Rembrandt Lamp Corp.

REMBRANDT LAMP CORPORATION 905 employees sought are guards within the meaning of Section 9(b) (3) of the Act.' The Petitioner would exclude six other employees who are engaged full time in the performance of janitorial services on customers' premises. Although these six employees are expected to take "some action" if they observe a .fire or break-in, the latter obligation appears to be only incidental to their main duty of providing janitor service 8 hours a day. We therefore find, contrary to the Intervenor, that these employees are not guards, and we exclude them from the unit .0 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 : All regular full-time and part-time 7 guards employed in and around Boston, Massachu- setts, excluding employees engaged solely in janitorial duties, office clerical employees, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] a see American Building Maintenance Co., 126 NLRB 185; Laundry Owners Association of Greater Cincinnati, 123 NLRB 543 , 546; Walterboro Manufacturing Corporation, 106 NLRB 1383 . We find no merit in the Employer's contention that its employees do not fall within the Section 9(b) (8) definition of "guards " because they do not protect the property of their own employer or enforce rules against their fellow employees. It is well established that Section 9 (b) (3) applies to those employees who protect property belonging, not to their own employer , but, as here, to customers of their employer. See Armored Motor Service Company, Inc., 106 NLRB 1139 ; N.L.R.B. v. American District Telegraph Co. of Pa., 205 F. 2d 86 (C.A. 3). e MoDonnet Aircraft Corporation, 109 NLRB 967, 969. As the parties do not agree on a formula with respect to the inclusion of part-time employees, we shall, in accord with customary Board practice, include all regular part- time employees in the unit. Rembrandt Lamp Corporation and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW, AFL-CIO), Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-7110. August 24, 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 Robert L. McCabe, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby afrmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8(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. 128 NLRB No. 104. 906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organizations involved claim 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 the manufacture and assembly of lamps and shades at its plant in Chicago, Illinois. The plant is di- vided into 16 departments : spinning, design, finishing, assembly, wiring, crating and packing, machine shop (screw machine), machine shop (drill press), polishing and buffing, brass plating, oxidizing, silver plating, white metal casting, shade and wire frame, silk shade,, and traffic (shipping and receiving). The Petitioner requests a unit of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Chicago plant. The Employer contends that maintenance nien should not be included in the appropriate unit because they perform work distinct from work of other employees. It is well established that a unit of all production and maintenance employees is presumptively appropriate in the absence of cogent reasons to the contrary.2 As no evidence was adduced to show that maintenance employees should not be included in the unit, we find that a unit of all production and maintenance employees to be appropriate for bargaining purposes.3 The Employer classifies two groups of its employees as supervisors. It designates the group in highest authority as "general foremen" and the other group as "supervisors." There are 20 persons working at the plant called "general foremen." They have authority to recommend effectively hire of applicants and discharge of employees working under them. All "general foremen" are salaried and their salaries have not been reduced even though the workweek of the plant has been cut to 4 days. They do no production work, attend all management meetings, and exercise discretion when assigning work to employees. In view of the above, we find that they are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and we therefore exclude them from the unit. 1 Local 743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America intervened on the basis of a showing of interest . Local No. 115, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO, Tnade a limited appearance for the purpose of stipulating that journeymen and apprentice spinners covered by its current collective-bargaining agreement with the employer shall be excluded from the bargaining unit in the instant case a Dexdale Hosiery Mills, 115 NLRB 228, 230; Shelburne Shirt Co., Inc., 86 NLRB 1308, 1309. 3 The parties stipulated that journeymen and apprentice spinners , covered by a current collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and Local No. 115, Sheet Metal Workers International Association , AFL-CIO, shall be excluded from the bargaining unit. Accordingly, we hereby exclude them from the unit. It was further stipulated by the parties that truckdrivers shall be excluded from the unit and that station wagon drivers shall be included . It appears that the Employer employs one truckdriver and one station wagon driver. We are administratively advised that the truckdriver is separately represented. Accordingly, we shall exclude truckdrivers and include station wagon drivers. 1ZEMBRANDT LAMP CORPORATION• 907' A group of 14 persons known as "supervisors" work under th& "general foremen." Although'these "supervisors" have not exercised this power within the last several years, they have power to recom- mend discharge of employees working under them, and all but two, of the "supervisors" have employees working under them. They may grant time off to employees working under them and assign such employees to work on job orders and to various places of work within a department; in assigning employees, they exercise independent judge- ment. These "supervisors" do some production work. They also do some clerical work, keeping inventory, and maintaining records. One "supervisor," Levi Brady, works under the supervision of the main- tenance foreman and is the sole employee in the receiving department. It appears that he has never had employees working under him, and is designated as the "receiving clerk." His only duties are to record incoming material, keeping inventory, and occasionally unloading trucks. Another "supervisor," Sam Woodson, is the sole employee in the shipping department under the supervision of two traffic managers. Although it appears that, during times of normal production, there are employees working under Woodson, there have been no other employees in this department during the past year and restoration of production to normal is not contemplated in the forseeable future. On this record, we find that persons classified by the Employer as "supervisors," except Levi Brady and Sam Woodson, are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and that Brady and Woodson are not supervisors. We therefore exclude the supervisors, except Brady and Woodson, from the unit, and include Brady and Woodson in the unit. The Employer also classifies three persons as design personnel; namely, an artist who draws designs for lamps, an employee making wood carvings and plastic models for lamps, and a third employee finishing molds for new lamps. The artist and modelmaker work in a separate building and have no contact with production and main- tenance employees. While it is not clear that they are professional or technical employees, their work is clearly distinct from that done by other employees. The artist is salaried and the other two employees are paid on an hourly basis. The mold finisher works in the machine shop under the supervision of the shop foreman. Apparently the other two design employees work directly under the factory manager. As the artist and modelmaker do work distinct from the other em- ployees, work in separate quarters, have no contact with production and maintenance employees, and work under separate immediate supervision, we find that they have insufficient community of interest with the production and maintenance employees. Consequently, we exclude the artist and modelmaker from the unit.' The mold finisher 3 J. P. Stevens & Company, Inc., 123 NLRB 758, 760. Member Fanning disagrees with- the majority in this respect, and would include the artist and modelmaker in the unit 908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD works in the machine shop with the other production and maintenance employees, under the same supervisor as other machine shop em- ployees, and is paid an hourly rate as are the rest of the production and maintenance employees. As he appears to share interests in com- mon with the other employees in the plant, we shall include him in the production and maintenance unit. Since December 1959, the Employer had laid off 51 production and maintenance employees because of a decline in volume of sales and production. Employer's vice president and factory manager testified, without contradiction, that no recall of laid-off employees could be foreseen by him at the present time and that a pickup in business could not be predicted. Although there have been layoffs in past years, the Employer's figures show a continuing decline in sales and units produced during the past 4 years. Although the employer re- called a number of employees in January 1960 for work on a new product, they were again laid off when the new product was not suc- cessful. A total of 51 employees are laid off at the present time with- out reasonable expectation of reemployment in the foreseeable future. Consequently, these employees are not eligible to vote in the repre- sentation election directed herein .5 In view of the foregoing, we find that the following employees at the Employers plant in Chicago, Illinois, constitute a unit appropri- ate for collective-bargaining purposes : All production and maintenance employees including the mold finisher, and station wagon drivers, but excluding the artist, model- maker, truckdrivers, journeymen and apprentice spinners, office cler- ical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] unless these employees are either technical or professional . As the record contains in- sufficient evidence upon which to make such a determination , he would permit these employees to vote under challenge. 6 Thermoid Company, 123 NLRB 57, 58. G. C. Murphy Company, Petitioner and Retail Clerks Interna- tional Association AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 278. Case No. 9-RM-9234. August 2¢, 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 William C. Brafford, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed." I The Employer contended at the hearing that the Regional Director 's cancellation of a duly scheduled consent election was an abuse of discretion , and moved that the Board 128 NLRB No. 90.