Copeland Refrigeration Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 13, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1364 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

136'4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ence with the election, order the election set aside and a new one
conducted.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Tenth Re-
gion shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, open and
count the ballots of Kathleen Sumner, Claudia Nelle Hobbs, Claudine
Blankenship, Juanita Beverly, and Doris Mellon, and serve upon the
parties a revised tally of ballots.]
[The Board further directed that the Regional Director issue a
certification of representatives to the Petitioner if it receives a ma-
jority of the votes cast.]
[The Board ordered that, in the event the ballots of Sumner, Hobbs,
Blankenship, Beverly, and Mellon do not give the Petitioner a ma-
jority of the valid votes cast, the election of September 13, 1956, be
set aside and a new election be conducted.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
Copeland Refrigeration Corporation and International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 8 RC-2979. September 13,1957
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 Carroll L. Martin,
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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
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
employees 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 Petitioner, the certified bargaining representative of the
production and maintenance employees, exclusive of clerical and
technical employees, at the Employer's several compressor and con-
denser manufacturing plants at Sidney, Ohio, currently seeks a sep-
arate unit of all clerical employees at these plants. The Employer
contends that a unit of the office clerical employees is alone appropri-
118 NLRB No. 180.
COPELAND REFRIGERATION CORPORATION 1365
ate. The parties are in further dispute concerning the unit place-
ment of the several employee classifications discussed below.
As to the scope of the unit, the Employer would exclude plant cleri-
cal employees as a class, while the Petitioner would include them.
Under these circumstances, and in accordance with the Board's policy
of excluding plant clerical employees from units of office clerical
employees where disagreement exists as to their inclusion, we shall
exclude them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate.' Accord-
ingly, and notwithstanding that the Employer does not specifically
object to the inclusion of its three shipping and receiving department
clerks, whose status as plant clerical employees was undisputed, they
are deemed excluded from the unit as plant clerical employees.
The Disputed Categories
Assistant purchasing agents : The Employer would exclude Brock-
man and McKensey, the two assistant purchasing agents, on the ground
that their work is nonclerical and that Brockman is a supervisor. On
request from department heads, Brockman and McKensey purchase
office equipment and materials and production tools, in the course of
which they use their own discretion in selecting vendors and in deter-
mining prices and quality. In addition, Brockman substitutes as head
of the purchasing department during the frequent absences of the
chief purchasing agent and at such times has the power to hire and
discharge employees. Under these circumstances, and as Brockman
and McKensey exercise independent judgment in exercising the man-
agerial purchasing prerogative, we find that they are primarily allied
with management, and we shall therefore exclude them from the unit
as managerial employees.2
Draftsmen and laboratory technicians : The Employer would in-
clude the draftsmen and the laboratory technicians in the unit on the
ground that their skills and work interests are primarily clerical; the
Petitioner would exclude them as technical employees. The 9 drafts-
men and the 10 laboratory technicians are among the 25 employees
attached to the Employer's engineering department.' The drafts-
men make detailed drawings from sketches furnished them or based
on their own ideas, for use by the production department. Draftsmen
are recruited from factory production jobs and from outside sources;
in the latter case, the Employer seeks applicants with a high school
education and some knowledge of mechanical drawing. Proficiency
as a draftsman requires 6 months of on-the-job training. The 10
1 Ptankinton Packing Company, 116 NLRB 1225.
2 Swift cE Company, 115 NLRB 752.
s The engineering department also includes several clerks who the parties agree are
office clerical employees . The professional engineers , who the parties agree should be
excluded from the unit, work in a separate department known as the manufacturing
engineering department.
1366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
laboratory technicians, of whom 4 work at a testing area in a produc-
tion area, test the Employer's and competitive equipment, using small
tools and testing devices, and analyze their tests. They are generally
recruited from factory jobs, and their work requires 6 to 8 months
of on-the-job training. We find that the draftsmen and the laboratory
technicians are technical employees," and in accord with the Board's
customary policy of excluding technical employees from clerical units
where the parties dispute their unit placement, we shall exclude them
from the unit herein found appropriate.'
Material planners and production schedulers : The Petitioner would
include material planners and production schedulers in the unit, while
the Employer would exclude them on the basis of their diverse duties
and working conditions. The 2 material planners and the 3 produc-
tion schedulers, together with 6 office clerks, work in the separately
managed material and production control department. The material
planners regulate the flow of materials into production, to meet the
requirements of production schedules. Their work includes breaking
down production schedules into material components, scheduling the
arrival of materials on the production floor as needed and the purchase
of materials not on hand, and advising production schedulers as to
the availability of materials for production. The production sched-
ulers, including a master scheduler, a compressor scheduler, and an
assembly scheduler, schedule production throughout the several plants
to assure that the Employer's production meets production deadlines.
Their work entails the recording of all unit data necessary to main-
tain production and the master production schedule, preparing pro-
duction schedules in advance of assembly, rescheduling production,
maintaining all appropriate scheduling records, and notifying the
production department of the quantities of materials scheduled for
production from time to time. The material planners and produc-
tion schedulers receive $300 to $325 a month, which is $25 a month
higher than the pay of the highest paid clerk in the department and
over $100 a month more than that of the other clerks. We find that
the material planners and the production schedulers are technical
employees, and we shall therefore exclude them from the unit s
Accordingly, we find that all office clerical employees at the Em-
ployer's .several compressor and condenser manufacturing plants at
Sidney, Ohio, including employees in the material and production
control, purchasing and receiving, shipping, mail, accounting, sales,
service, file, payroll, cost, and billing departments, and clerks in the
engineering and manufacturing departments, but excluding assistant
purchasing agents and other managerial employees; draftsmen, lab-
A Gary Steel Products Corporation, 116 NLRB 1192; United States Gypsum Company,
116 NLRB 656.
6 Plankinton Packing Company , supra.
6 Reeves Instrument Corporation, 117 NLRB 21.
REMINGTON RAND DIVISION OF SPERRY RAND CORP. 1367
oratory technicians, material planners, production schedulers, and
all other technical employees; professional employees; confidential
employees; plant clerical employees; personnel department employees;
all other employees; and supervisors as defined in the Act, 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.]
Remington Rand Division of Sperry Rand Corp . and Business
Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board,
Local 459, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Ma-
chine Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 3-RC-1850.
September 16,1957
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
executed by the parties on May 16, 1957, an election by secret ballot
was conducted in the stipulated unit on May 28, 1957, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Third
Region. Upon the conclusion of the election, the parties were fur-
nished with a tally of ballots which shows that of 21 ballots cast,
10 votes were for the Petitioner, and 11 votes against. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election. On June 27, 1957, following an investigation, the Re-
gional Director issued his report on objections, in which he found no
merit in the Petitioner's objections and recommended that they be
overruled and that a certification of results of election be issued show-
ing that the Petitioner had not been designated as bargaining repre-
sentative by a majority of the employees. Thereafter, the Petitioner
filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the Pe-
titioner's exceptions, and the entire record in this case and finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
118 NLRB No. 184.