DIT-MCO, Inc.

DIT-MCO, INC 1003 of that observation The Clerks first requested arbitration in June 1956, 6 months after the effective date of the agreement Fifteen months later, in October 1957, the work stoppages took place as a direct consequence of the Council's refusal to abide by the contract a refusal even to-arbitrate the arbitrability of the dispute. Two years thereafter, the Board is determining that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D) has been violated It should be obvious that we compound "the law's delay" by allowmg our processes to be utilized whenever the arbitration provisions of a contract are not respected Accordingly, we would quash the notice of hearing DIT-MCO, Inc. and District Lodge No. 71, International Asso- ciation of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC- 2991 December 18, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing on this case was held before William M Guerin, 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 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 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, at its plant and office in Kansas City, Missouri, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of electronic equipment The Petitioner seeks to represent the production and maintenance em- ployees While the parties are in agreement generally as to the ap- propriateness of such a unit of employees the Employer would exclude assembler leadladies and the final assembler leadman as supervisors, and test-out technicians as technical employees The Petitioner would include all these employees. I The parties agree that the employees in the following classifications should be in- cluded In the unit assemblers, final assemblers, stock handler, storeroom clerk, receiving clerk, shipping clerk, shopman , and assistant shopman Likewise, they agree to the exclusion of the draftsmen and guard 125 NLRB No 103 _1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The leadladies in the circuit analyzer departments: Seven of the .eight leadladies work in the circuit analyzer departments, and one works in the cable and wire cutting departments. Circuit analyzers are produced in two departments, each of which is supervised by a foreman who spends the majority of his time in the production area, and who reports to the plant superintendent. The four leadladies in one department, and the three in the other department, spend ap- -proximately 10 percent of their time doing manual work on produc- ,tion lines consisting, on the average, of seven assemblers. The lead- ladies spend the remainder of their time in counting parts, allocating them, and instructing and assisting the assemblers in soldering and in- serting wires. Any instruction or assistance which the leadladies may :give the assemblers is based upon traveler cards and wiring charts, issued to them by the foremen, which indicate, respectively, the num- ber and type parts to be used, and the place for the insertion of the wires. These traveler cards and charts are available to all the as- semblers on the production line. The leadladies make no changes in the production method, and the models of the circuit analyzers pro- duced never vary. These individuals are all senior employees, are hourly paid, as are the regular production and maintenance em- ployees, and their wage rate is 20 to 25 cents more an hour than that of the assemblers. Although the Employer, through its production superintendent, testified at the hearing that the leadladies have the power effectively to recommend hiring, discharge, wage increases, and discipline, two leadladies in the circuit analyzer departments testif 3d without contradiction, that they had never been told they had this authority. The record further shows that the hiring is done through a personnel director; that any recommendations made by the leadladies in the circuit analyzer departments are subject to in- dependent investigations, and that the employees are presently granted wage increases according to an automatic merit system.2 Under all the circumstance we find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that the leadladies' direction of others is routine, not requiring the exercise of independent judgment, and that their relationship to the other employees is merely that of more experienced employees to those who are less skilled.' As they possess none of the other statutory in- dicia of supervisory authority, we find that these leadladies are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act and, accordingly, include them in the unit. g Although there is testimony that the leadladies' recommendations as to wage in- creases may be given weight in the future, such a possibility is immaterial to a determina- tion of their present status. s United States Gypsum Company , 118 NLRB 20, 30-31 ( maintenance leaders ) ; Wm. R. Whittaker Co., Ltd., 117 NLRB 339, 345 (group leaders). DIT-MCO, INC. 1005 The leadlady in the wiring and cabling departments: This leadlady, unlike the leadladies whom we have included in the unit, spends all her time directing the work of 21 employees in 2 departments. Wire and cable cutting, as opposed to the assembling of circuit analyzers, varies from day to day, and although this leadlady works from tray eler cards, she may modify them if, in her opinion, the work so re- quires. She effectively recommends the transfer of employees between the wire and cable cutting departments. On the basis of the forego- ing, we find that this leadlady uses independent judgment in directing employees, and is therefore a supervisor as defined in the Act. Ac- cordingly we shall exclude her from the unit. The final assembler leadman: This individual works along with the other two final assemblers in putting together the component parts of the machines. The work is repetitive and any instruction or train- ing which he may give these employees is derived from the traveler cards, which he follows exclusively. Although the Employer, through the production superintendent, testified that this leadman has the authority to effectively recommend hiring, discharge, and wage in creases, there is no evidence that he was told he had this authority, and, the record shows that the hiring is done through the personnel department, and that the wage increases are now automatic. In view of the foregoing, we find that any direction the final assembler lead- man may give the other employees is routine in nature, not requiring the use of independent judgment. As he possesses none of the other statutory indicia of supervisory authority, we find he is not a super- visor within the meaning of the Act and, accordingly, include him in the unit. The six test-out technicians are under the direction of a supervisor, who reports directly to the chief engineer. Four of these men work in the test-out room adjacent to the engineering department, testing completed items, and the other two men work in the production area,. testing the component parts while on the assembly lines, and as they come off the assembly line. All the technicians are required to have a year's technical training in a trade school before hire. They must have a knowledge of electronics, electronic theory, and skill in the use of the testing instruments such as oscilloscopes, voltmeter, Wheat- stone bridges, and decade and resistor boxes. In the course of their duties they test circuit analyzers, general purposes multimeters, and. control module sections. They are required to, and have, devised new methods of testing, and designed new testing instruments. They are responsible for the quality control of the items produced, and all operate with a minimum of supervision. Upon all the facts, including their exercise of independent judgment, and their use of their tech- 1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nical training in the performance of their duties, we find that the six test-out technicians are technical employees, and accordingly, exclude them from the unit' Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Kan- sas City, Missouri, plant, including the assemblers, the final aissem- blers, the stock handler, the storeroom clerk, receiving clerk, shipping clerk, shopman, assistant shopman, the leadladies in the circuit analyzer departments, and the final assembler leadman, but excluding the draftsmen, the leadwomen in the wire and cable cutting depart- ments, the test-out technicians, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 4 See Litton Industries of Maryland , Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722 ( test environ- mental, and test equipment technicians). Cubic Corporation, 116 NLRB 449 , 450, 451 (electronic technician). Dan River Mills, Incorporated and United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-3414. December 21, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On July 24, 1959, Trial Examiner Samuel Ross issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint.' Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and a supporting brief. 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 Bean and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- termediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case, 1 The Trial Examiner found that John B. Hubbard was not discriminatorily discharged as alleged . In the absence of any exceptions , we adopt the Trial Examiner's finding in this regard. 125 NLRB No. 98.