Brady Aviation Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 220 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
amination at a hearing, its contention will ultimately be es-
tablished. We find that the Employer has failed to raise any
substantial and material issue concerning Glasgow's classifica-
tion as a janitor sufficient to warrant the holding of a hearing.'
Accordingly, we shall adopt the Regional Director's recom-
mendations. The challenge to the ballot of this employee is
therefore overruled. We find that he was eligible to vote in the
election.
DIRECTION
IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation
to ascertain representatives for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining with the Employer, the Regional Director for the
Ninteenth Region shall, pursuant to National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, within ten (10) days from the date
of this Direction, open and count the ballots of Royce Glasgow,
Olive D. Jones, Laura Caldwell, and Paul Jewell, and thereafter
prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a supplemental
tally of ballots, including therein the count of the challenged
ballots described above.
7See footnote 5, supra.
BRADY AVIATION CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-
CIO), Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC-1227. April 20, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before H. Carnie
Russell, 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 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 Act.'
1 The Employer at the hearing moved to dismiss the petition contending that it was not en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act . The Employer is engaged in the assembling
of detail parts into major subassemblies for the use by the United States Air Force and
United States Navy. During 1952, the Employer's gross receipts were in excess of $50,000.
Under the circumstances , we find that the Employer falls within that category of enterprises
"substantially affecting national defense," and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein . Westport Moving and Storage Company, 91 NLRB 902.
104 NLRB No. 36.
BRADY AVIATION CORPORATION 221
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner is seeking to represent a unit consisting of
office, professional, and technical employees. The Employer
objects to the inclusion of professional employees in the unit,
and contends that the tool planners, tool designers, laboratory
technicians, and engineers, because of their different working
conditions and diverse interests, should constitute a separate
voting group.
The parties disagree as to (1) whether the tool planners, tool
designers, laboratory technicians, and engineers are technical
employees or professional employees, and (2) whether certain
office clerical employees are confidential employees.
The Tool P1-inners, Tool Designers, Engineers, andChemists 2
Tool planners: The tool planners work under the super-
vision of the superintendent of tooling. Their duties consist of
anticipating tooling and production costs, and determining what
department will perform each production operation. The tool
planners also order the special equipment necessary to
complete the production assembly.
Tool designers: The tool designers receive the tool orders
from the tool planners, and design the fixtures and equipment
necessary to produce the final product. In the performance of
these duties they must be able to read engineering drawings
and specifications. The degree of experience for all of the
aforementioned duties for both the tool planners and tool
designers varies widely. No formal education is required, the
tool planners and tool designers often being taken from the
production line and trained on the job.
As it does not appear that the work done by the tool planners
and tool designers meets the requirements of Section 2 (12) (a)
and (b) of the amended Act, we conclude that they are highly
skilled technical employees and not professional employees.,
Engineers: The engineers work under the supervision of the
vice president. They are required to have a formal engineering
education and prior engineering experience. In the performance
of their duties they are required to review material as to stress
calculations in repair and replacement in order to insure the
safety and airworthiness of all parts and equipment. Because
of the nature of their duties, the engineers work in a separate
area adjacent to the assembly line. They are monthly paid, and
have employment benefits different from the tool planners and
tool designers.
2The parties agreed at the hearing that the chemists were professional employees . The Em-
ployer would also exclude laboratory technicians as professional employees . However, inas-
much as the Employer has never employed, nor employs at the present time, any laboratory
technicians , we make no unit finding as to this classification.
3 F. W. Sickles Company, 81 NLRB 390, 393; General Electric Company, 89 NLRB 726. 734.
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of these facts, we find that the engineers are pro-
fessional employees within the meaning of the Act.
The Board has held that office clerical employees may not
appropriately be grouped with technical employees where any
party objects to such inclusion.5 As this is the case here, we
shall not include office clerical employees in the unit of the
aforementioned employees.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees may con-
stitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All engineers,
chemists, tool planners, and tool designers employed at the
Employer's Brady, Texas, plant, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
As a result of our findings with respect to the above classifi-
cations, it appears that the unit as set out above is composed
predominantly of nonprofessional employees. However, the
Board is prohibited by Section 9 (b) (1) of the Act from includ-
ing professional employees in a unit with employees who are
not professional unless a majority of the professional employees
vote for inclusion in such a unit. Accordingly, we must ascer-
tain the desires of the professional employees as to inclusion
in a unit with nonprofessional employees. We shall therefore
direct separate elections in the following voting groups: (a) All
tool planners and tool designers employed by the Employer at
Brady, Texas, excluding professional employees and super-
visors as defined in the Act; and (b) all professional employees
(chemists and engineers ) employed by the Employer at Brady,
Texas, excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined
in the Act. The employees in the nonprofessional voting group
(a) will be polled as to whether or not they desire to be repre-
sented, for the purposes of collective bargaining, by the Peti-
tioner.
The employees in the professional voting group (b) will be
asked two questions on their ballot: (1) Do you desire the
professional employees to be included with the technical em-
ployees in a unit composed of all engineers, chemists, tool
planners, and tool designers at the Employer's Brady, Texas,
plant, for the purposes of collective bargaining? (2) Do you
desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining by the Petitioner or no union? If a majority of the
professional employees in voting group (b) vote "Yes" to the
first question, indicating their wish to be included in a unit
with the nonprofessional employees, they will be so included.
Their votes on the second question will then be counted together
with the votes of the nonprofessional voting group (a) to decide
the representation for the whole unit. If, on the other hand, a
majority of the professional employees in voting group (b) vote
against inclusion , they will not be included with the nonprofes-
sional employees. Their votes on the second question will then
4 Solar Manufacturing Corp.. 80 NLRB 1358.
6 American Locomotive Company , 92 NLRB 115.
BRADY AVIATION CORPORATION 223
be separately counted to decide whether or not they desire to
be represented in a separate professional unit by the Peti-
tioner . There is no indication in the record that the Petitioner
would be unwilling to represent the professional employees
separately , if those employees vote for separate representation.
However, if the Petitioner does not desire to represent the
professional employees in a separate unit even if those employ-
ees vote for such representation , the Petitioner may notify the
Regional Director to that effect within ten (10) days of the date
of this Decision and Direction of Elections.
Our unit determination is based , in part then, upon the results
of the election among the professional employees . However, we
now make the following findings in regard to the appropriate
unit:
1. If a majority of the professional employees vote for in-
clusion in the unit with nonprofessional employees , we find that
the following employees will constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All tool planners, tool designers , chemists, and engineers
employed at the Employer's Brady, Texas, plant, excluding all
other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. If a majority of the professional employees do not vote for
inclusion in the unit with nonprofessional employees, we find that
the following two groups of employees will constitute separate
units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(a) All tool planners and tool designers employed at the Em-
ployer's Brady, Texas , plant, excluding professional employees,
all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All engineers and chemists employed at the Employer's
Brady, Texas , plant, excluding all tool planners and tool
designers , all other employees , and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
The Office Employees
The parties agree as to the composition of the unit of office
employees except that the Petitioner would include the PBX
operator , the TWX operator, the secretaries to the vice - presi-
dent, treasurer , plant superintendent , shop superintendent, con-
sulting engineer, accounting department head, and the accounting
department and personnel department employees , and the Em-
ployer would . exclude them on the ground that they are confi-
dential employees.
PBX and TWX operators: The PBX operator monitors all
telephone calls for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not
there has been a misuse of company telephones or an infrac-
tion of rules relating to their use by the plant employees. The
PBX operator , however, does not monitor the telephone calls of
any management representative who initiates or formulates
company labor relations policy. The TWX employee operates
the TWX machine and handles and distributes all incoming
messages. Both the PBX and TWX operators work under the
224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supervision of the plant superintendent, are trained on the job,
and are located in the main office building. The Employer
asserts that these employees should be excluded from the unit
because in the performance of their duties they may overhear
conversations or read material pertaining to confidential labor
relations information. However, inasmuch as neither operator
acts in a confidential capacity to persons exercising managerial
functions in the labor relations field, we shall, in accordance
with established Board policy, include the PBX operator and
TWX operator in the unit.6
Secretaries: The Employer would also exclude from the unit
as confidential employees the secretaries to the vice president,
treasurer, plant superintendent, shop superintendent, consulting
engineer, and accounting department head. The record shows
that all of these named management representatives assist in
the formulation and determination of general plant labor rela-
tions policy. Their secretaries are required in the performance
of usual secretarial duties to act in a confidential capacity to
these individuals. Accordingly, we find that the secretaries to
the vice president, treasurer, plant superintendent, shop
superintendent, consulting engineer, and accounting department
head are confidential employees within the meaning of the Act.i
Accounting department and personnel department employees:
The employees in the accounting department handle matters
pertaining to employees ' wages, rates , overtime, and employ-
ment benefits. They also keep the Employer's payroll record
and profit and loss records. The employees in the personnel
department keep the data pertaining to grievances and other in-
vestigatory procedures. They also have access to the individual
employment files of the employees.8 Although employees inthe
accounting department and personnel department have access to
records and reports which the Employer considers confidential,
it does not appear that the work of the employees in either de-
partment meets the requirements of a confidential employee
contained in the amended Act.9 None of the employees in either
department assists or acts in a confidential capacity to persons
exercising managerial functions in the field of labor relations.
We find that they are not confidential employees. We shall,
therefore, include the employees in the accounting department
and personnel department in the unit of office clerical em-
ployees.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All office clerical employees, including the TWX operator
and PBX operator and the accounting and personnel department
6 Amplex Manufacturing Company, 85 NLRB 523; Phillips Chemical Company, 91 NLRB 568,
571.
7 Minnesota and Ontario Paper Company, 92 NLRB 711. 712; Phillips Chemical Company,
supra.
8Inasmuch as the record shows that the personnel interviewer does the actual hiring, and is
in direct charge of the personnel department, we shall exclude her from the unit of clerical
employees. Bonwit Teller , Inc., 84 NLRB 414, 422.
9 Automatic Electric Company , 78 NLRB 1057; Bonwit Teller , Inc., supra , at pp. 422, 423.
ALBION MALLEABLE IRON COMPANY 225
employees, employed at the Employer's Brady, Texas, plant,
but excluding secretaries to the vice president, treasurer, plant
superintendent, shop superintendent, consulting engineer, and
accounting department head, all other employees, guards,
nurses, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in
this volume, ]
ALBION MALLEABLE IRON COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO),
Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS AND FOUNDRY
WORKERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 413, AFL.
Case No . 7-RC-1991. April 20, 1953
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Following the filing of a petition alleging that a question
affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of em-
ployees of the Employer, and requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the parties, on
January 9, 1953, entered into a "Stipulation for Certification
upon Consent Election." In accordance with said stipulation and
the Rules and Regulations of the Board, an election was con-
ducted on January 16, 1953, among all production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's Albion, Michigan, plant,
excluding clerical employees, engineering employees, techni-
cians, watchmen, guards, and foremen and other supervisors
as defined in the Act. Thetally of ballots shows that, of approx-
imately 506 eligible voters, 247 cast ballots for the Petitioner,
227 cast ballots for the Intervenor, 5 cast ballots against par-
ticipating labor organizations, 5 ballots were void, and 11
balots were challenged. The challenged ballots are insufficient
to affect the outcome of the election.
On January 23, 1953, the Intervenor filed objections to the
conduct of the election, and, on February 3, 1953, amended ob-
jections thereto.
On March 12, 1953, following an investigation conducted pur-
suant to the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional
Director issued and duly served on the parties his report on
objections, in which he found without merit all the Intervenor's
original and amended objections and recommended that the same
be overruled and that the Board certify the Petitioner as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's em-
ployees in the appropriate unit.
On March 21, 1953, the Intervenor filed timely exceptions to
the Regional Director's report on objections, requesting that
the Board, on the basis of its objections, set aside the election
and order a new election.
104 NLRB No. 31.