General Mills, Inc.

GENERAL MILLS, INC. (MECHANICAL DIVISION) 21 immediate reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay sustained by reason of the discrimination against him , computation to be made in the customary manner.3 I shall further recommend that the Board order the Respondent to preserve and make available to the Board , upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amount of backpay due_ It has been further found that the Respondent , by interrogation , interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Hotel Employees Union, Local 255, Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bar- tenders International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Cyril J. McCormick, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization , the Respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 3. By such discrimination and by interrogation concerning employees' union membership and activities , thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] employee here ; between the threat in that case of repetition against other employers and the threat against other employees here An employer's business extends beyond a given employee even if at a single location ; a union, by its nature, extends beyond a given employer and generally to various locations. 3 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York , San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827 ; Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440; Republic Steel Corporation v. N.L.R B., 311 U. S. 7; F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294. General Mills, Inc. (Mechanical Division ) and Local No. 101, American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case No. 18-RC-4480. April 6, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hjalmar Storlie, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: 131 NLRB No. 5. 22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of contract planners at the Employer's plant No. 1, whom it considers to be technical employees. The Employer asserts that the unit is inappropriate because ( 1) con- tract planners are office clerical employees, (2) if the Board deter- mines that contract planners are technical employees the unit is inappropriate as it does not include all such employees at its Minne- apolis, Minnesota, plants, and (3) the Petitioner's unit request is based on the extent of its organizational efforts among the Employer's em- ployees. The Petitioner denies that contract planners are office cleri- cal employees and, at the hearing, expressed its willingness to accept the inclusion in the unit of any other employees of the Employer per- forming the same functions as contract planners.' The record shows that the Employer operates five plants in Minne- apolis and, St. Paul, Minnesota, and that these plants comprise its mechanical division . Organizationally, plant No. 1 contains the division executive and administrative headquarters and production operations for design engineering, industrial engineering, and manu- facturing of military electro -mechanical and electronic devices. Plant No. 5 houses research and engineering development departments en- gaged in the development of guidance, navigation , communications, weapons, and reconnaissance systems . Plant No. 6 contains the bal- loon production engineering design and flight instrumentation engi- neering design departments . Plant No. 7 fabricates plastic balloons and plant No. 9 contains the facilities for the Employer 's nuclear equipment department. The nine employees or so whom the Petitioner seeks to represent are assigned to the production control department at plant No. 1. However, one production control employee is located at plant No. 7, and there are three production control employees assigned to plant No. 9.z There appear to be no employees with the same or comparable skills at plants Nos. 5 or 6. The contract planners in plant No . 1 work in a separately managed department with two material control clerks and three cost clerks. The contract planner, wherever located, regulates the flow of ma- terials into production to meet the requirements of production sched- ules. When an order has been placed with the Employer, the sales department issues a job order which is assigned to a contract planner who prepares an assembly planning schedule , showing the time of each assembly operation, the starting date for each assembly and sub- assembly operation, and the manufacturing time for component and spare parts. The contract planner also issues production authoriza- 1 The Petitioner does not desire to participate in any election among nontechnical employees. 2 As the production control employees at plants Nos. 7 and 9 perform similar duties to contract planners at plant No. 1, all these employees are hereinafter referred to as contract planners. BUY LOW SUPERMARKET, INC. 23 tions for parts to be manufactured and requisitions for parts to be purchased. After completion of the production process the contract planner prepares the shipping authorization. Production and as- sembly time is arithmetically computed and the quantity of component or spare parts is determined by consulting either the estimate sub- mitted by the engineering department or a production parts list pre- pared by the engineering department. Although the Employer encourages contract planners to study technical subjects, no special .education is required to qualify for assignment to this classification, and none of the work required of contract planners appears to require the specialized type of training usually acquired in colleges, technical schools, or through special courses. Of the nine contract planners presently employed one has completed 3 years of high school, six are high school graduates, one attended college for 1 year, and one has a liberal arts college degree. The work of these individuals does not appear to involve independent judgment but rather the type of rou- tine judgment as would be exercised by administrative office clerical employees.3 From the foregoing it is clear that the employees involved neither possess the specialized training nor exercise the independent judgment contemplated by our standard for technical employees .4 We find, therefore, contrary to the Petitioner, that the contract planners are not technical employees and we shall dismiss the petition.5 [The Board dismissed the petition.] CHAIRMAN McCULLOCII took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. See Allis -Chalmers Manufacturing Company-Pittsburgh Worlds, 128 NLRB 87. * Ladish Company, 126 NLRB 555, 564; Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722. 5 In view of our finding herein, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the other conten- tions of the Employer regarding the inappropriateness of the unit. Buy Low Supermarket, Inc.' and Department Store, Warehouse, Retail Restaurant Union, Local 100, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-7361. April 6, 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 Robert G. Mayberry, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 'The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing. 2 Intervenor, Local 1460, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, inter- vened on the basis of a contractual showing of interest . The Petitioner objects to the 131 NLRB No. 4.