Acme Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1233 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

ACME ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1233
priate unit. If, on the other hand, a majority of the professional
employees in voting group (B) vote against inclusion in the tech-
nical unit, they will not be included with the technical employees and
their votes on the second question will then be counter to decide
whether or not they wish to be represented by the Petitioner in a sep-
arate professional unit.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
ACME ELECTRIC CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRI-
CAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER
ACME ELECTRIC CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 3-RC-1109
and 3-RC-11°5. February 10, 1953
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Katherine Tarbell, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL,
hereinafter called IBEW, seeks a unit consisting of all production
and maintenance employees at the Employer's 3 plants-1 in Alle-
gany, New York, and 2 in Cuba, New York. The International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, hereinafter
called IUE, seeks a unit consisting of the production and maintenance
employees at the two Cuba plants only, contending that these plants,
102 NLRB No. 107.
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on the one hand, and the plant in Allegany, on the other, constitute
separate appropriate units. The Employer and IBEW contend that
only an employerwide unit is appropriate.
There has been no history of collective bargaining for the Employ-
er's plants. Two consent elections, one in 1946 and the other in 1951,
were held for the Cuba plants as a single unit, but the majority of
the votes at both elections were cast for no union.
The Employer's plants in Cuba are located within 11/2 blocks of
each other. The main plant on Water Street has approximately 600
employees. At the adjacent plant, which is called the Air Cool plant,
there are about 60 employees. The Employer has approximately
200 employees at the Allegany plant.
The Allegany plant is approximately 20 miles from the other 2
plants. There is no regular interchange or transfer of employees
between the Cuba plants and the Allegany plant. Although hiring
for the latter plant is done locally, all other matters pertaining to
labor relations at the three plants are handled by the industrial rela-
200 employees at the Allegany plant.
At the Water Street plant the Employer manufactures battery
chargers and various types of transformers. Forty percent of the
coils used at that plant for assembly into transformers are "wound"
at the Allegany plant and shipped to the Water Street plant. The
Allegany plant, in addition to these coils, manufactures two items for
military use-ignition coils for aircraft engines and radio interfer-
ence filters for tanks and jeeps. The Air Cool plant in Cuba manu-
factures only air-cool transformers. Products manufactured at the
Air Cool and Allegany plants are shipped to and from the Water
Street plant at different stages of production for various processing
operations which can be performed only at the Water Street plant.
Over 80 percent of the raw material purchased by the Employer
is first delivered to the Water Street plant and later distributed, as
needed, to the other two plants. The shipping department at the
Water Street plant ships the finished products from all three plants
to the Employer's customers, with the exception of the two military
items which are shipped directly from the Allegany plant. All rec-
ords of purchases and, with the exception of the military items, all
records of shipment are maintained on an employerwide basis.
All general office services for the three plants are performed at the
Water Street plant, where the Employer's main offices are located.
All time-study work, major maintenance work, designing and engi-
neering, accounting, payroll, and sales functions for the three plants
are performed by the Water Street staff. A plant superintendent is
in charge of the manufacturing operations for all the plants, with
plant managers at each plant under his supervision. The employees
ACME ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1235
at the three plants have the same working conditions , including sen-
iority, transfer, and grievance provisions, vacation benefits, and
holidays.
In view of the foregoing, particularly the integration of the opera-
tions of all three plants, the centralized control of labor relations, and
the uniformity of working conditions, we find that a unit consisting
of the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
three plants is alone appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act.' We shall,
therefore, dismiss the petition filed by IUE and direct an election
in the following unit :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
three plants at Cuba and Allegany, New York, including production
recorders, timekeepers, factory clericals, and stock-control clerks, but
excluding all office and clerical employees, professional employees,
administrative employees, watchmen, foremen, and all other super-
visors as defined in the Act .2
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 3-RC-1109 be
dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
1 Riegal Paper Corporation , 96 NLRB 779; Phillips-Jones Corporation , 96 NLRB 153.
2IUE contends that "assistant supervisors" and "general utility operators" should be
excluded as supervisors . The Employer and IBEW contend that they are not supervisors
and should be included.
The record is clear , and we find , that only three of the assistant supervisors-4loeske,
McClay, and Hameister-have authority to hire and discharge employees or effectively
to recommend such action We find, therefore, that they are supervisors and will exclude
them As to the remaining assistant supervisors , about 32 in number , the record shows
that they spend 80 to 85 percent of their time in production work While there was some
testimony indicating that most of them direct the work of other employees, there is no
basis in the record for determining the extent or nature of such direction . Under these
circumstances , we will permit the assistant supervisors , other than the three named
above, to vote subject to challenge
As to the general utility operators, the only evidence bearing on their status as super-
visors is that some of them direct the work of other employees . Accordingly, we shall
permit the general utility operators , as well , to vote subject to challenge . IBEW sought
to include in the unit "group leaders" and "working supervisors ." The record shows that
no employees are presently classified as group leaders or working supervisors and that
these terms have reference to the assistant supervisors and general utility operators dis-
cussed above Accordingly, we will omit from the unit description any reference to group
leaders and working supervisors.
The parties agreed to exclude "foremen" and "supervisors " As to the foremen, the
record shows that they do no production work , devoting all their time to directing the
work of from 20 to 200 employees Under these circumstances , and upon the entire
record, we find that they are supervisors and will exclude them . As the employees classified
as supervisors do no production work and have power effectively to recommend hiring and
discharge of employees , we will exclude them , also, as supervisors within the meaning of
the Act.