Burroughs Adding Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 98 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
BURROUGHS ADDING MACHINE Co . and LOCAL 1373, DISTRICT 38,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , PETITIONER. Case
No. 1-RC-1743. February 7,1951
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 Robert E. Greene,
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 Murdock and Styles].
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 claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and servicing
of business machines. The home office and manufacturing plants are
located in the State of Michigan. In connection with its marketing
activity, the Employer operates a large number of branch offices in
various parts of the United States. The Petitioner seeks a unit of
mechanical employees at the branch in Boston, Massachusetts. The
Employer contends that a unit limited to this branch alone is not
appropriate for bargaining purposes, and urges that the only unit
appropriate is one including employees at all the branches in its north-
east region. The Employer also urges the inclusion of employees the
Petitioner would exclude, namely stock clerks, shipping clerks, and
utility clerks.
Prior to September 1, 1950, the Employer conducted its marketing
operations on a divisional basis, each of 12 divisions being composed
of the branch offices within its geographical area. On that date, the
Employer officially instituted a regional system now in the process of
being put into effect. It is contemplated that 8 regions will be es-
93 NLRB No. 17.
BURROUGHS ADDING MACHINE CO. 99
tablished, replacing the 12 divisions. Four regional offices have al-
ready been set up. At the time of the hearing, the Employer was
negotiating for a site for the regional office in the northeast region
here concerned.-
Under the regional setup, the regional manager has more authority
than the former divisional manager. He has the power to reassign
areas under the jurisdiction of branch offices and set up new branches.
Many administrative questions formerly referred to the home office
are to be decided by the regional manager. More of the training of
servicemen takes place in the region than in the home office, as formerly
was the case. The regional manager has authority to approve wage
increases within the limits of the broad wage policies established at
the home office. Each regional office is responsible for all of the Em-
ployer's activities carried on within its limits.
The Employer's service department is operated as a nationally in-
tegrated enterprise. While the branch manager and the regional
manager have some authority over the branch service manager and the
regional service manager, respectively, it appears that the chain of
supervision runs directly from the branch service manager to the re-
gional service manager to the general service manager at the head
office in Detroit. The Employer's officials in the home office determine
the.management and labor relations policies for all service employees.
The same wage , vacation, hospitalization, job classification, and merit
rating plans are applicable for all of the Employer's service employees.
In a previous proceeding involving the Employer,' the petitioning
union sought a unit composed of service employees at the Employer's
New York City service station. The Employer contended for a
Nation-wide unit. In granting the unit requested by the petitioner,
the Board said :
Although these factors militate in favor of a Nation-wide unit,
in our view they are not so compelling as to require our holding
that only a Nation-wide unit is appropriate. The record reveals
other factors which justify a unit confined to the service employees
of the New York service station apart from the Employer's other
service employees.
We believe that the same considerations apply here. The Employer
asserts that its change to a regional system distinguishes this matter
from the earlier case. But the regional plan does not materially affect
the status of the branch offices. Whatever additional authority is
invested in the regional offices is gained by reducing the powers and
functions of the home office. While the regional system as outlined
above indicates the possible appropriateness of a regional unit, it does
I Burroughs Adding Machine Company, 81 NLRB 1239
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not detract from the factors, present in this case as in the previous
case, which justify a unit limited to the service employees at a single
branch office. For example, the employees at the Boston branch per-
form their work in a separate geographical area under the immediate
and separate supervision of their supervisor and the branch service
manager. They are a cohesive, permanent group of employees. There
is only an occasional detailing of some of the Boston employees to other
branches, and that on only a temporary basis. With few exceptions,
the Boston branch apparently recruits its own personnel from among
residents in the Boston area. The service employees in the Boston
office have little or no contact in the ordinary course of their work with
employees from other branches.
In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded that a unit confined to
the employees at the Employer's Boston branch office is appropriate.
The Petitioner seeks to exclude and the Employer to include stock
clerks, shipping clerks, and utility clerks. The stock clerks hand
parts and supplies to the servicemen in the shop and also keep filled
with parts and supplies the bins which are kept for the field service-
men. The shipping clerks receive and ship machines, parts, and sup-
plies. The utility clerks unload merchandise and machines and unbox
them and deliver machines to the servicemen to be inspected or re-
paired. The shipping, stock, and utility clerks enjoy the same vaca-
tion, hospitalization, pension, and other benefits that the servicemen
have. Like the servicemen, they are subject to the supervision of the
branch service manager. The clerks work the same hours as the
servicemen and are given the same tests on applying for jobs. They
come in contact with the servicemen regularly and frequently in the
course of their work. We find that the stock clerks, shipping clerks,
and utility clerks should be included in the unit.
We find that the following employees constitute an appropriate
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All employees at the Employer's Boston, Massachusetts, branch
office engaged in repairing, servicing, and maintenance of office equip-
ment and business machines, including stock clerks, shipping clerks,
and utility clerks, but excluding executives, foremen, office clerical
employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.2
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
2 If, however , the Petitioner does not desire to participate in an election in such a unit
at this time, we shall permit it to withdraw its petition without prejudice upon notice to the-
Regional Director within 10 days after the issuance of the Decision and Direction of
Election herein