Risdon Manufacturing Co., Inc.

RISDON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 579 Risdon Manufacturing Company, Inc. and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 1-RC-11,693 February 25, 1972 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY Upon a petition duly filed on August 1, 1971, under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing in this case was held on September 2 and 10, 1971, at Boston, Massachusetts, and on Sep- tember 22, 23, 30, and October 1, 1971, at Waterbury, Connecticut, before Hearing Officer Robert C., Rose- mere. Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the above- entitled matter was duly transferred by the Regional Director for Region 1 to the Board for decision. The Petitioner and the Employer filed briefs.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They 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, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to repre- sent certain employees of the Employer. 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer, a Connecticut corporation, is en- gaged in the production and the assembling of metal and plastic parts, such as lipstick cases, compacts, aerosol valves, safety pins, drapery hooks, and various types of wire and metal stamped products that are sold to other manufacturers. The main office for the Em- ployer is in Naugatuck, where its Aerosol Division" and its Fabricated Metal Products Division, hereinafter called the MP, are located. The Employer also has plants located in Danbury, Waterbury, and Thomas- ton, Connecticut. The Naugatuck plant is about 25 miles from the Danbury plant, 3-% miles from- the Wa- terbury plant, and 15 miles from the Thomaston plant. All the plants lie within a radius of approximately 30 miles. The Employer also filed a Motion To Reopen the Record which will be discussed infra. The Petitioner seeks to represent a production and maintenance unit, including shipping, receiving, and trucking employees limited to the Employer's plant at Naugatuck, combining the FMP and the Aerosol Divi- sions into a single appropriate unit. As an alternative unit position, the Petitioner is willing to participate in elections in two separate units of the same employees of the FMP and the Aerosol Division of the Naugatuck plant. The Petitioner is unwilling to participate in any other unit determination. The Employer, opposes the Petitioner's unit positions and contends that all the Employer's plants constitute a single appropriate unit; namely, the two divisions at Naugatuck and the Danbury, Thomaston, and Water- bury plants. As a modified alternative unit position, the Employer would agree that the FMP Division at Naugatuck and the Danbury plant, which comprise its cosmetic operation, constitute an appropriate unit and that the Aerosol Division at Naugatuck by itself consti- tutes an appropriate unit. There is no history of collec- tive bargaining. The facts adduced at the hearing show that the FMP Division was established in 1913 at its present location. The,division's production is devoted to metal stamp- ings which are used in the manufacture of lipstick cases and compacts by the Danbury plant and as components by the Employer's other plants. Together with the Dan- bury plant the FMP Division comprises the Employer's cosmetic operation. The various metal stampings pro- duced at the FMP Division, which are sent to other plants, including the Danbury plant, are finished at those plants and then shipped directly to customers. Approximately 70 percent of the lipstick cases and compacts finished and assembled and shipped from Danbury are primarily made from parts produced at the FMP Division. The Waterbury plant produces wire formed products such as safety pins, straight pins, drapery hooks, and needles. The Thomaston plant per- forms metalizing ' operations for products of the Aerosol Division, the cosmetic operation, and Water- bury plant, as well as for companies not owned by the Employer. The Aerosol Division produces aerosol valves, which are used in aerosol bottles and cans, as well as plastic components for the aerosol valves, lip- stick cases for the Danbury plant, and some compo- nents for' the Waterbury plant. Until early 1971 the FMP Division was a separate administrative entity with its own manager, the same as the other plants and the Aerosol Division. The manager reported directly to the Employer's executive vice president. In, 1971 the cosmetic operation, consist- ing of the Danbury plant and the FMP Division, was placed under an overall manager who reports directly to the Employer's president. However, the managers of the FMP Division and the Danbury plant continue to spend 90 percent'of their time'in their home plants, and 195 NLRB No. 109 580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the day-to-day management of the FMP-operation,has not been significantly changed. Danbury and the FMP Division hire employees from their own local areas, train and directly supervise their own employees, and have control of the hiring, promotion, and the giving of raises to such employees. Although there is some temporary transfer of employees from the 180 to 185 employees of FMP to Danbury and to other,plants, the number of transfers is minimal. The record shows that permanent transfers among the Employer's plants, in- cluding the FMP and Aerosol Division, are insignifi- cant. The Aerosol Division was originally located in Dan- bury, where it started around 1953. The division moved to its Naugatuck location in 1967 where it was com- bined with the Plastic Division to form the Aerosol Division. Although both the FMP Division and the Aerosol Division are located in Naugatuck in one large building, they are physically separated. The FMP Divi- sion occupies the older one-story part of the building, together with the Employer's main offices, and the Aerosol Division is located in a new two-story addition to the building. The two divisions are separated by a cinder block wall. The Aerosol Division is independ- ently administered and is under the direction of a sepa- rate division manager. The division advertises for its own help and maintains its own employment office, hires and trains its own employees, and determines the status of its employees separately from the FMP Divi- sion. There is little interchange of its 180 nonsupervi- sory personnel between Aerosol and FMP, or among the Employer's other plants. In support of its contention that only a companywide unit is appropriate the Employer stresses the following common nexus and' integration among the plants. The FMP Division toolroom frequently does toolmaking for the other plants and builds jigs and fixtures for the Danbury, Thomaston, and Waterbury plants. The en- gineering section of the Aerosol Division serves all the plants and builds, installs, and maintains certain equip- ment for the other plants . Machinery and shipping cartons are transferred among the various locations, as the need arises. The Waterbury plant performs all the printing for other plants, as well as for its own use, and an independent trucking contractor services all the plants on regularly scheduled trips using employer- owned trailers. In addition, the executive offices are located in Naugatuck and most of the purchasing, ac- counting, billing, and accounts receivable for all plants are handled from these offices. All insurance, including liability, Workmen's Compensation, Blue Cross, and health and accident are similar for all employees with central administration' from the main offices in the Naugatuck building. All plant managers meet regularly on a biweekly basis in the Naugatuck plant and there are common sales meetings for the -sales -departments of the. various plants and divisions. , The record further shows that employee benefits, such as holidays, vacations, pensions, funeral leave, shift premium, insurance benefits, overtime premium, leaves of absence, credit unions, and related benefits are uniform in all the Employer's plants. The Employer also maintains a uniform hiring policy , probation period, and training period and has followed the prac- tice for many years of granting uniform wage and fringe benefit increases in all its plants and divisions. While the record supports the Employer's position that the Employer's plants are integrated insofar as they involve executive, overall-managerial, engineering, or service activities, and that uniform wage and person- nel policies are maintained, the record also indicates that each plant, and the FMP and Aerosol Divisions, are organized to operate independently from each other and each has a separate identity. Thus, each plant "buys" products from other plants in the same fashion that a plant would buy products from the outside, and each has its own budget. In addition to their own sepa- rate manager, as described above, who has the day-to- day responsibility of running the plants or the divisions, each plant has its own sales force. Although most of the purchasingfor the various plants is done from, the main office in Naugatuck, such purchases are based on requi- sitions received from individual plants. Personnel records of hourly -employees are kept at .the plant level and each plant advertises for its own help and main- tains its own employment office. The jobs and the skill requirements of the work at each of the plants are unique, and the machinery used and products pro- duced differ among the plants., Although the FMP and the Aerosol, Divisions are located in the same building and in the same city, the record shows that in their day-to-day operations they also operate independently of each other, the same as the individual plants. The two divisions are physically separated, are under separate managers, and perform different types of work, and there is insignificant inter- change between their supervisory and nonsupervisory personnel.,For all practical purposes each of the divi- sions operates in the same manner as individual plants located at Danbury, Waterbury, and Thomaston. In view of the foregoing and the entire record, espe- cially the degree of automony in the operations of each plant and the FMP and, the Aerosol Divisions, the lack of substantial interchange ,. of employees, among the various plants and divisions, the stability of the work force, and the distinctive nature of the work at the respective locations, we are unable to conclude that the Employer's operations are so functionally integrated as to preclude units smaller than on a multiplant basis. Moreover, we find that the FMP and the Aerosol Divi- sions are sufficiently distinct from each other and the RISDON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 581 Employer's other plants, including the Danbury plant, to be separately identifiable units consisting of em- ployees which have a substantial community of inter- est. Accordingly, we find that in the circumstances of this case the FMP and -the Aerosol Divisions at the Employer's Naugatuck location constitute separate ap- propriate units and that such separate units will not only assure to the employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by the Act, but will also be viable units for collective-bargaining purposes.' There remains for consideration the unit placement of certain categories of employees which are in dispute. Line foremen and group leaders. The Petitioner con- tends that persons classified in these jobs are super- visors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and should be excluded from the appropriate units. The Employer would include them. The record shows that unlike salaried foremen under whom they work they are hourly paid. Generally, however, their hourly rate is higher than that of other employees. They work the same hours as production employees and do not attend supervisory meetings. However, line foremen receive certain time off for personal leave in addition to the same fringe benefits as the production and maintenance employees and as the group leaders. Neither line fore- men nor group leaders have any authority to hire, sus- pend, layoff, discharge, or discipline employees. The record shows that they spend most of their time doing physical work similar to the production or mainte- nance employees in their groups or sections and that their special responsibility is to maintain the flow of work and their authority over other employees is for that purpose. They have no independent responsibility for the quantity or quality of production performed by employees with whom they work, and they report to the foremen if work runs out or if any difficulties are encountered in work flow. Although some of the line foremen or group leaders may, on occasion, make recommendations to their foremen as to disciplinary action or merit increases, the foremen do not accept such recommendations without making their own inde- pendent investigations. Employee, requests for time off or a change in work status are generally made directly to the foremen, and when made to group leaders or line foremen are taken up with the foremen for them to take independent action. On the basis of the above and the entire record, we find that line foremen and group leaders do not possess the attributes of supervisors under the Act and for the most part are conduits for foremen, and any authority which they exercise over employees with whom they work is related to their special skills and experience. 2 See, e.g, Dixie Belle Mills, Inc., 139 NLRB 629, 631-632; Matts Shop Rite ofSpringfield, 182 NLRB 172, 173; Maryland Cap Corp., 182 NLRB 686, 687. Accordingly, we find that the line foremen and group leaders are nonsupervisory employees and shall include them in units found appropriate herein. Timekeepers, shipping clerks, and production control clerks: The Petitioner would exclude these three categories of clericals as lacking a community of inter- est with unit employees because they receive greater leave benefits than production and maintenance em- ployees, work a large portion of their time closely with supervisors, in some cases work the same hours as office clericals, and are on a separate budget from the hourly production employees. The Employer would include them as plant clericals. The record shows that the em- ployees involved are hourly paid, have little contact with office clericals, work out of locations near production areas, and spend a considerable portion of their time in the areas with unit employees. The duties of all three categories are directly concerned with-unit work. We find that jobs involved are directly related to unit work and these employees have plant clerical du- ties. Accordingly, we shall include them in the appro- priate units. Research and development employees: The Petitioner would exclude and the Employer would include the two assemblers in the laboratory section and the three toolmakers and molders who work in the Employer's research and development department. The record shows that employees in these job categories are all hourly paid, work the same shift as the production employees, receive similar wage rates and- fringe benefits, and have skills related to production jobs. However, the record also shows that the research and development department is geographically separated from the production and maintenance operations, the employees involved in such work have little or no con- tact with production and maintenance employees, and there is no interchange or transfer. The research and development employees work under separate super- vision and production and plant employees are not allowed in the research and development work areas. In agreement with the Petitioner, we find that the re- search and development hourly employees lack suffi- cient community of interest with production and maintenance employees to require their inclusion in the units found appropriate herein and we shall, therefore, exclude them. Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute appropriate units for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 1. All production and maintenance, shipping, receiv- ing and trucking employees, line foremen, group lead- ers, timekeepers, shipping clerks, and production con- trol clerks employed at the Employer's Fabricated Metal Products Division located in Naugatuck, Con- necticut, excluding watchmen, office employees, re- 582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD search and development employees, salaried em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended. 2. All production and maintenance, shipping, receiv- ing and trucking employees, line foremen, group lead- ers, timekeepers, shipping clerks, and production con- trol clerks employed at the Employer's Aerosol Division located at Naugatuck, Connecticut, excluding watchmen, office employees, research and development employees, salaried employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended. Although the units we thus find appropriate differ from the plantwide unit at Naugatuck sought by the Petitioner, we shall not dismiss the petition inasmuch as the Petitioner has indicated that it is interested in proceeding to elections in the above units. We shall, therefore, order elections, as provided below, subject to the Regional Director's ascertaining that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest among the employees in the appropriate units. If the Petitioner does not desire to participate in an election in the units found appropriate herein, we shall permit it to with- draw its petition without prejudice upon written notice to the Regional Director within 10 days from the date of this Decision. On November 18, 1971, after the hearing had closed, the Employer filed a Motion To Open the Record with a supporting affidavit alleging that on September 30, 1971, the Employer entered into an agreement for the purchase of certain assets and equipment of the Dorset Division of the Dorset Company in Thomaston, as well as the sublease of that Company's plant premises in Thomaston, approximately 15 miles from Aerosol's present location. The affidavit also alleges that the Em- ployer has made a firm corporate decision to move the entire Aerosol Division from its present location, as well as the Vacuum-Metalizing plant in Thomaston to the Dorset property. Accordingly, the Employer con- tends the Aerosol Division in Naugatuck because of proposed changes in geographical location, personnel, and organization will have material and substantial changes from the unit requested by the Petitioner. The Employer's affidavit further contends that personnel and machinery are now being transferred to the Dorset location and that the changeover will be completed by April 1972. In its opposition the Petitioner contends that the proposed change is not of a sufficient size and nature to preclude an immediate, election. The Board, having duly considered the matter, is of the opinion that the issues raised by the Employer's Motion To Reopen the Hearing in regard to the Aerosol Division can best be resolved on the basis of record testimony in the matter. Accordingly, ORDER It is hereby ordered that the Employer's Motion to Reopen the Hearing in regard to the appropriateness of a unit of the Aerosol Division at the Naugatuck loca- tion be, and it hereby is, granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the record in this pro- ceeding be, and it hereby is, reopened and, that further hearing be held for the purpose of taking testimony with respect to changes which have occurred in the Aerosol Division since the original hearing and how such changes have affected the appropriateness of the Aerosol Division unit described above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the Regional Director for Region 1 for the purpose of conducting such further hearing and that the Regional Director be, and he hereby is, authorized to issue notice thereof. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, however, that the election in the unit found appropriate in the Fabricated Metal Products Division at Naugatuck be held as directed below. [Direction of Election3 omitted from publication.] ' 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 ad- dresses which may be used to communicate with them. Excelsior Under- wear, Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R.B v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligibile voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 1 within 7 days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election. 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 extraordi- nary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed