Raybestos Manhattan, Inc.

MANHEIM DIV. OF RAYBESTOS MANHATTAN, INC. 97 Manheim Division of Raybestos Manhattan, Inc. and United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 4-RC-9772 March 2, 1973 DECISION ON REVIEW BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On June 13, 1972, the Regional Director for Region 4 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found appropriate a unit comprised of 15 salaried nonex- empt classifications engaged in work which is closely allied with the Employer's production process, as requested by the Petitioner.' Thereafter, in accord- ance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review on the ground that, in finding a unit limited to those salaried nonexempt employees sought by the Petitioner, the Regional Director made findings of fact which were erroneous and departed from officially reported precedent. On July 17, 1972, the Board, by telegraphic order, granted the request for review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review and makes the following findings: 2 The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of clutch plates, brake linings, and various teflon products at its Manheim, Pennsylvania, plant. In its request for review, the Employer asserted that the petitioned-for employees do not constitute a func- tionally distinct and homogeneous group of employ- ees with separate interests that outweigh the commu- nity of interest they share with all other salaried nonexempt employees at its plant. The record discloses that the Employer maintains three separate payrolls for its Manheim employees. Thus, its executives, managerial employees, and some supervisors are carried on its salaried exempt payroll, while another payroll consists of 1,000 to 1,100 production and maintenance employees in a bargaining unit which has been represented by the Petitioner for approximately 30 years. The remaining 150 to 160 employees at the plant are carried on a third payroll for salaried nonexempt employees. This payroll includes 70 different classifications perform- ing several divergent functions. The same wage schedule and fringe benefit program is applicable to all salaried nonexempt employees. The unit estab- lished by the Regional Director includes approxi- mately 37 salaried nonexempt employees. In a prior proceeding, Case 4-RC-7836, the Regional Director concluded that the employees now sought by the Petitioner constituted an appropriate voting group for purposes of determining if they desired to be represented as a part of the existing production and maintenance unit. At that time, the Regional Director concluded that a voting group limited to these classifications was appropriate because they performed work closely allied with the production process and spent substantial portions of their time in production areas working on production tasks and problems. Moreover, the Regional Director found that the remaining salaried nonexempt em- ployees which the Employer sought to include were apparently office clerical employees who generally did not have the same immediate supervision, work in the same buildings or work areas, exercise similar skills, or have substantial contact or interchange with the employees in the voting group established by him. In the instant proceeding, which involves the same group of employees, the Regional Director found there were no significantly changed circumstances since the prior case except that both the Employer and the Petitioner now opposed a self-determination election. In this circumstance, the Regional Director concluded that the employees sought by the Petition- er could be represented separately because their interests resulting from their different supervision, wage schedules, fringe benefits, and location were sufficiently distinct from the production employees to warrant the establishment of a separate unit. We agree with the Regional Director's principal conclusion that those salaried nonexempt employees who work in production areas engaged in tasks closely allied with the production process need not be grouped together with the Employer's other salaried nonexempt employees engaged primarily in office clerical functions. However, the record before us demonstrates that the work location and functions of other salaried nonexempt employees classified as production schedule clerks and production expedi- tors are sufficient to warrant their inclusion together I The specific salaried nonexempt categories included by the Regional the category of draftsmen includes the following classifications- senior Director were all research and development technicians, quality control draftsman, draftsman, and junior draftsman technicians, specification technicians, engineering technicians, draftsmen, 2 The Board initially concluded that the record was inadequate to resolve instrument technicians, liaison men and tool designers There are a number the issues raised on review and remanded the case to the Regional Director of separate classifications in several of the included categories For example, for the purpose of reopening the record to receive further evidence 202 NLRB No. 19 98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with the employees sought by the Petitioner. Accord- ingly, these employees are included in the unit.3 Notwithstanding the additional evidence received on remand, the record remains inadequate to warrant a conclusion at this time with respect to the unit placement of five additional classifications, to wit: expediter-purchasing, senior warehouse control clerk, central planner raw material control, central control, and raw material control clerk. Accordingly, we shall permit the employees in the foregoing five classifica- tions to vote subject to challenge and their unit placement shall await the resolution of those chal- lenges. As the record now discloses that the only 3 The specific production schedule clerk classifications on the salaried nonexempt payroll are supervisor , production scheduling , production schedule clerk , and junior schedule clerk The record is inconclusive as to whether the supervisor, production scheduling, is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act Accordingly , any individuals in this classification who appear at the polls shall be voted subject to challenge 4 In the event the Petitioner does not wish to proceed to an election in the unit as modified herein , it shall so notify the Regional Director by written notice within 7 days of the date of issuance of this Decision on Review Moreover, as the unit found appropriate is broader than that originally requested by the Petitioner, the Regional Director shall determine whether its showing of interest is sufficient before proceeding with the election incumbent in the included classification of tool designer is a managerial employee and that the specifically excluded classifications of industrial engineering clerks and engineering assistant no longer exist, the unit description is modified to delete reference to these three classifications. Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as modified herein,4 except that the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that immediately preceding the date of issuance.5 5 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 Co, 394 U S 759 Accordingly, It is hereby directed that an 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 4 within 7 days of the date of this Decision on Review. 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