American Locomotive Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 16, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 274 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of' AMERICAN LOCOMOTIVE . CoMIi>ANY and ,UNITED:
.. STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA; C. I. O.
'Case" No. ^-R-5576.-Decided October J6, '195
Messrs: `John, L. Farrell and T. B. 1Palker ;' of New York C ity;' and
Messrs. ' D. T. Colenwn and J. J. Smith, ofSchenectady ,' N: Y., for'.
the' Company.
-Messrs. Daniel 'P1 Sheehan`,,fhd,David'D :'Hughes ; of Schenectady,'
N. 'Y., for the -Union.:
,Mr: Heriiian'Gold'b'erg,'of-counsel,to the Board.
;I, DECISION
{'. , •.r -I ''AND ' :1' I'^''--
DIRECTION. OF ELECTION z .,: 1 • .. ' '
STATEMENT OF TIIE " CASE
: , Y i i ' ' 1 . /b' . - . •
,.'UpofI:.p4tition,duly,filed b y United'Steelworkers,ofAmerica, C. •I.O:,
herein called the Union, alleging_,thatra;-question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of American
Locomotive Company, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Cyril O'Gorman, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at
Schenectady, New York, on July 9, 1945. The Company and the
Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
'e,vidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
All parties were afforded opportunity to" file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF TIIE COMPANY
American Locomotive Company is a corporation having its princi-
pal office in New York City. It operates a plant, at Schenectady, New
York, solely involved herein, where it is engaged in the manufacture
of locomotives and locomotive parts. During the past year, the value
64 N. L. R. B, No 48.
274
AMERICAN LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY 275
-of-the Schenectady plant's sales of finished' products exceeded $1,000,-
000, of which 75 per cent was shipped to places outside the State of
New York. During the, past year, the Company purchased materials,'
consisting chiefly of iron and steel, valued' in excess of $1,000,000; of
which 75 ,percent was shipped to the Schenectady plant front places
located outside the State,of New York.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean
in g of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION. INVOLVED -
d United Steelworker`s of America'` is" a' labor org tnizz,dion 'affiliated
with the Congress-of Industrial Orgiinviltions,•achnittiiig to Ineuiber-
ship employees of the Company.
III. TILE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION'
The Company refuses to recognize the Union as the collective bar-.
gaining representative of its safety engineers. niaintaining, Hutt a unit
composed of safety engineers is u,ot_approprlate for the purposes of,
collective bargaining.
A statement of a Field Examiner, ;of the Board,, introduced into
evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a sub-,
stantial number- of ,employees,iii the un,it,.liereinafter, found' to be
appropriate.' ' 0 _ 1 " : h
We find that a,duestiori affecting.,coinmerce has arisen concerning,
the representation of employees•of;the Company,,witbifl the nleanmg.
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (G), and (7) of the Act.
• IV. TILE APPROPRIATE UNIT
T Ie Union contends that all safety engineers; excluding the head
and assistant Bead's of the safety department, constitute an..appro
priate bargaining unit. The Company contends that the sitfety engi-
neers are representatives of management' and,: therefore, a unit com-
posed of these persons would not-con•stitute•an appropriate unit for
collective bargaining under the Act.
About November, 1944, the, Compan}i established a safety -depart-'
ment and employed an experienced';safety engineer: to. head it. Pro- -
.duction.employees'classified as assistant foremen 'who had devoted
part of their time to safety work .were used to staff the department.
These.enlployees were, relieved, of their production duties;, and became
known as safety engineers.2 , Insofar as the safety; department. is, con-
The Field Examiner reported that the Union , submitted ' 12, authorization , cards, and
that there were 18, employees within the alleged appropriate unit. - -
',It appears that the Company continued to classify them formally as assistant foremen
11
nd to pay them on a monthly basis. . ,,,
ECISIONS , OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD276 ' DECISION ,'
cerned, the plant is divided into two zones, each under the immediate
supervision of an assistant to-the head of the safety department.'
Safety engineers are assigned to work in these two zones.
The primary .duty of the safety engineers is to "sell safety" and
"promote safety consciousness" among the employees. To accomplish
this purpose they tour the premises of the Company in the area to
which they are assigned,,observing,lplant.hazards. Although they are
given the authority to stop production' and remove employees from
their jobs when they observe equipment or operations which affect
plant safety, they are under specific orders to confer with production
supervisors to instruct them in safety practices and to discuss with
them means whereby hazards may be corrected. Should the produc-
tion supervisors disagree with the safety engineers that operations
are jeopardizing safety, the safety engineers nevertheless have the
authority to discontinue the operations. In such cases they would
report their difficulties to their zone supervisors in the safety depart-
ment as well as to the assistant superintendent who has jurisdiction
over the shop. To date, however, the safety engineers have had no
occasion to invoke this procedure, all matters having been disposed
of amicably between themselves and,the production supervisors.
Th safety:engineers do not haveaz,thority to,hire or discharge, nor
do they have direct supervision over either the production super-'
visors or the ordinary workers. The record discloses that the produc-
tion supervisors continue to exercise complete supervision over pro
duction employees. It does not appear that the safety engineers have
a voice in determining the Company's labor relations policy ; although
they attend safety meetings, the matters discussed apparently do not
directly concern labor relations. _ There was general-testimony by the
head, of the safety department,; that,, when necessary, the safety en-,-
'kin iers€ive the authority:.to.recoinlneild.tb!e,di iciplining of employees
who repeatedly commit infractions of 'rules pertaining to plant safety.
However, the record does not reveal any instance where such recom-
mendations were actually made. It is significant, despite the powers
vested in the safety engineers, that the Company at all times stresses'
that the primary duty of the safety engineers is to instruct employees
in safety practices and that they are to use diplomatic measures to
attain this end. It is apparent from the entire record that safety
-engineers do not have supervisory authority in the accepted sense,
but are merely technical experts entirely interested in promoting
safety. We are of the opinion that they are neither supervisory nor
managerial"eiployees.
a The record discloses that they are known as east -side and west - side supervisors.
This is done by putting a "tag ," signed by the general superintendent, on a machine
,The machine may not be used- until after the necessary correction has been made and the
tag is removed by the safety department.
AMERICAN LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY 277 ;
We find that all safety engineers of the Company's Schenectady,
New York, plant, excluding the head and assistant heads of the safety
department, and all other supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. TIIE DETERIIINAT[ON OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question'concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by means of an election by secret ballot among
the employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of
Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as' part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with American Locomo-
tive Company, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early
as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for the Second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10
and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
,unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed dur-
ing the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direc-
tion, including employees who did not work during said,pay-roll period
because theywere ill or on vacation-or temporarily laidoff,.and includ-
ing employees in the armed forces of the United States who present
themselves in person at the polls, but excluding any who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not
they desire to be represented by United Steelworkers of America,
C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Mgt. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of,Election.
i