Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.

768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees from exercising their rights under the Act, it will likewise be recommended that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in such conduct. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Heiland Division of Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. is an employer en- gaged in commerce and a business affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1823, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. By making threats, interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has en- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. By discriminating with respect to the terms and conditions of employment of Ivan Steyer and Joe Olguin, thereby discouraging concerted activities and mem- bership in the Union, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 5. Respondent did not commit unfair labor practices by advising the employees of Respondent's preference in dealing with the employees as individuals rather than as a group. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Cases Nos. 6-RC-2911, 6-RC-92912, and 6-RC-2913. January 31, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before F. J. Surpre- nant, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board 2 finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claiins to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No questions affecting commerce exist concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: Petitioner requests separate units at the Employer's Altoona, Penn- sylvania, plant, of over-the-road truckdrivers (Case No. 6-RC-2911) , machine shop employees (Case No. 6-RC-2912), and maintenance employees (Case No. 6-RC-2913). The Employer contends that the I Hereinafter referred to as the LUX. , 2 Member Fanning dissents from the majority findings, Member Rodgers concurs, and Member Leedom concurs in part and dissents in part . Their separate opinions are set forth below. 135 NLRB No. 69. SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 769 only appropriate unit is an overall production and maintenance unit which would include all these employees. The basis of its contention is that (1) an overall production and maintenance unit was repre- sented from 1944 to 1950 at the Altoona plant by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America; (2) overall production and maintenance units have been established by the Board at the Em- ployer's Shawnee, Oklahoma, and Emporium and Mill Hall, Penn- sylvania, plants, where the operations are similar to those at Altoona; and (3) the units requested do not constitute either true craft units or functionally distinct and homogeneous departmental groups. The fact that an overall production and maintenance unit at the Altoona plant was found in the past to be an appropriate unit does not, in itself, preclude a finding at present that narrower groups of employees may constitute separate appropriate units. Nor does the fact that overall units have been found appropriate at other plants of- the Employer dictate that only such a unit is appropriate at the Altoona plant. These-facts, however, must be considered as part of the totality of circumstances and factors concerning the Altoona plant. Whether any particular group of employees constitutes a functionally distinct and homogeneous group such as the Board will grant the right of separate representation must be decided upon the facts of each case. We shall proceed to a consideration of the request for the separate units. The Altoona plant is a highly integrated plant. All the employees at the plant, including those petitioned for separately, are paid on an hourly basis and are part of an overall grade pay system. All em- ployees receive identical fringe benefits, are paid on the same day, use the same parking lot and cafeteria, and are subject to the same company policies, rules, and general working conditions. Seniority is on a plantwide and/or departmental basis. There is "cross bidding and bumping" throughout the plant, as well as within the various departments. It is against these factors pointing to the appropriate- ness of an overall unit, that we consider Petitioner's requests for narrower units. Case No. 6-RC-2911 There are four over-the-road truckdrivers employed by the Com- pany at Altoona. The truckdriving operation consists of the use of three trucks by these truckdrivers within a 200-mile radius, and primarily between plants owned by the Employer. There are no overnight trips, and normally only one truck is on the road each day, and one other is on the road three times a week. Upon occasions, there have been three trucks on the road at the same time, but even during such abnormal periods at least one driver is in the plant all day. These truckdrivers are classified as "trailer driver-stock handlers" 634449-62-vol. 135-50 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and are under the supervision of the "shipping-receiving traffic" supervisor. Although the drivers spend as much as 35 (out of a total of 55) hours a week driving over the road, the remainder of their time is spent in loading and unloading, taking stock inventory, preparing finished goods for shipping (putting on labels, etc.), picking up and delivering materials to various parts of the plant (including the production areas), and performing various minor clerical duties. In the performance of duties other than driving, these employees work with other hourly paid, production employees, and use the same hand trucks, fork trucks, machines, etc. They can, and do ",bid and bump" into other production and maintenance jobs, and were part of the overall production and maintenance unit which existed between 1944 and 1950. Although the Board has in many cases found that a unit of truck- drivers constituted a separate appropriate unit, such findings have always been based upon the fact that the truckdrivers in those cases formed a functionally distinct and homogeneous department whose duties and interests were different and distinct from the duties and interests of their Employer's other employees. However, in the instant case it is seen that the truckdrivers spend a substantial amount of time each week in the performance of production functions in the Em- ployer's plant, are paid on the same basis as all other plant employees, are under the supervision of the shipping and receiving department, and have plantwide seniority. In view of these facts, and especially in view of the fact that the Employer's operations at Altoona are so highly integrated, we find that the truckdrivers do not constitute a separate appropriate unit.' Case No. 6-RC-2912 There are approximately 25 men assigned to the machine shop. They are engaged primarily in handling replacement parts for pro- duction equipment, working with maintenance employees to install production equipment and keep the production machines running, and performing general maintenance work. The machine shop is imme- diately adjacent to the production floor, and access thereto is through a wide, open doorway. It contains grinders, milling machines, lathes, shapers, drill presses, and heat treatment and welding, almost all of which machinery is also located elsewhere throughout the plant and operated by production employees. Production employees come into the machine shop area to use these machines on occasion. The ma- chine shop is supervised by J. Bullers, who is classified as a mechanical maintenance supervisor and who coordinates with the general main- 8 The parties stipulated that , if a separate unit of truckdrivers be found appropriate, the shipping and receiving clerks should be excluded from the unit. In view of the dis- missal in this case it is unnecessary to pass upon this issue. SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 771 tenance supervisor and his employees (located on the production floor). The subject employees spend substantial portions of their time on the production floor; for an individual employee, this can last from 1 day to over a month at a time. There is no apprenticeship pro- gram for machine shop employees, and the only requisite skill that an employee must have is some general mechanical aptitude. These employees can, and do, "bid and bump" into other production and maintenance jobs, and were a part of the overall unit which existed between 1944 and 1950. From these facts, it is clear, and we find, that the machine shop and maintenance department functions are thoroughly integrated, and that the machine shop employees do not constitute a functionally dis- tinct and homogeneous department such as the Board will grant the right of separate representation.4 We therefore find the machine shop employees do not constitute an appropriate unit for collective- bargaining purposes. Case No. 6-RC-2913 There are approximately 130 maintenance employees at the Altoona plant, divided into plant maintenance (with about 25), electrical main- tenance (with about 30), and the remainder in mechanical maintenance. The plant maintenance employees perform such tasks as assisting in the installation of machines, controlling the flow of electricity, air conditioning, and gases, and general production and maintenance jobs such as moving materials, cleaning up around the production ma- chinery, and loading and unloading trucks. They are supervised by the general maintenance supervisor, or by the production supervisor in the area to which assigned. As a department, at least 50 percent of their time is spent in "bull labor." The electrical maintenance employees "run power" to the heavy machinery and electrical equipment in the production areas, set ma- chines for quantity and quality control, and assist other maintenance employees. They are under the joint supervision of electrical main- tenance, the quality control engineer, and the plant maintenance supervisor. The mechanical maintenance employees are assigned to the various production departments in the plant (grid, filament, automount, hand mounting, stem-autoweld, and units departments), each of which de- partments is engaged in the production of a separate product and is composed of a great number of hourly production employees who operate the production machinery with the help of the maintenance The parties stipulated that , if a separate unit of machine shop employees be found appropriate , the draftsmen should be excluded from the unit . In view of the dismissal in this case it is unnecessary to pass upon this issue. It is also unnecessary to resolve the dispute of the parties as to the supervisory status of the "tool inspector." 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees. Their main job is to install and repair machines, in con- junction with the other maintenance employees and the machine shop employees. Virtually all of the mechanical maintenance employees perform some "pure" production functions, such as setting up and operating machinery, which require no mechanical skill. The amount of time each spends in such pure production functions ranges from 5 to 95 percent. There is one group of employees in the department called "mechanic attendants," and these employees all spend at least 80 percent of their time operating machines. The mechanical main- tenance department is under the dual supervision of the production supervisor and the maintenance supervisor, with the exception of the mechanic attendants, who are supervised only by the production super- visor. All maintenance department employees can, and do, "bid and bump" into other production and maintenance jobs throughout the plant, and all were a part of the overall unit which existed between 1944 and 1950.1 The Board recently reaffirmed its policy of examining on a case-by- case basis the appropriateness of separate maintenance department units, saying : "Thus we shall continue to examine on a case-by-case basis the appropriateness of separate maintenance department units, fully cognizant that homogeneity, cohesiveness, and other factors of separate identity are being affected by automation and technological changes and other forms of industrial advancement." 6 Where it can be shown that a maintenance department constitutes a readily identi- fiable and functionally distinct group, such department will be granted the right of separate representation. We are satisfied that the record in this case fails to establish the appropriateness of a separate main- tenance department unit, but rather shows that the operations of the maintenance department are so integrated with the production opera- tions as to lose for the maintenance department its identity as a sep- arate department for collective-bargaining purposes. In view of these circumstances we find that only a production and maintenance unit is appropriate. As Petitioner is unwilling to represent the production employees, we shall dismiss its petitions. [The Board dismissed the petitions.] MEMBER FANNING, dissenting : I cannot agree with the decision of the majority to dismiss the I.U.E.'s petitions in these cases, or with the majority's finding that the 5 The Board, in 1952 , found that a separate unit of maintenance employees at the Altoona plant was appropriate, and directed an election in that department ( Case No. 6-RC-998, not published in NLRB volumes ). The union ( I.U.E.) lost the election . It must be noted, however, that the Employer's operations at the time were not nearly so integrated as they are at present. Employer's testimony shows that in 1952 the maintenance depart- ment had no "mechanic attendants," and none of the maintenance employees spent a substantial amount of time in the performance of production functions. 6 See American Cyanamid Company, 131 NLRB 909. SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 773 Employer's operations at Altoona are so highly integrated as to dictate that only an overall production and maintenance unit is appropriate. I would find (1) that a unit of truckdrivers, and (2) that a unit of maintenance department employees, including the machine shop em- ployees, constitute readily identifiable, functionally distinct, and ho- mogeneous departments, and I would grant those two groups the right of separate representation. Case No. 6-RC-2911 The truckdrivers work 55 hours each week, 35 hours of which is spent in driving over the road, and the remainder of which is spent in the plant. Although the drivers spend some time delivering materials to production areas and helping take stock inventory, a good portion of their nondriving hours is spent in preparing finished goods for load- ing, and then loading and unloading trucks. The drivers do not work on any regular schedules when performing tasks other than driving. It has long been the practice of the Board to grant truckdrivers the right of separate representation, so long as they regularly spend a majority of their time in driving and in performing functions inci- dental to driving, and the Board has repeatedly found that the fact that drivers spend less than a majority of their time performing non- driving functions does not destroy the homogeneity of such a unit? I can see no valid reason for departing from that practice. Accord- ingly, on the facts of this case, I would find the truckdrivers constitute a separate appropriate unit. Cases Nos. 6-RC-2912 and 6-RC-2913 The work of the employees in the machine shop is to make replace- ment tooling for production machines, and to assist the maintenance department in installing these replacement parts and maintaining the production machines. In performing the task of making replace- ment parts, the employees use grinders, milling machines, lathes, shapers, drill presses, heat treatment, and welding equipment. Simi- lar machines are located elsewhere throughout the plant and operated by production employees, but none of the production employees ever uses these machines for the same purposes as do the machine shop employees. Although none of the other employees in the plant are en- gaged in making replacement parts, the machine shop employees spend a substantial portion of their time working with the maintenance de- partment employees in the installation, repair, and general mainte- nance of the production machines. The machine shop is supervised 4 See, e.g., Ballentine Packing Company, Inc., 132 NLRB 923 ; Beechnut Foods Division of the Beechnut Life Savers Co., Inc., 118 NLRB 123; Painesville Works, General Chemical Dsvisson, Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation, 116 NLRB 1784. 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by J. Bullers. He is classified as a mechanical maintenance supervisor and he coordinates work scheduling with the general maintenance supervisor and his employees. There is no apprenticeship program for machine shop employees; the prerequisites for their jobs are the same as for the mechanical maintenance employees, i.e., some general mechanical aptitude: In the maintenance department there are plant maintenance, elec- trical maintenance, and mechanical maintenance employees. The plant maintenance and electrical maintenance employees perform no pure production functions at all. Of approximately 32 job classifications among the mechanical maintenance employees, those in 21 of these classifications spend a majority of their time in the performance of maintenance functions, and those in the remaining classifications are pointing to the day when they can move into the classification of mechanics. Although all of these mechanical maintenance employees perform some production functions, their jobs are not interchangeable with production employees, and the latter cannot perform the main- tenance functions which the mechanical maintenance employees per- form. The Employer lists all the job specifications of the maintenance department employees separately from those of production employees, and the maintenance department employees have seniority rights sepa- rate from those of production employees. In view of these facts, and consistent with the Board's prior deter- mination in this plant, 8 I would find that the interrelated duties and comprehensive coordination of the functions of the machine shop and maintenance department employees dictate that the machine shop employees must be included with the maintenance department em- ployees in whatever unit found appropriate, and I would find, fur- ther, that the maintenance department, together with the machine shop, functions as a readily identifiable and homogeneous depart- ment distinct from production. I would therefore permit the LU.E. to go to two separate elections : (1) among the Employer's truckdrivers; and. (2), among the machine shop,and maintenance department employees. I see no inconsistency in allowing'the 'same union to petition for more than' one separate appropriate' unit in the same proceeding. MEMBER LEEDOM, concurring in part and dissenting in part : I join my colleagues of the majority in their finding that a separate maintenance department is not appropriate. However, I cannot agree with them that the two other units requested by the Petitioner are not appropriate. As to the truckdrivers, I join Member Fanning in finding, for the reasons given by him, that the truckdrivers constitute a readily 8 Case No. 6-RC-998, decided June 25, 1952. GRACE LINE, INC. 775 identifiable, distinct, and homogeneous grouping entitled to separate representation. As to the machine shop, I would find, contrary to both my colleagues of the majority and Member Fanning, that the em- ployees in the machine shop constitute an appropriate unit. The ma- chine shop is made up of tool-and-die men, designer-draftsmen, and machinists. These employees perform traditional machinist functions, are separately supervised, separately located, do not interchange with other employees, have separate seniority, perform no production func- tions, and perform only incidental maintenance functions. They constitute, therefore, a readily identifiable, functionally distinct and homogeneous department to which the Board has traditionally granted the right of separate representation e MEMBER RoDGERS, concurring : I concur in dismissing the petitions. 9 The Electronic and Instrumentation Division of Baldwin -Lima-Hamilton Corporation, 11-8 NLRB 917. Grace Line, Inc. and Union Naccional de Marinos de Colon Rep. de Panama, Latin American Maritime Federation , Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-11013. January 31, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Carl B. Davidson, 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 Petitioner seeks a unit of some 48 employees who in groups of about 8 are hired as "coast crews" on the Employer's vessels as they pass through the Panama Canal Zone for South American ports. The Employer, for reasons set forth below, contends that the Act does not cover the maritime operations involved and moves that the petition be dismissed. The Employer, a Delaware corporation, owns and operates, insofar as is material here, a fleet of vessels, registered under, the laws and flying the flag of the United States, which sail between United States and various South American ports. On trips to the west coast of South America, the ships pass through the Panama Canal and there pick up a "coast crew" of some eight employees, who are hired by the Employer at its Cristobal, Canal Zone, office, which apparently assigns them to the particular vessels. The coast crews, which are composed of citizens of Panama, work on the vessels doing such jobs as raising, lowering, and securing hatches. Their principal function is, however, 135 NLRB No. 70.