Beatrice Foods Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 883 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

UNITED FINISH DIV., BEATRICE FOODS 883
United Finish Division of the Chemical Division of
Beatrice Foods Co . and International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case 1-RC-13693
February 13, 1976
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered determinitive chal-
lenges in an election held on April 23, 1975,' and the
Regional Director's report recommending disposi-
tion of same. The Board has reviewed the record 2 in
light of the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts
the Regional Director's finding and recommenda-
tions.'
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have not been cast for International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO,
and that said labor organization is not the exclusive
representative of all the employees, in the unit herein
i The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election The tally was- twenty for, and twenty against, the
Petitioner; there were four challenged ballots.
2 In accordance with Sec 102 69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, which defines the record herein, consideration of any
evidence available to the parties and not timely presented to the Regional
Director is foreclosed. The affidavit of Nadine Hurd, dated June 18, 1975,
presented originally with Petitioner's brief in support of its exceptions and
any arguments based thereon have therefore not been considered in reach-
m^ our decision.
Member Fanning, dissenting in part, would find that the challenges to
the ballots of Naugle and Hurd should be overruled and the two employees
should be included in the bargaining unit, on grounds that "their duties are
an integral part of the Employer's production process " We disagree.
It is true that Naugle and Hurd are connected with the production pro-
cess by virtue of the fact that they test samples of products. However,
whether an employee should be included in a production and maintenance
unit depends not on whether the employee'sjob has some relationship to the
production process but on whether the employee shares a community of
interest with those in the bargaining unit. The unit placement of quality
control employees depends on their location and working relationship with
production and maintenance employees. Where, as here, they are separately
located, under separate supervision, and do not have regular contact with
production employees, they are excluded from production and maintenance
units. Compare Arkansas Grain Corporation, 163 NLRB 625 (1967), and
Ambrosia Chocolate Division of W R Grace & Company, 202 NLRB 788
(1973). The facts in the instant case are like those in Arkansas Grain, on
which the Regional Director relied. Therefore, we adopt the Regional
Director's finding that Naugle and Hurd do not share a community of
interest with the unit employees, and we hereby sustain the challenges to
their ballots.
involved, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
MEMBER FANNING, concurring in part and dissenting
in part:
I concur with the majority position insofar as it
adopts the finding of the Regional Director that the
challenges to the ballots of McGowan and Sovie be
sustained. I also concur with the majority's refusal to
consider the evidence presented in Hurd's affidavit,
for the reasons stated in footnote 2 of the majority
opinion. However, I dissent from the majority's
adoption of the finding of the Regional Director that
the challenges to Hurd and Naugle should be sus-
tained.
Hurd and Nangle are quality control technicians
who work in the Employer's laboratory performing
various tests on all of the Employer's products, and
are responsible for the quality control of these prod-
ucts. They are supervised by chemist Edward Weis-
lik, who brings samples of products for testing from
the production department. If a product does not
meet specifications, Weislik confers with production
to correct the error.
In order to be quality control technicians, these
employees must be high school graduates, although
no previous training or chemistry courses are re-
quired. They are trained on the job in approximately
6 months.
In sustaining the challenges to the ballots of Nan-
gle and Hurd, the Regional Director cited factors
which he believed compelled a finding that they did
not share a sufficient community of interest with the
production and maintenance employees included in
the unit. Such factors included: the separate nature
of Nangle's and Hurd's work, their long training pe-
riod, the absence of personal interchange with the
production employees, separate supervision, and sep-
arate physical location.
Although such factors are considered by the Board
in determining inclusion in bargaining units, I be-
lieve that other factors cited by the Regional Direc-
tor suggest that Nangle and Hurd do share a suffi-
cient community of interest with the other employees
included in the unit.
The laboratory, although a separate department at
the Employer's plant, is located in the same building
where production is carried on, and the dispersion
department of production is on the same floor as the
laboratory. The technicians also work the same
hours, receive the same vacation, the same paid holi-
days, the same benefits, and take the same breaks as
all of the Employer's employees. All the employees,
including the technicians, are hourly paid, although
the technicians start at a lower rate than the produc-
tion employees.
222 NLRB No. 124
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As found by the Regional Director, Nangle and
Hurd are not technical employees as the nature of
their work is routine and it does not require signifi-
cant independent judgment. Further, neither the edu-
cational requirements nor the training period they go
through suggests that their work entails the use of
such expertise that employees in production do not
possess or could not acquire with a short period of
training.
Although Nangle and Hurd are in a separate de-
partment, and allegedly do not have personal contact
with production employees in their work, it is clear
that their duties are an integral part of the
Employer's overall production process.
Based on all of the foregoing, I conclude that Nan-
gle and Hurd share a sufficient community of inter-
est with the other employees included in the unit, and
I would overrule the challenges to their ballots .4
° See Maine Sugar Industries, Inc, 169 NLRB 186 (1968); The Celotex
Corporation, 180 NLRB 62 (1969), Ambrosia Chocolate, supra.