Divco-Wayne Corp.

162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion, but contends only that "we are certain that a thorough investiga- tion in this matter would have uncovered ample evidence to substan- tiate the objections presented by the Steelworkers." The Board has held, however, that a party filing objections to an election is obliged to furnish evidence in support of its objections and that, unless such evidence is produced, the Regional Director is not required to pursue his investigation further.' No such supporting evidence has been pro- duced here. Accordingly, we fuid no merit in this contention of the Steelworkers. Having considered the objections, the Regional Director's report and the exceptions thereto, and having found the objections to be without merit, we hereby overrule them in agreement with the Re- gional Director. As the objections and exceptions do not raise sub- stantial issues of fact, we deny the Steelworkers' request for a hear- ing.5 As the Metal Trades Council has received a majority of the valid ballots cast in the runoff election, we shall certify it as the col- lective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified Baton Rouge Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit hereinabove found appropriate.] d Rio de Oro Uranium Mines, Inc., 120 NLRB 91. 5 General Electric Co., 119 NLRB 1262. Divco-Wayne Corporation , Wayne Works Division and Inter- national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-1567. November 00, 1958 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 Lloyd R. Fraker, 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers 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. 1 The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing. 122 NLRB No. 27. DIVCO-WAYNE CORPORATION 163 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 Employer is engaged in manufacturing vehicles, particularly schoolbuses, at its plant in Richmond, Indiana. The Petitioner is the bargaining representative of the Employer's production and mainte- nance employees excluding plant clerical and technical employees. It now seeks to represent the unrepresented plant clerical and technical employees in two separate units. The Employer agrees that the tech- nical employees constitute an appropriate separate unit, but would add the plant clerical employees to the production and maintenance unit from which they have been excluded. As an alternative position, the Petitioner agrees with the Employer's contention. A. Plant clerical employees The Board customarily includes plant clerical employees in produc- tion and maintenance units unless the parties have agreed to exclude them as a class z No such agreement for exclusion now exists. Ac- cordingly, we shall accord the plant clericals the opportunity of voting separately on whether or not they desire to become a part of the exist- ing production and maintenance unit.' The parties are in general agreement as to the composition of the plant clerical voting group except that the Employer would exclude the production scheduling clerk (Elliott), the shopwork order clerk (Hatfield), and the service parts clerk (Penland), who it contends are office clerical employees, and timekeepers, who it contends are technical employees. The production scheduling clerk (Elliott) keeps a record of the progress of individual items through the various stages of the produc- tion process for assistance to management in scheduling production and for customer information. The shopwork order clerk (Hatfield) keeps a cumulative record of fabricated parts, and issues work orders for material to be manufactured. The service parts clerk (Penland) works for the sales department, writing up orders for shipments to dealers and distributors of the Employer's products. All these em- ployees perform paperwork only, are located in the general office, and keep regular office hours 4 under office supervision. They have no e Jones-Dabney Company, 116 NLRB 1556. White Provision Company, 116 NLRB 1552, 1555. • The working hours of the plant are from 7 to 4, whereas the office hours are from 8to5. 164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD plant supervision and have little or no contact with plant personnel. We find that their work and interests are more closely allied with those of office clerical employees, and we shall, therefore, exclude them from the plant clerical voting group.' The timekeepers keep time records of production employees and incentive workers from which earnings are computed. They do no costing or rate setting. They are physically located and spend most of their time working in the production areas of the plant. They keep plant rather than office hours. We find, contrary to the Em- ployer, that the timekeepers are not technical employees but are essentially plant clerical employees whom we shall include in the voting groups We shall, therefore, direct an election in the following voting group : All plant clerical. employees at the Employer's vehicle manufac- turing plant in Richmond, Indiana, including plant scheduling clerks, plant inventory stock record clerks, warehouse receiving clerks, warehouse general clerks, bondarite clerks, pattern clerks, and time- keepers, but excluding time study manufacturing methods and pro- cedures employees, the production scheduling clerk, shopwork order clerks in the office, the service parts clerk, all other employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in the above voting group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the production and maintenance unit currently represented by the Petitioner. . If a majority of the employees in the voting group vote against the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain outside the existing production and maintenance unit. In either event, the Reigonal Director is instructed to issue a certification of the results of the election to such effect. B. Technical employees The parties agree that a unit of all technical employees is ap- propriate, but disagree as to the unit placement of the electrical engineer (Johns) and the data or chassis engineer (Scheel), who the Employer contends are professional employees. The electrical engineer (Johns) is responsible for the design and development of all electrical equipment and devices installed in the Employer's products. He has attended three service schools and has had extensive experience equivalent to an electrical engineering degree. The data or chassis engineer (Scheel) calculates, sets up standards,. and gives recommendations and approvals regarding chassis and. c Northrop Aircraft, Inc., 110 NLRB 1.349, 1351. The Bassick Company, 118 NLRB 1032; The Rudolph Wurlitzer Co., 117 NLRB 6. ,GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 165 body mountings. He has a college degree in mathematics and physics. A college degree or its equivalent in schooling and experi- ence is required for both positions. The work these engineers perform is intellectual and varied in character entailing the exercise of inde- pendent judgment and discretion. Under these circumstances we find that Johns and Scheel are professional employees Within the meaning of Section 2 (12) of the Act, and shall exclude them from the unit of technical employees.7 We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning. of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act: All technical employees at the Employer's vehicle manufacturing plant in Richmond, Indiana, including draftsmen, blueprint machine operator, experimental mechanics, and the working ,foreman in the experimental enginering department, but excluding; the electrica engineer, the data or chassis engineer , all other employees, :guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 7 See Southern CaUfornia Edelson Company/, 107 NLRB 951. General Electric Company and International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO 1 and International Union of Electrical, Radio ' and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,' Petitioners. Cases Nos. 11-RC-1131 and 11-RC-1136. November 20, 1968, DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Jerold B. Sindler, 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 Fanning]. 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 certain em- ployees of the Employer. 1 Hereinafter called the IAN. ® Hereinafter called the IUE. 122 NLRB No. 21.