Beecham Products

BEECHAM PDUC ISI 73 1 Beecham Products, Division of Beecham, Inc. and District Lodge 15, International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 22-RC-8068 August 27, 1980 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS ANI) PENII O On January 11, 1980, the Regional Director for Region 22 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion in this proceeding in which he found appropri- ate for collective bargaining a unit limited to main- tenance employees including machine mechanics, machine service employees, and building mainte- nance employees at the Employer's Clifton, New Jersey, facility. Thereafter, the Employer filed a timely request for review, alleging that 49 of the approximately 61 employees in the petitioned-for unit have a closer community of interest with the production employees than they do with the 12 employees in the building maintenance department. On February 4, 1980, the Board granted the Em- ployer's request for 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 had considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review and makes the following findings: The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of health and beauty aids. The Employer employs approximately 440 production employees as well as the 61 maintenance employees the Peti- tioner seeks to represent. The Employer's produc- tion and maintenance operations are divided into two primary departments, production headed by the plant superintendent, and building maintenance headed by the plant engineer. Reporting to the plant superintendent are the manufacturing man- ager, two machine maintenance supervisors, and the packaging manager. Under the manufacturing manager are 2 foremen, 47 compounders, and 3 janitors. Under the 2 machine maintenance supervi- sors are 31 machine maintenance mechanics and 11 machine service employees. Under the packing manager there are 33 charge hands, 258 packaging operators, 33 material handlers, an ALP mechanic foreman,' 6 ALP mechanics, and 7 janitors. Re- porting to the plant engineer is the building mainte- ' Ihc parcs NNi pulated that tilhe Al I' forclan i a lead nlplioc ernd not a uptr.isor ilhlll Ihe naing of St 2 I of the Act Ihe Al I' machiric Is all autiliatice hlo r. mruldillg, platic xrltriill n mlhillch " hal molds platic hotiles ad fill ther i lite artim e tite 251 NLRB No. 95 nance supervisor and the electrical supervisor who supervise the seven building maintenance mechan- ics, three electricians, and two machinists. The Employer's Clifton, New Jersey, facility is divided into three sections, administrative. ware- housing, and production, with warehousing and production occupying 40 percent and 50 percent of the facility, respectively. The production facilities operate on two shifts. There are 18 packaging line spaces and each packaging line is staffed by ma- chine operators, charge hands, machine mechanics, and packers. On the first shift, several of the ma- chine mechanics report to work an-half hour early to set up and start up the machines. The remainder of the mechanics and the line crew members report at the regular starting time. The mechanics, while on their assigned line, maintain the machinery, see that the lines operate properly, assist the operators, and, when necessary, fine tune the timing mecha- nisms. The mechanics and service employees on the second shift perform the same functions, but because the machines are running when they report, there is no need for early reporting as is re- quired on the first shift. The mechanics and ma- chine service employees spend 90 percent and 100 percent of their time, respectively, on the produc- tion floor; the ALP mechanics are required to be in the area at all times that the ALP machines are running. All mechanics, machine service employ- ees, and the ALP mechanics are supervised by pro- duction department supervisors who report to the plant superintendent. Building maintenance employees perform skilled work such as welding, carpentry, electrical wiring, and painting. They are supervised by the building maintenance and electrical supervisors, both of whom report to the plant engineer. The building maintenance employees and the two machinists work out of the maintenance shop which is located in the warehouse area and is equipped with drill presses, lathes, saws, and other equipment. They perform their building maintenance duties in all areas of the Employer's facility, including the ad- ministrative offices. They also work on the packag- ing lines when a major overhaul is required or a major breakdown occurs. The Regional Director found that the petitioned- for maintenance employees share a community of interest among themselves and constitute a separate appropriate unit under Vernon Dyestuff Division, Mobay Chemical Corporation, 225 NLRB 1159 (1976). In so finding, the Regional Director relied on evidence that maintenance employees perform maintenance work only and that production and warehouse employees perform no maintenance work, that the maintenance and production em- IIEECHAM I'RODtrCIS 31 ..... .... , . . _ 732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees have different job classifications, and that the degree of interchange between the two groups is not large. Also, he pointed out that maintenance work is supervised by maintenance supervisors who have no control over production employees. We find merit in the Employer's contention that the petitioned-for employees do not constitute a separate appropriate unit. Thus, the record shows that the mechanics and machine service employees report directly to the production line to which they are assigned. Indeed, several of them are as- signed to set up and start up the production lines before the production employees arrive. These em- ployees work alongside of, and are in constant con- tact with, production line employees. All mainte- nance and production employees are hourly paid and share common benefits. Seniority is plantwide and maintenance employees can bump into produc- tion jobs to avoid layoff. As to their "separate" su- pervision by "maintenance supervisors," such su- pervision is only at the first level, but is within the production supervisory hierarchy. By comparison, the building maintenance employees are supervised by the maintenance supervisors who report to the plant engineer. In addition not all of the machine mechanics and machine service employees are highly skilled. They are not required to possess any previous experience for entry level positions. Nor are they required to have had any formal training. Instead, they are hired based on their potential and given on-the-job training with progression to the higher grades based on time-in-grade and experi- ence. In this respect we note that approximately 25 percent of the mechanics and machine service em- ployees progressed into these positions from the production ranks. Further, although the mechanics and machine service employees are primarily en- gaged in mechanical maintenance, their mainte- nance work is wholly connected with the operation of the production equipment and such duties are an integral part of the production process. In sum, we find that the maintenance unit sought herein is not composed of a distinct and homogene- ous group of employees with interests separate from those of other employees. In so finding, we rely on, in particular, evidence that the machine mechanics and machine service employees spend almost all of their time on the production floor in contact with production employees and perform duties which are an integral apart of the produc- tion process. Furthermore, the machine mechanics and machine service employees are supervised by supervisors who report to the plant manager in charge of production. By contrast, the building maintenance employees, unlike the machine me- chanics and machine service employees, on the whole, possess craft skills and are supervised by the plant engineer in charge of maintenance. Finally, we note that the machine mechanics and machine service employees do not interchange or regularly work with the building maintenance employees. Hence, we find that a maintenance unit including the machine mechanics and machine service em- ployees is inappropriate.2 Finally, we note that the Petitioner did not ex- press a desire to participate in an election in a unit other than the petitioned-for unit. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed. CHAIRMAN FANNING, dissenting: For the reasons set forth in the Regional Direc- tor's decision, I dissent from my colleagues' deci- sion in this case. I would find that the Petitioner's requested unit of maintenance employees consti- tutes an appropriate unit and would direct an elec- tion in that unit. 2 See Monsanto Company, 183 NLRB 415 (1970). Verona Dyestuff supra, relied on by the Regional Director, is clearly distinguishable by the separate supervisory hierarchy for maintenance and production employees and the absence of any indication that certain maintenance employees were regularly assigned to the production floor to perform work which was an integral part of the production process.