Kellogg Switchboard and Supply

64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Acro Division, Robertshaw-Fulton Controls Company and Inter- national Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 9-CA- 1887. April 6,1960 ORDER On March 4, 1960, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his Inter- mediate Report and Recommended Order in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. He did find, however, that by surveillance of a union meeting, the Respondent en- gaged in activity in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, but he stated that, for reasons set forth in his Intermediate Report, he is of the opinion that the policies of the Act would not be effectuated by a remedial order directed to this single violation. He recommended that all other allegations of the complaint be dismissed. The case having been transferred to the Board and no statement of exceptions having been filed with the Board, and the time allowed for filing such exceptions having expired, Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and Section 102.48 of the Board's Rules and Regulations- Series 8, the Board has adopted the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner as contained in his report. We find that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to direct a remedial order to the single violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. All other allegations of the complaint are hereby dismissed. 127 NLRB No. 15. Kellogg Switchboard and Supply Company, a Division of Inter- national Telephone and Telegraph Company and Communi- cation Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-1314. April 6, 1960 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 Martin L. Ball, 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]. 1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was prematurely filed. For the reasons stated herein- after, the motion is denied. 127 NLRB No. 1. KELLOGG SWITCHBOARD AND SUPPLY COMPANY 65 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.2 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. At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition, con- tending that its operations are expanding, and that the petition is, therefore, prematurely filed. In an earlier case involving the same plant of the Employer (Case No. 11-RC-1225, unpublished), the Board dismissed the petition filed therein by the Union as premature because of the following circum- stances. The Employer started operations on a limited basis in Jan- uary 1959. At the time of the earlier hearing in March 1959, there were approximately 45 production and maintenance employees in the unit sought, in approximately 10 job classifications, and the Employer planned at that time to expand to a full complement of 219 employees, in 28 to 30 job classifications, by December 1959. At the time of the hearing in this proceeding, namely January 4, 1960, the Employer had about 100 production and maintenance em- ployees, in 23 job classifications. It further appears that, for the calendar year 1960, the Employer has budgeted for an addition of about 100 employees. Also, in the distant future, the Employer plans to build a fabrication operation, which will, it is estimated, expand its physical plant about 7 times, and will necessitate the employment of about 700 employees, in 49 additional job classifications. However, no commitments have been made and no funds have been made avail- able for this contemplated expansion. Under the foregoing circumstances, we find that the planned, long- range expansion of the Employer's operations is, at this time, specula- tive in character, and that the present work force of the Employer constitutes a substantial and representative segment of the projected employee complement, not only during the calendar year 1960, but for a further reasonable time in the future. Accordingly, we find that an election at this time would not be premature, and we deny the Employer's motion. See Ryan Aeronautical Co., Torrance Division, 120 NLRB 1291, 1292; Walton-Young Corp., 117 NLRB 51. 4. The Petitioner seeks a production and maintenance unit, includ- ing plant clericals, at the Employer's Raleigh, North Carolina, plant, where it is engaged in the manufacture of electronic equipment for 'International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, API-CIO, was permitted to intervene on the basis of an adequate showing of interest. 560940-61-vol 127-6 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the telephone industry. The parties are in general agreement as to the appropriateness of the unit requested by the Petitioner, but the Employer would include,' and the Petitioner and Intervenor would exclude, employees in the following job classifications: The expediter sees to it that incoming materials are shipped on time and locates materials in short supply. Daily, he furnishes a list of materials in short supply to the Employer's production control depart- ment. Unlike the production and maintenance employees, he is sala- ried and occupies a desk in the Employer's office. He receives dif- ferent health and welfare benefits from those of the production and maintenance employees who work on an hourly basis. However, he spends at least 50 percent of his time in the plant, and is part of the production control department. We find that this employee is essen- tially a plant clerical and, in accordance with well-established policy with respect to plant clerical employees,4 we shall include him in the unit. The quality control technician primarily inspects incoming mate- rial and parts, including defective material that has been sent back from the field, and maintains statistical data with respect to such defective material. He spends all his time in the plant. He has no supervisory authority over other employees. Contrary to the Peti- tioner's contention, we find that his interests are not sufficiently dissimilar to those of the other production and maintenance employ- ees to justify his exclusion, and we shall, therefore, in accordance with our customary practice, include him in the unit .1 The inventory control clerk, who works under the sales service supervisor, maintains an inventory control in connection with com- pleted equipment delivered to sales stock. He has a desk in the sales department office, and does not go into the production area. He is salaried and is not required to punch the timeclock. He is carried on the salaried employees payroll, and receives different vacation benefits from those of the hourly employees. We find that he is an office cleri- cal employee. Accordingly, we shall exclude the inventory control clerk from the unit.' The material control analyst works in the production and control department office, scheduling materials for the plant. He does not have occasion to work in the production area of the plant. The job is salaried and does not require a professional degree. We find that he performs duties closely allied with those of office clerical employees. Accordingly, we exclude him from the unit.' 8 The Employer took no definite position as to the unit placement of the material control analyst, discussed below 4 Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722. c Gerber Plastic Company, 113 NLRB 462, 464. O Ozark Manufacturing and Supply Company, 108 NLRB 1476, 1478. T`Wm. IZ Whittaker Co , Ltd, 117 NLRB 339, 342-343. KELLOGG SWITCHBOARD AND SUPPLY COMPANY 67 There are six engineers, assistant engineers, and senior engineers who handle the technical phases of the manufacture of equipment, i.e., they prepare drawings and specifications thereof. They occa- sionally enter the plant area to check equipment. They are salaried and have professional degrees or the equivalent thereof. There are 15 application engineers who design systems of communication equip- ment for customers. A professional degree, or the equivalent, is required for the job. They are salaried and spend most of their time away from the plant contacting customers. The work all these engi- neers perform is intellectual and varied in character entailing the ,.exercise of independent judgment and discretion. We find that all .the foregoing engineers are professional employees within the mean- ing of Section 2(12) of the Act and, accordingly, exclude them from the unit.' The draftsmen do circuit drafting and mechanical drafting. Work- ing under the supervision of the chief engineer, they assist the en- gineers. They are salaried. Although they are not required to have -professional degrees, their work involves the use of independent judgment and requires the exercise of specialized training usually acquired in colleges or technical schools or through special courses. We find that they are technical employees and exclude them from ,the unit." The technical writer, who works under the supervision of the sales manager, writes technical instructions which are issued with each piece of manufactured equipment. He is salaried and works in the ,office. As the record fails to establish that the technical writer is a technical employee, we shall in view of his work in the office exclude -him as an office clerical employee. The material handling group leader and the microwave group leader expedite the flow of materials. There is also a tester group leader whose duties are not disclosed by the record, but like the other group leaders, he works in the plant area and does some production work. While these group leaders instruct other employees in their work assignments, such powers of direction are of a routine nature only, not requiring the exercise of independent judgment or discretion. They do not have authority to hire, discharge, or make effective rec- ommendations as to personnel action. Contrary to the Petitioner's contentions, we find that they are not supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act, and shall, therefore, include them in the unit herein found appropriate.10 Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : 8 Divco-Wayne Corporation, Wayne Works Division, '122 NLRB 162, 164. 9 L- tton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated, supra. sa Wm. R. Whittaker Co , Ltd, supra , pp. 345, 346. 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All , production and maintenance employees : at , the Employer's Raleigh, North Carolina, plant, including material handling group leaders, microwave group leaders, and tester group leaders, quality control technicians, expediters, and other plant clerical employees, but excluding inventory control clerks, material control analysts, technical; writers, and other office clerical-employees , -engineers, assist- ant engineers, senior engineers$ application engineers, and other pro- fessional employees, draftsmen, and other technical. employees, cafe- teria employees, managerial employees, guaxds and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Butler Knitting Mills, Inc. and Local 222, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO Julius Weber and Constance A. Weber, d/b/a Weber Knitting Mills and Local 222, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 2P=CA-2 9 and 22-CA-231. April 7, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On December 31, 1959, Trial Examiner Samuel Ross issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Charg- ing Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. 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 made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations i of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor i As the record shows that the Respondents closed the Weber Knitting Mills of North Bergen, New Jersey, in December 1958 , we shall require the Respondents to send to each of the striking employees formerly employed at the North Bergen plant , copies of the notice attached hereto, in addition to posting notices at the Butler, New Jersey, plant. 127 NLRB No. 13.