Bourns Inc.

BOURNS INC. Bourns Inc. and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, Petitioner. Case 21-RC-13619 March 21, 1975 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On May 2, 1974, the Regional Director for Region 21 issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding in which he dismissed the petition filed herein, finding that the single plant unit sought by Petitioner _ did not constitute a separately identifiable unit. In accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board, Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision. The Em- ployer filed an opposition to Petitioner's request for review. By telegraphic order dated July 18, 1974, the Board granted the request for review. Thereafter, the Em- ployer filed a brief on review. 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 considered the entire record in this proceeding with respect to the issues ' under review, including the Employer's brief on review, and makes the following findings: Petitioner seeks a single plant unit of the approxi- mate 163 hourly paid production and maintenance em- ployees of the Employer's Instrument Division located in Riverside, California. The Regional Director dis- missed the petition, finding, in accord with the Em- ployer's contention, that the employees in the Instru- ment Division plant do not constitute a separately identifiable unit. The Petitioner urges, in essence, that the presumptive appropriateness of the single-plant unit has not been rebutted in the instant case and as- serts that the record does not support certain factual conclusions of the Regional Director. We agree. The Employer is a California corporation engaged in the design, manufacture, testing, and sale of electronic components, instruments, and other related equip- ment. The Employer's corporate headquarters are located in Riverside, California, although it has offices and subsidiaries located throughout the world. At Riv- erside, California, the Employer operates the following four separate facilities, located between 4.5 and 11 miles of each other: The Business Management Sys- tems Division, creating data entry systems; the Life Systems Division, principally manufacturing respira- tors; the Trimpot Division, producing, among others, 21 a device called the potentiometer; and the Instrument Division, involved herein, manufacturing acceleration- measurement instruments. A total of 814 production and maintenance employees work at the four facilities, the bulk of whom work at the Trimpot Division, which is also the location of corporate headquarters. There is no history of collective bargaining for these employees. The record reveals that the four Riverside, Cali- fornia, divisions were initially located at the present site of the Instrument Division and as their capacity in- creased additional sites were acquired to accommodate that growth. It is clear that there presently exists a centralization of administrative and industrial relations functions, among other matters, at the Trimpot corpo- rate headquarters location which affects the Riverside divisions as a group to a greater extent than other divisions of the Employer at other locations in Cali- fornia and elsewhere. As found by the Regional Direc- tor, hiring quotas and requirements are determined at the Trimpot headquarters, initial interviewing of appli- cants and processing of applications for the Riverside divisions are performed there, and review and approval of personnel actions are centralized there. In addition, all Riverside production and maintenance employees share identical benefits, are under one master wage schedule, and have the benefit of areawide seniority for the purpose of transfer or recall from layoff. In addi- tion, job openings are posted on an areawide basis; payroll for Riverside is centralized; general wage in- creases for those divisions are commonly instituted; and areawide social and recreational programs are pro- vided by the Employer, among certain other factors pertaining to the Riverside divisions. The record also discloses that each of the four River- side divisions has its own management staff below the corporate level. Thus, the Instrument Division has its own vice president and general manager as well as a supervisory staff, which is responsible for the day-to- day operations of that division. In addition, each divi- sion has its own division controller (or comparable position), its own director of sales or marketing, and a sales force whose primary function is to sell the prod- ucts of that division on the domestic level. Although there are corporate-level vice presidents for the respec- tive divisions as well as vice presidents in charge of corporate planning, quality control, and marketing, each of the Riverside divisions also has a separate direc- tor or vice president of engineering who is in charge of the engineers within the division. As indicated above, each division manufactures its own products or systems. While one division benefits from the technology developed by others or utilizes certain components or services produced by or availa- ble at other divisions, each of the divisions has its own budget, prepares its own costs reports, and is charged 217 NLRB No. 3 22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for the services or products it- obtains from the other divisions as well as-- for, services from the corporate industrial relations department. When the other divi- sions cannot supply needed services or components, the requesting division head has authority within, certain limits to obtain them from outside sources. With respect to industrial relations, although Staff Vice President of Industrial Relations Kenneth Brown formulates and is in direct charge of the labor relations policies for the Riverside divisions, he also is involved in the formulation of such policy for other employer facilities. Moreover, there is an industrial relations spe- cialist assigned to the Instrument Division as 'well as similar specialists assigned to -other of the Riverside divisions. They are involved with the day-to-day em- ployee problems in the industrial relations area within their respective divisions and also handle some addi- tional duties relating to the Riverside area such as safety or security. Although hiring approval, for the Riverside plants is presently centralized at the Trimpot employment center' and applicants are initially inter- viewed there, they are then sent for interview to the requesting department head who makes a recommen- dation to the central office as to hiring.' According to the Employer's testimony, the foreman or department head "has a right to effectively recommend or to hire or discharge . . . he- is not a rubber stamp in the pro- cess. . . ." Authority to affect employee status has been delegated to division personnel as long as such actions are within company policy or guidelines. The central personnel office has a "monitoring" effect on such actions. It is asserted the Riverside employees have areawide rather than divisionwide seniority; how- ever, the record discloses that in the event of a layoff of personnel at any of the divisions, the affected em- ployees could not "bump" similarly classified em- ployees with lesser seniority at other divisions. Area- wide seniority is utilized for transfer in the Riverside area and recall from layoffs, and senior employees are attempted to be placed in any of the Riverside divisions where openings exist. Regarding transfers or interchange of employees among the Riverside divisions, the record shows that of a total complement of 1,400 on the payroll 24 transfers occurred within a 3-month period prior to the hearing and a number of those did not involve transfers of unit personnel. The record does not show whether such transfers were of a temporary or permanent nature. 1 From approximately April to December 1973, due to loss of personnel in industrial relations, it was decided to permit hiring on a localized divi- sional basis using the industrial relations personnel assigned to the respec- tive divisions. Therefore, during that period the industrial relations specialist assigned to the instrument Division placed ads for employees and inter- viewed at that division 2 The industrial relations specialist at the Instrument Division would also interview applicants sent over from the central employment office as he is considered one of the interviewing factors at the facility There is- testimony that certain interchange of person- nel "between the -divisions occurs whenever needed. However, it appears such is usually for maintenance and equipment moving work. The record does not dis- close the degree or frequency of such interchange. The Board has held that a single-plant unit is pre- sumptively appropriate where there is no bargaining history in a more comprehensive unit and the degree of functional integration with the other plant facilities is insufficient to negate the separate identity of the plant sought to be represented. Considering all the circum- stances of this case, while there are certain factors which tend to support a broader unit, our review of the record leads us to conclude that the presumption of the appropriateness of the single plant requested has not been rebutted: It is clear that the Instrument Division functions separately on a day-to-day basis in manufac- turing its own products under its own management personnel who possess a substantial degree of au- tonomy with respect to the operations and personnel of that division. Nor do we find, notwithstanding the ex- change of technology, supplies, and services between the divisions at Riverside, that those divisions are so functionally integrated to destroy the separate identity of the Instrument Division plant. While there is cen- tralization of administrative and industrial relations functions at the corporate level, the Employer utilizes, at the division level, separate industrial relations per- sonnel to handle day-to-day personnel matters arising in the respective divisions. The evidence regarding transfers or interchange of personnel between the divi- sions is not, in our view, substantial and does not alter the separate identity or community of interest of the Instrument Division employees. In view of the forego- ing and the record as a whole, particularly the absence of bargaining history, the separate location of the plant sought, the separate autonomous operations and man- agement of the Instrument Division, the lack of sub- stantial employee transfer or interchange, and the sepa- rate identity of the employees at the Instrument Division, we find that the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Instrument Division con- stitute a separate appropriate unit, and we shall direct an election therein.' Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: 3 Maryland Cup Corporation, 171 NLRB 367 (1968). See Dixie Belle Mills, Inc, a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Bell Industries, Inc., 139 NLRB 629 (1962); Maryland Cup Corporation, 182 NLRB 686 (1970); Pacific National Bank of Washington, 192 NLRB 1046 (1971), Risdon Manufac- turing Company, Inc., 195 NLRB 579 (1972), cf Gould, Inc (Advanced Technology Group), 206 NLRB 312 (1973); National Connector, Div. of Fabri-Tek Incorporated, 191 NLRB 675 (1971) BOURNS INC. 23 All production and maintenance employees of the Employer's Instrument Division located at River- side, California, excluding all office clerical em- ployees, guards, professional employees, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election omitted from publication.]" MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting: I would affirm the Regional Director's finding that a unit limited to the employees of one of four plants of the Employer's operations at Riverside , California, is inappropriate . The Regional Director was clearly cor- rect in concluding that the Employer's Riverside facili- ties are so fully integrated under centralized control that an election should not be directed in the unit re- stricted to a single plant sought by Petitioner. The Employer operates four divisions in Riverside where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of electronic components and instruments .' All four divisions located at Riverside were housed at one time in the same plant. As the demand for the products of each division increased, the Employer found it neces- sary to build or purchase additional plants. The four divisions are all housed in four plants located within a 6-mile radius of the Trimpot Division where the Em- ployer's corporate headquarters are located. There is no history of collective bargaining for the employees of the four divisions. I think it noteworthy that this is the first time that Petitioner has sought to represent the Riverside employees in a separate plant unit. In its three petitions previously filed,6 Petitioner- herein has sought an election among all employees of all divisions of the Employer in Riverside . Having failed in its earlier efforts to organize the Employer's employees in the divisionwide unit which is agreed was appropriate, the Board should not now attempt to tailor a unit to Petitioner's modified organizing effort.7 The Regional Director was clearly correct in finding that in all aspects of employee and industrial relations the Riverside operations of the Employer are almost entirely centrally administered from the corporate headquarters in the Trimpot facility. This includes the establishment of hiring quotas, the recruitment and hiring of employees,' wage and salary administration, 4 [Excelsior fn omitted from publication ] 5 The Life System Division manufactures respirators The business Man- agement Systems Division manufactures data entry systems The Instru- ment Division manufactures acceleration measuring devices. The Trimpot Division manufactures a device called a potentiometer which is used to "trim" electronic circuits. 6 Cases 21-RC-9832, 21-RC-10541, and 21-RC-10575 7 See Sec. 9(c)(5) of the Act which provides that "the extent to which employees have organized shall not be controlling" in determining units appropriate for collective bargaining. See also the observations of the Ninth Circuit in The May Department Stores Company v. N.L.R B., 454 F 2d 148 (1972), cert denied 409 U S 888, with respect to the history of attempts to unionize the employees of an employer. the establishment of uniform job descriptions,9 and the maintenance of personnel and payroll records. The Employer maintains a single master wage schedule for all four plants. Employees' benefits, including holidays, vacation, overtime premiums, and profit sharing, are the same for all four plants. Layoffs and recall are controlled by a common seniority system.' 10 The Em- ployer has a common grievance procedure under which all grievances beyond the first step are centrally admin- istered. Standard work and safety rules are established for all four plants. Recreational and social activities sponsored by the Employer are on the basis of all four plants as a single group. The same credit union serves all four plants. The administration of the Riverside plants as a single entity is reflected in other matters. There is centralized purchasing and advertising. Repairs, telephone switch- board, medical services, company cars and shuttle serv- ice for material and personnel, supply forms, etc., are all provided centrally. Guard services are furnished for the four plants under a single contract. A single ac- counting function controls and monitors the combined activities of the Riverside plants in tandem with the single data processing center. Although the end prod- uct produced at each plant may differ, there- is a degree of dependency in the production process. As an exam- ple, the Instrument Division performs heat-treating and environmental testing for Trimpot, and Trimpot in turn furnishes X-ray inspection and plastic parts re- quired by the Instrument Division. Also, the develop- ment of products is closely linked with the plants. Thus, the basic element in the Instrument Division products is a potentiometric device which was origi- 5 The majority appears to view it of considerable significance that the Employer follows the not uncommon practice of ascertaining the reaction of the foreman of the applicant's prospective department before making a final decision as to hiring or assignment to that particular department I do not deem that such a departmental interview furnishes a basis for a separate unit finding. See Gould, Inc (Advanced Technology Group), 206 NLRB 312 (1973). I view as more significant that if an applicant applies directly to the plant, he cannot be hired. He must be referred to the central employment section at Trimpot where he would be screened and his application consid- ered in relation to jobs at all the plants. Thus, the initial as well as the final selection of the particular plant to which an applicant is to be assigned is a matter of determination by the central employment section 9 The Employer maintains identical job descriptions for at least 50 percent of the work functions in the four plants. 10 Upon transfer from one Riverside facility to another, the transferring employee carries his seniority with him if assigned to the same basic job classification The senior laid-off employee, irrespective of the plant from which he was laid off, is offered the first opening in his classification. Also, the procedures for bidding for open jobs in the Riverside facilities are the same Every vacant job is posted on the bulletin boards of all plants and all employees afforded the same opportunity to bid irrespective of their particu- lar plant assignment. In an effort to minimize the effect of the Employer's divisionwide seni- ority policy, the majority opinion observes that employees "could not 'bump' similarly classified employees with lesser seniority at other divi- sions " Such observation is misleading because the layoff policy does not permit bumping even within the same plant. In other words, a surplus em- ployee has precisely the same seniority rights throughout the four Riverside plants that he does at the one in which he is working. 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nally developed and is still being modified in the Trim- pot Division. Potentiometers are manufactured at both the Trimpot and Instrument Divisions . Another exam- ple is a device needed by Life System Division for pres- sure measurement which was designed by the Instru- ment Division. The majority opinion concludes that "The evidence regarding transfers or interchange of personnel be- tween the divisions is not . . . substantial and does not alter the separate identity or community of interest of the Instrument Division employees." The evidence shows that there were 24 transfers during the 3-month period immediately preceding the hearing which pro- jects to approximately 100 transfers per year. I am puzzled as to what would constitute substantial in a reasonably stable work force. Furthermore , the record shows that in emergency or overload situations there is interchange and loan of employees between the plants. In view of the common benefits and working condi- tions that prevail for all employees of the Riverside operation, the reference in the majority opinion to "separate identity or community of interest" presuma- bly must relate to the geographic separation of the plants. However, this cluster of plants all located in the city of Riverside are clearly within the geographic proximity that the Board has found acceptable in hold- ing that multiplant facilities constitute an appropriate 11 unit. The geographic proximity of the four plants, the substantial degree of integration in operations, and the community of interest shared by employees with com- mon benefits and working conditions support the Re- gional Director's finding that a unit limited to the In- strument Division plant is inappropriate. When coupled with the exceptionally high degree of centrali- zation in industrial relations and personnel matters and attending lack of autonomy in this area on the in- dividual plant level, I find no justification for reversal of the Regional Director's decision. The unit found by my colleagues has no "relevancy to the circumstances within which collective bargaining is to take place" and would undermine rather than foster efficient and stable collective bargaining." I E.g., Tungsten Contact Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, 189 NLRB 22 (1971) (35 miles); AMF Cuno Division, AMFlncorporated, 205 NLRB 984 (1973) (18 miles). 12 See Kalamazoo Paper Box Corporation, 136 NLRB 134, 137 (1962)