Dempster Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 688 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL notify , in writing , Bushnell Steel Construction Company, Azzarelli
Construction Company, and J. S. Stephens & Sons that we have no objection to
the continued employment of Herman Dewey Ross.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL 925,
AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated-- ----------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
H. B. ROBERTS , BUSINESS MANAGER, INTERNATIONAL UNION,
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 925, AFL-CIO
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Business Manager)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Room 706,
Federal Office Building, 500 Zack Street, Tampa , Florida, Telephone No. 228-7711,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Dempster Brothers , Inc. and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-6018. August 24, 1965
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION
On January 15, 1965, the Regional Director for Region 10 issued
a Supplemental Decision , Order, and Direction of Second Election'
in which he overruled 26 and sustained 7 of the 33 challenges; he also
sustained 1, and overruled 2 of the Petitioner 's 3 objections and
directed a second election in the event a revised tally failed to show
that the Petitioner had received a majority of the valid ballots cast.
Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner in accordance with
Section 102 .67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations , Series 8, as amended, filed requests for review of the
Regional Director 's Supplemental Decision , together with support-
ing briefs . The Employer also filed opposition to the Petitioner's
request for review. On June 21 , 1965, the Board , by telegraphic
order, granted the respective requests for review only insofar as
they related to the Regional Director 's ruling that the Employer's
group meetings constituted objectionable conduct, and his overruling
of 22 challenges , involving John Waggoner, Raymond S. Mayes,
Dennis Warren, Jim Wallace, Dorsey L. Fritts, Donald Longmire,
and the 16 employees listed in Appendix F to the Regional Direc-
I The tally of ballots for the election showed that of approximately 360 eligible voters,
356 cast valid ballots, of which 157 were for the Petitioner , 7 were for the Intervenor,
Shopmen's Local Union No. 715, 159 were against the participating labor organizations,
and 33 cast challenged ballots. The challenges were sufficient In number to affect the
results. The Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the election results.
154 NLRB No. 57.
DEMPSTER BROTHERS, INC. 689
toy's Supplemental Decision.2 The Board also stayed the second
election directed by the Regional Director pending decision on
review.
The Board has considered the entire record in the case with re-
spect to the Regional Director's determinations under review, and
makes the following findings :
1. Of the 22 employees involved in the challenges on which we
granted review, 20 are employed in the engineering department.
Together with the excluded design engineers , they work under the
supervision of the chief engineer, in a building separated from other
buildings housing the shops where the bulk of the requested produc-
tion and maintenance employees work. Of these 20, 16 (those listed
in Appendix F to the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision)
are employed as draftsmen; 1 3 (Warren, Wallace, and Fritts) are
-employed as clerks, and 1 (Longmire) as a checker.
The record shows that the main function of the draftsmen is to
reduce to drawings, for ultimate use in the production shops, the
designs and ideas formulated by company executives and/or design
engineers either for the development of new products or for modifi-
cations in the design of existing ones to accommodate them to cus-
tomer specifications.' They also help prepare a parts manual that is
sold with each piece of equipment so that customers may identify
parts they wish to reorder. In the regular performance of their day-
to-day duties, the draftsmen work closely with design engineers, and
the sketches they make are subject to the latter's approval. Drafts-
men are, however, expected to offer assistance to production person-
nel -whenever the latter encounter any difficulties in following the
drawings or in executing the specifications of the same, and, when
necessary, to go to the production areas to help iron out the difficul-
ties. Occasionally, they also visit the shops to see the completed
products and to keep track of the drawings on each part manufac-
tured by the Employer.
There is no evidence, and no contention is made, that production
employees and draftsmen interchange their normal work assign-
ments, and, indeed, it appears clear that the job function of each
group is wholly distinguishable. The drafting here involved is an
office-type operation and is regarded as an integral part of the Em-
2 The review granted did not cover four challenges overruled by the Regional Director
(David E. Mynatt, Delores Coram, Carol Weaver, and Lawrence L. Simpson ) and also
did not cover the seven challenges which he sustained.
8 The draftsmen are variously classified as draftsmen A, B, and C , with the A classifica-
tion being the highest of the three . Another classification-novice draftsman-appears
to be a trainee job, and, so far as the record shows , was not occupied as of the dates
here material.
k The Employer manufacturers refuse disposal units and allied products.
206-446--66-vol . 154--45
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer's design engineering process. The draftsmen have a technical
background or training and exercise technical skills.5 While their
duties do not include the development of new designs, the evidence
tends to establish some degree of participation in new product
development.
Upon the foregoing, in view of the specialized function performed
by these draftsmen, the fact that they work at a separate location
and are separately supervised, and the absence of interchange be-
tween them and production employees, we conclude that they do not
have such a close community of interest with the requested employees
as to require their inclusion in the unit. Therefore, we exclude them
from the unit, and we hereby sustain the challenges to their ballots.
The three clerks in the engineering department (Warren, Wallace,
and Fritts) maintain records incidental to the functions of that
departments The checker (Longmire) checks the drawings of
draftsmen for accuracy and has working conditions like those of the
draftsmen.? None of these employees appears to have any contact
with production employees. We find that their interests are more
closely related to those of the draftsmen and other employees in the
engineering department and in other offices who are excluded from
the unit than to those of the production and maintenance workers.
Therefore, Warren, Wallace, Fritts, and Longmire are excluded from
the unit and the challenges to their ballots are hereby sustained.
The two product illustrators (WWra(y ooner and Mayes) work in an
office presently located in the same building as that housing the parts
and service department under the supervision of that department's
manager. They were moved to that location from an office In the
engineering department due to lack of space in the latter and, until
so moved, were under the supervision of the chief engineer. Their
job functions consist mainly of the making of pictorial drawings of
the draftsmen's sketches for the monthly parts catalogue the Em-
ployer issues, and of the assembling of the individual parts catalogue
5 The record establishes that all those currently employed as draftsmen have at least
a high school education ; that most of them have either undergone courses of study In
mechanical drawing or have had on -the-job training ; and that a substantial number of
them have studied engineering and higher mathematics In college for various periods of
time . The record further establishes that, although everything drawn is subject to the
initial approval of the engineers or checker, draftsmen are expected to and do use their
own judgment with respect to the scale and details of the drawings.
6 The Regional Director notes that one of these three employees , Fritts is identified'
by the Employer as a machine record clerk-a classification mentioned in the inclusions
set out in the unit description Petitioner notes, however, that like the other two
engineering department clerks, Fritts is listed on the Employer's organizational chart
of the engineering department as being a technical clerk. In any event , it is clear that
all three clerks are engaged in clerical functions In support of the engineering depart-
ment personnel excluded from the unit , and that hence common treatment of all three
clericals for unit placement purposes is appropriate in the circumstances
7 Longmire was promoted to his present position as checker from the draftsman
classification
DEMPSTER BROTHERS, INC. 691
which the Employer ships to customers with the products the latter
purchase. In their performance of these functions, they procure the
draftsmen's drawings from the engineering department files, check
with the draftsmen and the production shop foremen to insure
accuracy of the information, and before a new monthly catalogue
issues they review the information with the project engineer. They
also set up units in the shop for photographing by the reproduction
department, and they deliver to the latter the catalogue pages to be
reproduced as each page is completed. While it thus appears that
product illustrators have some interests in common with the en-
gineering department personnel, we do not believe this constitutes
sufficient warrant for resolving the unit placement issue involved by
separating them from the remaining employees in the parts and
service departments with whom they share common supervision.' As
the requested unit includes employees in the commonly supervised
parts and service department, we find, as did the Regional Director,
that the product illustrators were eligible voters. We therefore
affirm the Regional Director's action in overruling the challenges to
the ballots of Waggoner and Mayes.
2. In sustaining one of the objections, the Regional Director relied
solely on the evidence that the Employer's president and its attorney
conducted a series of employee meetings in the plant, more than 24
hours prior to the election, to propagandize against union represen-
tation. He found that, even though the remarks made by these
employer officials at these meetings constituted legitimate campaign
propaganda, their conduct of these meetings was objectionable under
the principles test forth in General Shoe Corporation, Marman Bag
Plant, 97 NLRB 499, and related cases, both because of the locus to
which they had summoned the employees to hear the antiunion re-
marks and the size of the employee groups with which they met.
We do not agree.
It is undisputed that the place at which the meetings were con-
ducted was a private dining room in the plant cafeteria. This was
a place to which the Employer had summoned employees on previous
occasions for such purposes as explaining pension plans and which
employees had themselves utilized for such affairs as giving farewell
luncheons to retiring employees. It is also undisputed that, on the
occasions here in issue, the employees were summoned in groups of
from 10 to 14 at a time, that such number included both eligible and
ineligible voters, and that about 90 percent of the total employee
complement of about 400 eventually attended such meetings.
"We note in this connection that they have at least as much, if not more, contact
with included reproduction department personnel as they do with excluded engineering
department employees.
692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon these facts, we find insufficient basis for concluding that the
Employer's action in holding group meetings constituted an isolation
of a few from among the many at a locus of managerial authority
in order to create an aura of special treatment directed to individ-
uals, as distinguished from employees as a whole, so as to bring their
conduct within the prohibition of the General Shoe doctrine. There-
fore, contrary to the Regional Director, we hereby overrule this
objection.'
Accordingly, as the objections have been overruled, and as the six
challenges which have been overruled pursuant to the Regional
Director's Supplemental Decision, as modified herein, constitute a
number sufficient to affect the election results, we shall direct the
Regional Director to open and count such challenged ballots and to
proceed further in accord with the Rules and Regulations.
The case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director.
DIRECTION
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for Region 10
shall, within 10 days from the date of this Decision, open and count
the challenged ballots of David E. Mynatt, Delores Coram, Carol
Weaver, Lawrence L. Simpson, John H. Waggoner, and Raymond S.
Mayes, and serve upon the parties a revised tally of ballots. In the
event that the revised tally of ballots shows that the results are
determinative, the Regional Director shall issue the appropriate
certification. In the event that the revised tally of ballots shows
that no choice received a majority of valid votes cast, the Regional
Director shall conduct a runoff election in accordance with the
Board's Rules and Regulations.]
B Assuming, without deciding , that the Employer 's attorney made the remarks attributed
to him concerning the plant cafeteria , we do not view such remarks as having sufficient
impact upon the employees' freedom of choice to warrant setting aside the election.
United Steelworkers of America, Local No. 4028, AFL-CIO
(Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company ) and Richard C. Price.
Case No. 20-CB-1231. August 25,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by Richard C. Price , the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Acting Regional
Director for Region 20, on November 5, 1964, issued a complaint
against the Respondent , United Steelworkers of America , Local No.
4028, AFL-CIO. Copies of the charge, the complaint , and notice
154 NLRB No. 54.