Hamilton Watch Co.

HAMILTON WATCH COMPANY 591 liveries of processefilm' 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,6 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.] e Hancock Electronics Corp., 116 NLRB 442, 443. e The, parties were in accord ' that leadmen did not possess supervisory authority as de- fined in the Act. 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 freefrom 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. 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 organizations involved claim to represent 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 parties are substantially in agreement as to the composition of a production and maintenance unit except for the following categories of employees : Job bosses: Contrary to the Petitioner, the Employer would exclude job bosses as supervisors.' There are two job bosses, each in charge of a clock assembly line. One of them spends about 20 percent of his time in setup work; the other devotes up to 80 percent of his time in such work. When not setting up, they are mainly engaged in, directing the work of the assembly line employees and in keeping the production line functioning smoothly. Both job bosses are salaried and have the authority to discipline employees. They select men for overtime work on the assembly line, handle the grievances of the employees under their direction, and make effective recommendations regarding the job assignments of those employees. They also make recommenda- tions with respect to hiring which are given weight and may substitute for the general foreman in charge of the plant during his absence. Under all the circumstances, we find that the job bosses are supervisors, and shall exclude them.3 Secretaries: Contrary to the Petitioner, the Employer would ex- clude the two secretaries as office clerical employees. The secretaries work in the main office of the plant, physically separated from the -other employees. Except for short periods of time spent in such duties as collecting timecards and stockroom records, they devote their time to performing clerical work in the main office. We find that the secretaries are office clerical employees, rather than plant clericals as Petitioner contends, and we shall therefore exclude them from the unit.4 'District ## 98, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Intervenor , was permitted to intervene on the basis of a card showing of interest among the employees involved herein. ' The Intervenor failed to take a position regarding the unit placement of job bosses or of the others in dispute who are discussed below. 3 In its brief the Employer for the first time expressly contends for the exclusion of Daniel Graybill as a supervisor. The record, however, does not definitively establish Graybill's status . In the circumstances , we shall permit Graybill to vote subject to challenge. ' Petitioner would include the category of plant clericals on the ground that "there will be factory clericals , if they are not already there." However, the Employer has no em- ployees in this classification at the present time and the record does not indicate that the Employer contemplates hiring such employees in the immediate future. In view thereof, we shall not make any unit determination with respect to this category. HAMILTON WATCH COMPANY 593 Experimental and research line operators : At the hearing the Em- ployer sought to exclude, and the Petitioner to include, the experi- mental and research line operators , of whom there are two presently employed. In its brief, the Employer waives its objections to the inclusion of one of these employees . That employee assembles the Quik-Chek gauge, a production item of the Employer, and the gimlet fuse, an experimental item. The other employee in question inspects and assembles experimental items. Both employees work the same hours as the assembly line employees included in the unit, at the same hourly pay scale. All employees punch the same time clock and enjoy the same employee benefits. We find that both experimental and research line operators have sufficient interests in common with the production employees to be included in the same unit. We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's East Petersburg, Pennsylvania, plant, including employees who tend the boiler, the roving inspector, and experimental and re- search line operators, but excluding office clerical employees, con- fidential employees, guards, professional employees, job bosses, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Employer contends that no election should be held in this case before the fall of 1957, when its work force will be enlarged by the recall of laid-off employees. The Petitioner seeks an immediate election, in which certain laid-off employees would have the right to vote.' The Intervenor was here content to "rest on the record." Prior to the fall of 1956 the Employer manufactured time fuses for the United States Navy at its East Petersburg plant. When these Government contracts were terminated the Employer, in September and October 1956, laid off between 65 and 75 employees. At least since the termination of the aforementioned contracts, the Employer has been engaged principally in the manufacture of automobile clocks for the Chevrolet Division, General Motors Corporation. As of the date of the hearing on March 29, 1957, there were about 83 employees engaged in this clock assembly work. However, 34 of these employees were to be laid off on that very day because of a cutback in orders by Chevrolet. It is the employees in these two groups who have not yet been recalled whom Petitioner would permit to vote in the election it seeks.5 c In proposing an election postponement , Employer appears to view these employees as permanent layoffs. IIn June 1954 about 220 employees were laid off because of the termination of ertain Government contracts. No contention is made, nor does the record warrant a linding, that this group of employees is entitled to vote in any election directed herein. 450553-.58-vol. 118-39 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer has been manufacturing automobile clocks exclu- sively for Chevrolet, under a contract calling upon it to produce 25 percent of the clock requirements for 1957 models. A new contract with Chevrolet authorizes the Employer to manufacture 35 percent of Chevrolet's clock needs for its 1958 models. It also appears that the Employer has obtained a contract for manufacturing accessory clocks for the 1958 Chevrolet line. And the Employer has placed bids with other automobile manufacturers for their clock requirements. The Employer estimated at the hearing that production of clocks for the 1958 Chevrolets will begin in September.' As employees are needed for this additional work, the Employer will offer employment to the employees in the group laid off in March. These employees were given to understand at the time of their layoff that they "prob- ably would be laid off for the duration of the 1957 contract" andthey have been urged not to withdraw from the pension plan because their chances of recall was "great." The layoff in September and October 1956, following the termina- tion of the fuse production, was, according to the Employer's an- nouncement at the time, a temporary one. These employees have also been urged to keep their pension plan intact. However, of the 65 to 75 employees affected, less than 20 have thus far been recalled. And when questioned at the hearing about the possibility of recalling the remaining employees, the Employer testified only that "it is not impossible that . . . [they] could be called back if our production should increase." In addition to bidding for more clock work, the Employer is attempting to secure defense work from the armed services. On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, it is clear, and we find, that the employees laid off in March 1957 are employees temporarily laid off within the Board's meaning of the term and hence are eligible to vote in any election directed at this time.8 As for those laid off in 1956 who have not been reemployed, their recall appears to depend mainly upon the Employer's obtaining contracts for additional work, and it is wholly speculative whether the Em- ployer will be successful in this regard. It follows that those em- ployees have no reasonable prospect of recall in the near or foreseeable future, and we find them to be without voting rights at this time.9 'If the 1958 Chevrolet is scheduled for release sooner than now anticipated by Em- ployer, or if contracts with other automobile companies calling for an early delivery of clocks are obtained, production of clocks for 1958 automobiles will begin at an earlier date. 8In its brief dated April 19, 1957, the Employer states than an additional 17 employees will be laid off on April 26, 1957, because of a further cutback in Chevrolet orders. The record does not indicate whether these employees were laid off with the same expectancy of further employment as those involved in the march layoff. Accordingly, we shall per- mit them to vote in the election, subject to challenge by any of the parties. , Peninsula Metal Products Corporation, 116 NLRB 452 ; Shaw-Randall Company, Inc., 1.16 NLRB 444. TRIANGLE PUBLICATIONS, INCORPORATED 595 In view of all the foregoing, we see no valid reason for postponing the election,as requested by the Employer.10 We shall, in accordance with our usual practice, direct an immediate election. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 10 Our seasonal industry election rules, which the Employer would apply, are manifestly inapplicable to the facts of this case. Cf. Lloyd A . Fry Roofing Company, 107 NLRB 1327. Triangle Publications, Incorporated and National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. I-RC-4838. 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 Sidney A. Coven, 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 Murdock, Rodgers, and Bean]. 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 Employer operates a radio and television station in New Haven, Connecticut. The Petitioner seeks to represent certain em- ployees at Station WNHC-AM and FM and WNHC-TV. The parties have agreed that the appropriate unit is comprised of office clerical and janitorial employees,' but they differ as to the in- clusion of certain categories. Both agree that all the disputed cate- gories except one, the staff artist, are within the agreed unit but are, otherwise ineligible. The Employer urges that the staff artist has, interests sufficiently diverse to preclude his inclusion in the unit.. 1 The Employer's motion to dismiss with respect to the Petitioner's showing of interest is denied. Determination of a showing of interest is an administrative matter, and the Board is administratively satisfied that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing. See The Sheffield Corporation, 108 NLRB 349; Emerson Electric Company, 102 NLRB 303. 2 The parties agree that Carmen Angeloni, Arthur Brusseau, and Lillian Sullivan are. supervisors, and that Ella Saccu is a confidential employee, and are excluded from the. unit. It was-further agreed that Barrett, known as production aide, is excluded from the. unit, and that Barbara Draden',`known as kiYchen.side, is included in the unit. 118 \I,RB No. 76.