Barber-Colman Co.

478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Barber-Colman Company and United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-7404. February 17, 1961 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 D. Boetticher, hear- ing 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 Fanning and Kimball]. 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 herein claims to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. The Employer, a manufacturer of machines, motors, tools, air distribution equipment, and other hardware, moves to dismiss the peti- tion on the ground that the authorization cards submitted in support of the petition are of doubtful validity and authenticity in that they allegedly do not comply with previous standards applied by the Board. The Board has frequently and consistently held that the suffi- ciency of a petitioner's showing of interest, including questions relat- ing to the nature of the authorization cards submitted, is a matter for administrative determination, not litigable in a representation hear- ing.2 Moreover, we are administratively satisfied that the authoriza- tion cards submitted herein comply with the Board's requirements, and that the Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest in the unit herein found appropriate. Accordingly, the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of the inadequancy of the showing of interest is denied.' We find that a question affecting commerce i The Employer excepts to the hearing officer's excluding from evidence a letter from the Petitioner's organizing committee addressed to all employees and detailing the results of previous unsuccessful organizing attempts at its plants . As the matters contained in the letter are not directly material to the issues here before the Board , were in fact covered by other evidence at the hearing , and are in any event matters of which we can take judicial notice as they involve other Board proceedings , we find that it was not prejudicial error to reject the letter. Accordingly , we sustain the hearing officer's ruling. Cf. General Shoe Corporation, 113 NLRB 905. 2 See International Furniture Company, 119 NLRB 1462 , 1463 ; Potomac Electric Power Company, 111 NLRB 553, 554. 2 The Employer contends that the Board should regnire more than a 30-percent showing of interest in situations like the present one where the Petitioner has over the past 10 years lost three Board-conducted elections for employees in the unit herein found appropriate. We find no merit in this contention . Clearly, under the Act the Petitioner was entitled to proceed to a Board-conducted election in a given appropriate unit three times over a 10-year period. See Section 9(c)(3) of the Act We do not believe that the exercise of 130 NLRB No. 51. BARBER-COLMAN COMPANY 479 exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Em- ployer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance em- ployees at the Employer's three Rockford, Illinois, plants only, while the Employer contends that the unit should also embrace its Milton Junction, Wisconsin, facility which is located 43 miles away. All four plants use the same materials and perform similar functions; only the spinning operation is unique to the Milton Junction plant. All four locations share common supervision, executive management, and pro- curement, and are subjected to identical management, personnel, and labor relations policies which are determined at the main office in Rockford. There is some interchange between the various locations and all employees receive similar benefits. Milton Junction hires locally because of its location, while hiring for the other plants is done at the central personnel office. Under these circumstances we find that the requested unit limited to three plants is not appropriate but, rather, in view of the functional integration of operations and centralized management of labor matters that a four-plant unit is appropriate.' The parties are substantially in agreement on the composition of the appropriate unit, except that the Petitioner would exclude, while the Employer would include, the time clerks, cafeteria workers, expedi- ters, dispatchers, superintendent's clerks, and personnel improvement employees. Time clerks : The 30 time clerks, who function as part of the payroll department, work at desks in production areas verifying total hours worked and time consumed on specific projects by production em- ployees. They are hourly paid and receive benefits similar to em- ployees included in the unit. We find that they are plant clerical em- ployees and shall include them.5 Cafeteria employees: The cafeteria employees, do not interchange with other workers and are separately supervised, prepare and serve food in the plants and have the same employment benefits as other employees. In accordance with Board policy we shall include them in the unit.' Expediters and dispatchers: These two classifications possess simi- lar duties and functions. The 15 to 20 expediters, who are under the material control department, maintain and coordinate an efficient and that right can now be used to prejudice the Petitioner in this case by requiring it to make, as the Employer requests, a 50-percent showing of interest. Furthermore, it is the elec- tion, not the showing, which is to determine the Union's majority status. " See J Heber Lewis Oil Company, Inc., et at, 123 NLRB 1115, 1116. 5 See 31array Ohio Manufacturing Co., Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, Division, 118 NLRB 1027, 1028. 6 See Solar Electric Corporation, 128 NLRB 35. 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD adequate flow of material to production areas. The 8 to 10 dispatchers work in the production control department and arrange the sequence of production on different projects among the various departments. Both classifications receive the same fringe benefits as other employees, and spend all their time in production areas. In view of the foregoing and the entire record, we find that they are plant clerical employees and shall include them.' Superintendent's clerks : The 5 to 10 superintendent's clerks, who work in an office in the shop area, file, type, and perform other clerical tasks relating to production. They handle no confidential infor- mation, are hourly paid, and receive employment benefits similar to employees included in the unit. Accordingly, we find them to be plant clerical employees and as their conditions of employment are similar to production employees we shall include them 8 Personnel improvement employees: There are 16 employees working in various production departments as part of an experimental employee-improvement program which is designed to last for several years. The purpose of the program is to provide certain production and maintenance employees with a diversity of experience in many of the operations in the Employer's plants so that the employees will be qualified for higher skilled or other types of upgraded positions from those they currently fill. Their work in the program may also be the basis for a promotion to a supervisory position. But there is no assur- ance that any particular employee in the program will in fact become a supervisor and none of them at the time of the hearing possessed any supervisory authority. On the contrary, they were all engaged in work similar to that performed by other employees included in the unit. In view of the foregoing we find that their interests and con- ditions of employment are similar to those of other production and maintenance employees and we shall, therefore, include them.' Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Rock- ford, Illinois, and Milton Junction, Wisconsin, plants, including lead- men, shippers and packers, stock clerks, inspectors, outside truckdrivers, garage employees, time clerks, dispatchers, expediters, superintendent's clerks, cafeteria employees, personnel improvement employees, experimental shop workers, but excluding foremen, assist- ant foremen, powerhouse employees, time-study men, outside service- men, installers and demonstrators, engineering department employees, ' See Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722, 725-726. 8 See Ltilliston Implement Co ., 121 NLRB 868, 870 Y See United States Rubber Company, 113 NLRB 746, 749; U S Radium Corporation, 122 NLRB 468, 470-471. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 481 experimental department employees, office clerical employees, techni- cal employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election 10 omitted from publication.] 11 As we have directed an election in a larger unit than that requested by the Petitioner, we shall permit the Petitioner to withdraw from the election upon written notice to the Regional Director, within 10 days from the date of this decision. General Motors Corporation and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-2560. February 20, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER Upon charges duly filed by International Union, United Automo- bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, herein called UAW, the General Counsel of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, issued a complaint and notice of hearing, dated De- cember 14, 1959, and an amended complaint and notice of hearing, dated January 27, 1960, alleging that the Respondent, General Motors Corporation, herein called GM, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing, as amended, were duly served upon the Respondent and the UAW. The amended complaint alleges, in substance, that on or about October 27, 1959, GM refused and continuously to date has refused to comply with a request of the UAW, the exclusive representative of GM employees in an appropriate unit, to bargain concerning terms of an agreement supplementary to an existing agreement between the parties. The Respondent's answer, in effect, admits the factual allegations of the amended complaint, but denies the commission of any unfair labor practice. On February 10, 1960, a hearing was held in Detroit, Michigan, before Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley. The General Counsel, the UAW, GM, and the Intervenor 1 appeared. In addition to testi- mony taken, all the parties entered into -a stipulation of facts ; they waived the preparation and issuance of an Intermediate Report, and 1 The Intervenor is a group of GM employees in the appropriate unit who are opposed to the DAW's proposed supplemental agreement . The intervention was limited to the filing of briefs and oral argument. 130 NLRB No. 54. 597254-61-vol. 130-32