Proctor-Silex Corp.

PROCTOR-SILEX CORP. 57 date of the contract,' the Regional Director correctly applied these principles. CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH took no part in the consideration of the above Decision on Appeal. I See Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995, 1000. Proctor-Silex Corp. and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-3308. April 7, 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 Louis Aronin, hearing offi- cer. 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 2 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. 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 Petitioner seeks to represent the employees of the Employer in a.unit composed of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Baltimore, Maryland, plants at 4000 Coolidge Avenue and 4100 Pistoria Road. The Employer contends that separate pro- duction and maintenance units at the two plants are alone appropriate. The Employer manufactures electrical products at the above plants. Plant No. 1, which is engaged in the manufacture of electrical con- trols, is referred to as the controls division. Plant No. 2, which manu- factures housewares, is known as the housewares division. These plants are about 500 feet apart, and each is under separate supervision. There is no employee interchange. Each plant has its own shipping and receiving department, and does its own hiring. There are sepa- rate seniority lists for each job. However, payrolls and records are prepared in one plant for both plants, a common switchboard serves ' At the hearing, the Employer sought to litigate the adequacy of the Petitioner 's show- ing of interest with respect to any unit or units found appropriate by the Board, and moved on the ground of inadequate showing to dismiss the petition . The hearing officer referred this motion to the Board . The sufficiency of the Petitioner's showing of interest is an administrative matter and is not subject to litigation in this proceeding . Moreover, we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner's showing of interest in this matter is adequate. O. D. Jennings d Company, 68 NLRB 516. The Employer's motion is, therefore, denied. 2 Chairman Frank W. McCulloch did not participate in this proceeding. 131 NLRB No. 9. 58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD both plants, and the expenses for common service are prorated between them. Each plant manager reports directly to the vice president in charge of manufacture for both plants and, while the individual plant manager may have some discretion in labor relation matters, labor relations guideposts are formulated in common. The employees in both plants work about the same hours, receive the same paid holidays and sick leave benefits, and are under the same vacation and pension plans. In those job classifications common to both plants, numbering about 50 of the indicated 350 employees, there is a combined seniority list. We find, in all the foregoing circumstances, that a single unit of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's two plants is appropriate' The parties are in agreement as to the composition of the unit, except that the Employer would include therein the working leaders, while the Petitioner would exclude them as supervisors. These working leaders, with the exception of George Sims, perform manual work in the production area and, like the production and main- tenance employees, are hourly paid and punch a timeclock. They do not responsibly direct other employees as they routinely assign work and convey orders from their foremen to employees in various groups, ranging from 1 to 25 in number. Although they are paid a differen- tial of from 10 to 25 cents per hour higher than the highest paid worker in their group, this is on the basis of their greater experience and ability. Nor do these working leaders have any indicia of super- visory authority such as authority to hire, discharge, adjust grievances, or change the status of any employee, or make effective recommenda- tions in these respects. In view of the foregoing, we find that they are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. We shall, therefore, include them in the unit found appropriate herein.4 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 4000 Coolidge Avenue and 4100 Pistoria Road, Baltimore (Arbutus), Maryland, plants, including the working leaders,5 but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 8 McAllister's Dairu Farms . Inc.. 118 NLRB 1117. 1119 A See Park Drug Company, 122 NLRB 878 , 879-880. E George Sims is a working leader This individual is salaried , and reports to the plant engineer. However, the record is insufficient in other respects to enable us to determine whether he responsibly directs employees under him or exercises other indicia of super- visory authority. Accordingly, we shall permit him to vote subject to challenge.