuation of IBPM and UPA as the UPP, with the UPP assuming all of the assets and liabilities of the IBPM and UPA and the bargaining rights, privileges, duties, and responsibilities of the existing collective- bargaining agreements and certifications of the IBPM and UPA to be vested in the UPP. At its first constitutional convention of the UPP held on March 7,1957, the constitution and bylaws of the newly formed UPP were adopted. The two unions were of comparable size and the officers of UPP are composed of the former officers of the IBPM and UPA. It is further noted that the IBPM, and not a local, was certified to represent the employees. It is apparent from the above that the UPP (the consolidated group) was intended to function as a continuation of the IBPM and UPA, its two constituent unions, and the consolidation would there- fore not impair any of their certifications' [The Board amended the certification of representatives by sub- stituting therein United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, for International Brotherhood of Papermakers, AFL-CIO.] a The following motions and countermotions were filed by the parties : On March 18, 1957, the UPP filed a motion to amend the certification ; on March 25, 1957, the Employer by telegram opposed the motion to amend the certification ; on April 1, 1957, the Employer filed a motion to deny the amendment to the certification ; on April 10, 1957, the UPP filed a supplemental motion to amend the certification ; on April 24, 1957, the Employer filed an answer to the supplemental motion to amend the certification. 4 We find no useful purpose would be served by holding a bearing as alternatively re- quested by the Employer, and for the reasons stated in Union Carbide and Carbon Corpo- ration v. N. L. R. B., 244 F. 2d 672 (C. A. 6), decided May 14, 1957, we shall grant the UPP's motion, and amend the certification accordingly. Technicolor New York Corporation and Motion Picture Labora- tory Technicians, Local 702, International Alliance of Theatri- cal Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-8738. July 10, 1957 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 Aaron Weissman, hearing 118 NLRB No. 68. TECHNICOLOR NEW YORK CORPORATION 589 officer. 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Jenkins]. 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. 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 represent a unit of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's West 57th Street, New York, New York, plant where the Employer is engaged principally in the processing and printing of amateur color film. It also manu- factures photographic film processing and printing equipment for its own use and for sale to outside customers. There is no history of collective bargaining for any of its employees. Although the Em- ployer proposes a unit confined in scope to employees directly engaged in film processing and printing, we find that a broad unit of the Employer's production and maintenance employees, including those engaged in handling, processing, and servicing film, is clearly appro- priate.2 The maintenance men and janitors in the maintenance department are therefore included in the unit. Other categories whose requested inclusion was opposed by the Employer are herein- after considered seriatim. The mail sorters, packagers, frankers, and weighers in,-the shipping department perform functions which are plant clerical, in nature. The billing clerks, although assigned to the accounting department for administrative purposes, do not work in the accounting office but are located with the above-mentioned shipping department employees in one room. There, the billing clerks prepare invoices for use by other I The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that: ( 1) The Petitioner's parent organization, herein called IATSE, had not renewed its compliance with Section 9 (f) and (g) at the time of the hearing, and (2 ) the petition was prematurely . filed. The latter basis for the motion is rejected, as there was no impediment to the immediate filing of the petition. In support of the first ground for its motion, the Employer contends that the Board lacks authority for its long-established practice of permitting unions to file certificates of intent to renew compliance and granting them, in its discretion, a grace period within which to effect such renewals. We reject this contention. Monsanto Chem- ical Company, 115 NLRB 702; Plant City Welding and Tank Company, 118 NLRB 280, footnote 9. The Employer's contention as to the adequacy of the Union's compliance with Section 9 (f) and ( g) involves administrative matters not cognizable in this proceeding. We are presently administratively satisfied that the Union and its parent IATSE are in compliance. See Standard Cigar Company, 117 NLRB 852. The motion to dismiss is therefore hereby denied. 2 See Eastman Kodak Company, 115 NLRB 591. 590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD accounting department employees and fill out labels for attachment. to the packaged film. The processing clerks, also assigned to the accounting department, keep production records for such department and perform their work in the plant areas. A maintenance clerk assigned to the maintenance department keeps records of maintenance work performed. The stock receiving clerks in the stockroom located two floors above the production area receive and store stock for use by all departments of the Employer. We find that all the aforemen- tioned clerks' and shipping department employees are plant clerical. rather than office clerical employees. We shall therefore include them in the unit consistent with our policy of including plant clerical employees h production and maintenance units where their unit placement is in dispute.3 There are12 machinists and mechanics in the machine shop of the Employer's 'equipment manufacturing department. Although this. department is under a separate division of the Employer's operations, it manufactures, makes replacement parts for, and on occasion repairs, film processing and printing equipment for the Employer's own use as well as' for other users. No union seeks to represent this group of employees oii a separate basis. In the circumstances, as machinists and mechanics of the type involved herein are normally included in production and maintenance units, we shall include them in the Petitioner's requested unit. There. is :one category, methods technicians, which the Petitioner would exclude and the Employer would include. These employees, two in number, are part of the production planning department. They spend most of their time in the operation of various processing and printing equipment for the purpose of exploring methods to improve its efficiency. The rest of their time, they prepare reports of the data obtained by them and make recommendations to departmental super- visors if changes, in operating procedure are considered desirable. Upon the foregoing, we find that there exists between the methods tech- nicians'and the production and maintenance employees a diversity of interests which warrants the exclusion of the former from the unit." We. have found in favor of ..the broad production and maintenance unit requested by the Petitioner. The Employer states in its brief that should we so find, it would prefer a unit comprising all of its employ- ees. We reject such request insofar as it proposes a unit broader in scope than a'production and maintenance unit. However, in view of the Employer's initial agreement with the Petitioner to exclude the chauffeur, quality control men, draftsmen, and the product engineer, we construe-the Employer's alternative request as a change of,position with respect to these categories. As to the chauffeur, who makes de- 3 TVm. R. Whittaker Co., Ltd., 117 NLRB 339. 4 Textron Incorporated, 107 NLRB 355, 356. HAMILTON WATCH COMPANY 591 liveries of processed 'film and prints and is under the supervision of the shipping department head, it is clear that his interests are related to those of other service employees . We shall therefore include him. As to the quality control men, draftsmen , and product engineer, the record establishes that each category comes within our definition of technical employees. Therefore, in accordance with our policy of ex- cluding technical employees from production and maintenance units where a party objects to their inclusion , we shall exclude the quality control men, draftsmen, and the product engineer from the unit.' Consistent with the foregoing, we find that the following employees employed at the Employer's 533 West 57th Street, New York, New York, plant comprise a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All, production and maintenance employees engaged in handling,, processing, and servicing film, including leadmen,s plant clerical em- ployees,' janitors, chauffeurs, and other employees in the shipping de- partment, and machinists and mechanics in the machine shop of the equipment manufacturing department , but excluding office clerical employees; accounting department employees other than the billing and processing clerks, sales department employees , methods techni- cians and other employees in the production planning department, quality control men, draftsmen, the product engineer, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 5 Hancock Electronics Corp., 116 NLRB 442, 443. 9 The parties were in accord that leadmen (lid not possess supervisory authority as de- fined in the Act. 7 This category includes , among others whose inclusion was not disputed , the mail sort- ers, packagers , frankers , and weighers in the shipping department , the billing clerks and processing clerks assigned to the accounting department , the maintenance clerk in the maintenance department , and the stock receiving clerks in the stock receiving department, Hamilton Watch Company and Hamilton Watch Workers Union, affiliated with the American Watch Workers Union , Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-3305. July 10, 1957 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 Katherine W. Neel, hearing officer. 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins]. 118 NLRB No. 70.