Eastern Container Corp.

EASTERN CONTAINER CORP Eastern Container Corporation and General Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Building Materials, Heavy and Highway Con- struction Employees Local Union 404, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, -Petitioner. Case 1-RC-18339 27 August 1985 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS Upon a petition filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer William A. Hurley. Follow- ing the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, and by direction of the Acting Regional Director for Region 1, this case was transferred to the Board for decision. Thereafter, the, Employer and the Pe- titioner filed briefs. The National L abor Relations Board has dele- gated its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board affirms the hearing officer's rulings, finding them free from prejudicial error. On the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization which claims to represent certain employees of the Em- ployer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employ- er within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of eight employees, six maintenance mechanics and two licensed boiler firemen, who constitute the Employer's maintenance department at its Spring- field, Massachusetts facility, excluding all other em- ployees. Specifically, the Petitioner contends that the maintenance department employees, while not a craft unit, possess a distinct set of duties and skills that separates them from the production unit em- ployees. The Petitioner also asserts that, in any event, these employees constitute a residual group of employees not sought by the representative of the production unit employees, International Union 1537 of Electronic, Electrical, Technical, Salaried and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC (the IUE).1 The Employer contends that the petitioned-for unit is inappropriate and the only appropriate unit consists of an overall production and maintenance unit, a total of 160 employees. The Employer fur- ther contends that the maintenance employees do not constitute a residual unit as they are only a part of the unrepresented employees at the plant. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture; sale, and distribution of corrugated fibreboard boxes at its Springfield facility. The Employer em- ploys approximately 200 people in 3 administrative divisions: sales, administration, and finance, and production. The maintenance department is within the production division. The employer's production employees have been represented by the IUE since 1955. A collective- bargaining agreement is currently in effect. There is no history of collective bargaining for the main- tenance employees.2 Production and maintenance employees work ba- sically the same three shifts. In addition, the corru- gator machine operators, as well as two mainte- nance classifications, the boiler fireman and one mechanic, work on two shifts that overlap the basic shifts. Maintenance employees spend "about 90 percent of their time on the production floor. Their pri- mary responsibility is to perform machine setups and make various adjustments or repairs to keep production equipment in operating condition. The mechanics are often assisted by the machine opera- tors in making adjustments. After repairs are com- pleted mechanics will run the machine to ensure it operates smoothly. Production employees do per- form simple preventive maintenance on the equip- ment. Complicated machine maintenance or instal- lations and building construction work are per- formed by outside contractors. - The Employer requires no special training or skills for either maintenance or production employ- ees. Only the boiler firemen are licensed by the State. The Employer provides the necessary tools and on-the-job training. The maintenance and pro- duction employees are hourly paid, and the pay scale for both groups is comparable. Except for pension benefits, which production employees re- ceive under their collective-bargaining agreement, both groups receive the same fringe benefits. ' The IUE was advised of the filing of the petition and the hearing, but chose not to intervene 2 The IUE petitioned to represent the maintenance employees as part of the existing production unit in Case i-RC-18054 The IUE lost the election conducted on 15 December 1983 275 NLRB No. 215 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1538 - In the circumstances of this case, we find the pe- titioned-for maintenance unit is appropriate. In doing so, we need not determine whether the main- tenance employees have a community of interest separate from the production unit because we find the unit appropriate even if they do not. Thus, the parties have stipulated that all unrepre- sented employees; other than the maintenance em- ployees, should be excluded. from either the peti- tioned-for unit or a combined production and main- tenance unit. As the maintenance employees are the only unrepresented employees who could ap- propriately be included in the production unit; and the IUE does not seek to represent them, we find the petitioned-for unit appropriate as a residual unit, whether or not the maintenance employees enjoy a separate ,community of interest from the {, , production employees. 3 < Accordingly, we shall direct an'election in the following unit: . A11 full-time maintenance mechanics, f remen and maintenance employees, excluding all other employees, including all production em- ployees, foremen, supervisors, office 'clerical employees, salesmen, shipping and -receiving department employees, and guards as defined in the Act. _ [Direction -of Election omitted from publication] 3 See S D Warren Co, 114 NLRB 410, 411 (1955) The Acting Regional Director transferred This case to the Board be- cause of a perceived conflict between our decisions in Franklin Mint Corp, 254 NLRB 714 (1981), finding appropriate a maintenance employ- ee only unit, and Armco, Inc, 271 NLRB 350 (1984), in which a metallur- gy department employee unit was found inappropriate We need not, however, address whether there is any inconsistency between the two cases, because the Board 's determination in both rested on a factual com- munity-of-interest analysis Unlike the' instant` case, there was no issue whether the employees in either requested unit constituted an appropriate residual unit I