W. R. Grace & Co.

788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ambrosia Chocolate Division of W. R. Grace & Company and Teamsters "General" Local No. 200 affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case 30-RC- 1842 March 29, 1973 DECISION AND DIRECTION BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on September 30, 1972,1 under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 30, among the employees in the unit agreed on by the parties. At the conclusion of the election the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that, of approximately 155 eligible voters, 63 cast ballots for and 62 cast ballots against the Petitioner. There were eight challenged ballots, which are sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On October 6, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. The objections were investigated by the Regional Direc- tor, who on October 26, issued a Notice of Hearing on Challenged Ballots and Objections to Election, wherein he directed that a hearing be held for the purpose of receiving evidence to resolve issues raised by the challenges and by the Employer's objections. Pursuant thereto, a hearing was conducted on November 6 and 7 before Hearing Officer Amedeo Greco. On December 15, the Hearing Officer issued his Report on Challenged Ballots and Objections in which he recommended that all eight challenges be sustained, that the objections be overruled, and that the Petitioner be certified Thereafter the Employer filed exceptions to the Hearing Officer's disposition of seven challenges and his overruling of the objections. Petitioner filed a brief in answer to the Employer's exceptions. 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 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 All dates are 1972 z As no exception was filed to the Hearing Officer' s recommendation the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing 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 parties have agreed, and we find, that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance workers ex- cluding supervisors as defined in the Act, guards, confidential employees, office clerical employees and all other employees of the Employer. 5. The Board has considered the Hearing Offi- cer's report and recommendations. While we adopt his findings and recommendations that the challenge to the ballot cast by Walter Mueller be sustained and that the Employer's objections be overruled, we find merit in the Employer's exception to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that the challenges to the ballots cast by the six quality control employees be sustained.2 The record shows that the Employer is engaged in the manufacture of cocoa powder and various types of chocolate coatings at its Milwaukee, Wisconsin, facilities. In order to insure that its products are processed and manufactured correctly, it maintains a quality control department which consists of a salaried director, an assistant director, and the six hourly rated employees whose ballots have been challenged in this proceeding. These employees, inter aka, perform moisture analysis on sample cocoa beans, check on incoming raw material, grade beans as to color, aroma, size, etc., test roasted beans to determine if they have been properly cracked and fanned, sample the product for fat content, check on size and flavor, and sample the finished product. While they occasionally spend some time in the production and maintenance area, much of their time is spent in the laboratory. In finding that the quality control employees do not have a sufficient community of interest with production and maintenance employees to warrant their inclusion in the unit, the Hearing Officer relied in the main on the following findings. They are directly supervised by individuals who have no supervisory authority over any other employees. They are not assisted by production and mainte- nance employees when samples are taken in the production area, and the tasks performed by these employees are different from those performed by regarding the ballot cast by Elwyn Jervan, his recommendation is adopted pro forma 202 NLRB No. 118 AMBROSIA CHOCOLATE 789 production and maintenance employees. They re- ceive first aid training and are responsible for administering first aid to all employees. The Hearing Officer relied further on the fact that quality control employees receive about 3 months of training before they become proficient on the job, wear a uniform different from that worn by production and mainte- nance employees, and generally have more education than do production and maintenance employees. He also notes that the record shows only a few instances in the last several years when there has been interchange between quality control and production and maintenance employees. Thus citing, and relying on Arkansas Grain Corporation, 163 NLRB 625, the Hearing Officer concluded that the challenges to the ballots cast by the quality control employees should be sustained. On the record before us, we are not satisfied that the present case fits so squarely into the Arkansas Grain mold as to make that case dispositive of the issues herein. In Arkansas Grain the laboratory employees worked in a separate building while the employees here are located on the third floor of the building where the bulk of the production and maintenance is carried on. Although the laboratory is in a separate area, it is only 25 to 50 feet from the production area. Here, the quality control employees have more numerous contacts with production and maintenance employees and the quality control operation consti- tutes an integral part of the Employer's entire operation. While several of the employees here generally have some education above the high school level, there is no showing that it is a condition of their employment. Apart from finding that Arkansas Grain is not controlling in this case, we do not find the wearing of a different uniform by quality control employees a factor warranting their exclusion from the unit since all of the Employer's employees, depending on the segment of operation in which they are involved, wear different uniforms. Thus, quality control employees wear a white shirt and blue pants, shipping department employees wear a green uni- form, production employees wear a light blue uniform, and maintenance employees wear dark blue. It does not appear that the training received by quality control employees is so different from or superior to that received by other employees to put them in a different class. Nor do we find that the administering of first aid by quality control employ- ees negates community of interest. Rather, to the contrary, the fact that first aid is administered by the quality control employees further establishes and builds on their community of interest with their coworkers through additional contacts on a continu- ous basis. More importantly, quality control employees at- tend the same monthly meetings as do hourly paid production and maintenance employees. They share the same work breaks, lunch periods, locker room, lunchroom, and parking lot. Like production and maintenance employees, they punch a timeclock, and both groups enjoy the same fringe benefits such as paid vacations, paid holidays, insurance, pensions, and overtime. On these facts, and as the quality control employees are clearly neither technical nor professional employees, we find that they have sufficient common interests with production and maintenance employees to warrant their inclusion in the unit. Accordingly, we shall overrule the chal- lenges to the ballots cast by them As we have overruled the challenges to six ballots and these may be determinative of the results of the election, we shall direct that the Regional Director open and count the said six ballots and cause to be served on the parties .a revised tally. DIRECTION It is hereby directed that, as part of his investiga- tion to ascertain the representative for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, the Regional Director for Region 30 shall, pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, within 10 days from the date of this Direction, open and count the ballots cast by Warren DeMichei, James Johnson, Carmen Montoro, Robert Mustin, Chris Steinbergs. and Tom Uyhara and thereafter cause to be served on the parties a revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of the above-mentioned ballots. Thereafter, the Regional Director shall issue the appropriate certification in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations.