Beecham Products

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 731 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

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
..... .... , . . _
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.