Vincent Horwitz Co., Inc.

496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Vincent Horwitz Company, Inc. and United Mechanics Union, Local 150F, F.L.M. Joint Board, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, and Boot and Shoe Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 6-RC-4764 and 6-RC-4798 June 9, 1969 DECISION ON REVIEW, ORDER, AND DIRECTION By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND ZAGORIA On November 19, 1968, the Regional Director for Region 6 issued his Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he found that the maintenance employees requested by Petitioner Mechanics Union might constitute a separate appropriate unit, if they so desire. Thereafter, in accordance with National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Employer and Petitioner Boot and Shoe Workers filed timely requests for review in which they contended, inter alia, that the Regional Director erred in finding that a separate maintenance unit may be appropriate. Petitioner Mechanics Union filed opposition. By telegraphic Order dated December 19, 1968, the National Labor Relations Board granted review with respect to the issue of the appropriateness of the maintenance unit. Thereafter, Mechanics Union filed a timely brief on review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the briefs of the parties, with respect to the issue under review, and makes the following findings: Petitioner Mechanics Union seeks to represent the maintenance employees of the Employer, while Petitioner Boot and Shoe Workers seeks an overall production and maintenance unit. There is no bargaining history. In their requests for review, the Employer and Petitioner Boot and Shoe Workers contend that only a combined unit of production and maintenance employees is appropriate. We find merit in this contention. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of shoes in Altoona, Pennsylvania. The Employer's vice president and plant manager is in charge of the plant. To him report the production manager, the general superintendent, and the foremen of the various production departments. All of the Employer's production employees, who number about 250, report to the production foremen. In contrast, the Employer' s maintenance employees, who number four, are neither in a separate department nor even separately supervised. With respect to machinery maintenance, which occupies the bulk of their time, the maintenance employees receive work assignments from the production foremen.' With respect to plant and general maintenance , which occupies the remainder of their time , they receive assignments from the plant manager, who also makes decisions with respect to the time off, vacations, pay raises, and other conditions of employment for the maintenance employees. Of the machine maintenance work done at the plant, the Employer' s maintenance men perform only a fraction, the great majority being done by other personnel. Thus, production employees perform about half the maintenance work on their own machines. Production foremen also do maintenance work. In addition, the repair of machines which are leased, other machines that are under warranty, and still other machines, is performed by representatives of the machinery manufacturers or by outside repair companies. A representative of one machinery lessor is stationed full time at the plant, and the representatives of other machinery manufacturers are on call. These outside repairmen normally perform the more complicated maintenance of the Employer's machinery, particularly its newer equipment. The maintenance employees spend almost all of their time performing less skilled, routine, and repetitive duties. Thus, they replace electric switches and motors and adjust and make minor repairs on machinery. They also maintain a stock of new parts for the machinery, and install all new parts on all the machinery in the plant. Their plant and general maintenance assignments consist largely of handyman type duties such as replacing window glass, lightbulbs, and worn faucet washers, and performing minor carpentry and painting.' The Employer has no requirement that applicants for jobs as maintenance employees possess specialized education, training, or experience. Thus, and although the Employer admittedly prefers such experience, one of the four maintenance employees had no prior training or experience. The Employer has no apprenticeship or on-the-job training program for maintenance employees. One maintenance employee reports to the fitting room foreman almost exclusively and spends almost all his time maintaining fitting room machinery under the direction of the latter The record indicates that maintenance employee Williams at times makes major repairs of plant machinery and at times uses machinery which may involve the exercise of considerable degrees of skill. However, the record fads to indicate that the skills involved achieve craft dimensions. Moreover, Williams performs such duties only when he has time free from the maintenance employees' primary function - to perform the routine machinery maintenance and minor repairs in the day -to-day operations of the plant. In addition, the record affirmatively indicates that the other maintenance employees exercise skills inferior to those exercised by Williams. 176 NLRB No. 61 VINCENT HORWITZ CO. 497 The maintenance employees spend virtually all their time in production areas, where their work contacts are primarily with production employees. Although the maintenance employees have an area where they store parts for the production machinery, and where they perform some maintenance work, they spend little time working at that location which, in any event, is also utilized by production employees working with the grinder and buffing machine located there. With the following minor exceptions, the production and maintenance employees share the same conditions of employment without regard- to their function. First, many - but not all - of the production employees are on piecework, while the maintenance employees are not . Only one of the maintenance employees has a wage in excess of that of some of the more experienced production employees. Second, at times the maintenance employees work when most of the production employees have gone home. Upon these facts and the record as whole, we find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the maintenance employees lack both the distinctive function and the diverse community of interest necessary for the establishment of a separate maintenance unit under American Cyanamid.' Thus the maintenance employees share their maintenance function with production employees, production supervisors, and representatives of machinery manufacturers and outside contractors. They are not in a separate department. They are not separately supervised but rather share supervision with production employees. The maintenance employees spend almost all of their time performing routine and repetitive work, and little, if any, exercising craft skills. The Employer neither requires, nor participates in the development of, such skills. Finally, the maintenance employees lack a separate location and other conditions of employment distinguishing their interests from those of the production employees, and instead spend most of their time in production areas where they have substantial work contacts with production employees. As we find that the maintenance employees do not constitute a separate appropriate unit, we shall dismiss the Mechanics Union petition. We further find, in agreement with the alternative conclusion of the Regional Director, that the overall production and maintenance unit is appropriate. Accordingly, we shall amend his Decision to provide for an election in such unit only. The appropriate unit is: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Altoona, Pennsylvania plant, including janitors, plant clerical, and shipping and receiving employees, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed in Case 6-RC-4764 be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. DIRECTION The case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director for Region 6 for the purpose of conducting an election in Case 6-RC-4798 pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Elections, in the unit set forth above, except that the eligibility date shall be the payroll period immediately preceding the date below. 'American Cyanamid Company. 131 NLRB 909 'In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236. N.L.R B. v. Wyman-Gordon Company. 394 U S. 759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that a corrected election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 6 within 7 days of the date of this Decision on Review , Order, and Direction . The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed