Barber-Colman Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 17, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 478 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Barber-Colman Company and United Automobile , Aircraft and
Agricultural Implement Workers, AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Case
No. 13-RC-7404. February 17, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William D. Boetticher, hear-
ing 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 Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and Kimball].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved herein claims to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer, a manufacturer of machines, motors, tools, air
distribution equipment, and other hardware, moves to dismiss the peti-
tion on the ground that the authorization cards submitted in support
of the petition are of doubtful validity and authenticity in that they
allegedly do not comply with previous standards applied by the
Board. The Board has frequently and consistently held that the suffi-
ciency of a petitioner's showing of interest, including questions relat-
ing to the nature of the authorization cards submitted, is a matter for
administrative determination, not litigable in a representation hear-
ing.2 Moreover, we are administratively satisfied that the authoriza-
tion cards submitted herein comply with the Board's requirements,
and that the Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest in the unit
herein found appropriate. Accordingly, the Employer's motion to
dismiss the petition on the ground of the inadequancy of the showing
of interest is denied.' We find that a question affecting commerce
i The Employer excepts to the hearing officer's excluding from evidence a letter from the
Petitioner's organizing committee addressed to all employees and detailing the results of
previous unsuccessful organizing attempts at its plants . As the matters contained in the
letter are not directly material to the issues here before the Board , were in fact covered
by other evidence at the hearing , and are in any event matters of which we can take
judicial notice as they involve other Board proceedings , we find that it was not prejudicial
error to reject the letter . Accordingly , we sustain the hearing officer's ruling. Cf.
General Shoe Corporation , 113 NLRB 905.
2 See International Furniture Company, 119 NLRB 1462 , 1463 ; Potomac Electric Power
Company, 111 NLRB 553, 554.
2 The Employer contends that the Board should regnire more than a 30-percent showing
of interest in situations like the present one where the Petitioner has over the past 10 years
lost three Board-conducted elections for employees in the unit herein found appropriate.
We find no merit in this contention . Clearly, under the Act the Petitioner was entitled to
proceed to a Board -conducted election in a given appropriate unit three times over a
10-year period. See Section 9(c)(3) of the Act We do not believe that the exercise of
130 NLRB No. 51.
BARBER-COLMAN COMPANY 479
exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's three Rockford, Illinois, plants only, while
the Employer contends that the unit should also embrace its Milton
Junction, Wisconsin, facility which is located 43 miles away. All four
plants use the same materials and perform similar functions; only the
spinning operation is unique to the Milton Junction plant. All four
locations share common supervision, executive management, and pro-
curement, and are subjected to identical management, personnel, and
labor relations policies which are determined at the main office in
Rockford. There is some interchange between the various locations
and all employees receive similar benefits. Milton Junction hires
locally because of its location, while hiring for the other plants is
done at the central personnel office. Under these circumstances we
find that the requested unit limited to three plants is not appropriate
but, rather, in view of the functional integration of operations and
centralized management of labor matters that a four-plant unit is
appropriate.'
The parties are substantially in agreement on the composition of the
appropriate unit, except that the Petitioner would exclude, while the
Employer would include, the time clerks, cafeteria workers, expedi-
ters, dispatchers, superintendent's clerks, and personnel improvement
employees.
Time clerks : The 30 time clerks, who function as part of the payroll
department, work at desks in production areas verifying total hours
worked and time consumed on specific projects by production em-
ployees. They are hourly paid and receive benefits similar to em-
ployees included in the unit. We find that they are plant clerical em-
ployees and shall include them.5
Cafeteria employees: The cafeteria employees, do not interchange
with other workers and are separately supervised, prepare and serve
food in the plants and have the same employment benefits as other
employees. In accordance with Board policy we shall include them
in the unit.'
Expediters and dispatchers: These two classifications possess simi-
lar duties and functions. The 15 to 20 expediters, who are under the
material control department, maintain and coordinate an efficient and
that right can now be used to prejudice the Petitioner in this case by requiring it to make,
as the Employer requests, a 50-percent showing of interest. Furthermore , it is the elec-
tion, not the showing, which is to determine the Union's majority status.
" See J Heber Lewis Oil Company, Inc., et at, 123 NLRB 1115, 1116.
5 See 31array Ohio Manufacturing Co., Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, Division, 118 NLRB
1027, 1028.
6 See Solar Electric Corporation, 128 NLRB 35.
480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
adequate flow of material to production areas. The 8 to 10 dispatchers
work in the production control department and arrange the sequence
of production on different projects among the various departments.
Both classifications receive the same fringe benefits as other employees,
and spend all their time in production areas. In view of the foregoing
and the entire record, we find that they are plant clerical employees
and shall include them.'
Superintendent's clerks : The 5 to 10 superintendent's clerks, who
work in an office in the shop area, file, type, and perform other clerical
tasks relating to production. They handle no confidential infor-
mation, are hourly paid, and receive employment benefits similar to
employees included in the unit. Accordingly, we find them to be plant
clerical employees and as their conditions of employment are similar
to production employees we shall include them 8
Personnel improvement employees: There are 16 employees working
in various production departments as part of an experimental
employee-improvement program which is designed to last for several
years. The purpose of the program is to provide certain production
and maintenance employees with a diversity of experience in many of
the operations in the Employer's plants so that the employees will be
qualified for higher skilled or other types of upgraded positions from
those they currently fill. Their work in the program may also be the
basis for a promotion to a supervisory position. But there is no assur-
ance that any particular employee in the program will in fact become
a supervisor and none of them at the time of the hearing possessed any
supervisory authority. On the contrary, they were all engaged in
work similar to that performed by other employees included in the
unit. In view of the foregoing we find that their interests and con-
ditions of employment are similar to those of other production and
maintenance employees and we shall, therefore, include them.'
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Rock-
ford, Illinois, and Milton Junction, Wisconsin, plants, including lead-
men, shippers and packers, stock clerks, inspectors, outside
truckdrivers, garage employees, time clerks, dispatchers, expediters,
superintendent's clerks, cafeteria employees, personnel improvement
employees, experimental shop workers, but excluding foremen, assist-
ant foremen, powerhouse employees, time-study men, outside service-
men, installers and demonstrators, engineering department employees,
' See Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722, 725-726.
8 See Ltilliston Implement Co ., 121 NLRB 868, 870
Y See United States Rubber Company, 113 NLRB 746, 749; U S Radium Corporation,
122 NLRB 468, 470-471.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 481
experimental department employees, office clerical employees, techni-
cal employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election 10 omitted from publication.]
11 As we have directed an election in a larger unit than that requested by the Petitioner,
we shall permit the Petitioner to withdraw from the election upon written notice to the
Regional Director, within 10 days from the date of this decision.
General Motors Corporation and International Union , United
Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW-AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-2560. February 20,
1961
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW-AFL-CIO, herein called UAW, the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the
Seventh Region, issued a complaint and notice of hearing, dated De-
cember 14, 1959, and an amended complaint and notice of hearing,
dated January 27, 1960, alleging that the Respondent, General Motors
Corporation, herein called GM, had engaged in and was engaging in
certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the complaint and notice
of hearing, as amended, were duly served upon the Respondent and
the UAW.
The amended complaint alleges, in substance, that on or about
October 27, 1959, GM refused and continuously to date has refused to
comply with a request of the UAW, the exclusive representative of
GM employees in an appropriate unit, to bargain concerning terms
of an agreement supplementary to an existing agreement between the
parties.
The Respondent's answer, in effect, admits the factual allegations
of the amended complaint, but denies the commission of any unfair
labor practice.
On February 10, 1960, a hearing was held in Detroit, Michigan,
before Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley. The General Counsel,
the UAW, GM, and the Intervenor 1 appeared. In addition to testi-
mony taken, all the parties entered into -a stipulation of facts ; they
waived the preparation and issuance of an Intermediate Report, and
1 The Intervenor is a group of GM employees in the appropriate unit who are opposed to
the DAW's proposed supplemental agreement . The intervention was limited to the filing
of briefs and oral argument.
130 NLRB No. 54.
597254-61-vol. 130-32