Divco-Wayne Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 162 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion, but contends only that "we are certain that a thorough investiga-
tion in this matter would have uncovered ample evidence to substan-
tiate the objections presented by the Steelworkers." The Board has
held, however, that a party filing objections to an election is obliged
to furnish evidence in support of its objections and that, unless such
evidence is produced, the Regional Director is not required to pursue
his investigation further.' No such supporting evidence has been pro-
duced here. Accordingly, we fuid no merit in this contention of the
Steelworkers.
Having considered the objections, the Regional Director's report
and the exceptions thereto, and having found the objections to be
without merit, we hereby overrule them in agreement with the Re-
gional Director. As the objections and exceptions do not raise sub-
stantial issues of fact, we deny the Steelworkers' request for a hear-
ing.5 As the Metal Trades Council has received a majority of the
valid ballots cast in the runoff election, we shall certify it as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit.
[The Board certified Baton Rouge Metal Trades Council,
AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the unit hereinabove found appropriate.]
d Rio de Oro Uranium Mines, Inc., 120 NLRB 91.
5 General Electric Co., 119 NLRB 1262.
Divco-Wayne Corporation , Wayne Works Division and Inter-
national Union , United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Case
No. 35-RC-1567. November 00, 1958
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 Lloyd R. Fraker, 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 Leedom and Members Rodgers 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.
1 The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
122 NLRB No. 27.
DIVCO-WAYNE CORPORATION 163
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 manufacturing vehicles, particularly
schoolbuses, at its plant in Richmond, Indiana. The Petitioner is the
bargaining representative of the Employer's production and mainte-
nance employees excluding plant clerical and technical employees.
It now seeks to represent the unrepresented plant clerical and technical
employees in two separate units. The Employer agrees that the tech-
nical employees constitute an appropriate separate unit, but would add
the plant clerical employees to the production and maintenance unit
from which they have been excluded. As an alternative position, the
Petitioner agrees with the Employer's contention.
A. Plant clerical employees
The Board customarily includes plant clerical employees in produc-
tion and maintenance units unless the parties have agreed to exclude
them as a class z No such agreement for exclusion now exists. Ac-
cordingly, we shall accord the plant clericals the opportunity of voting
separately on whether or not they desire to become a part of the exist-
ing production and maintenance unit.'
The parties are in general agreement as to the composition of the
plant clerical voting group except that the Employer would exclude
the production scheduling clerk (Elliott), the shopwork order clerk
(Hatfield), and the service parts clerk (Penland), who it contends are
office clerical employees, and timekeepers, who it contends are technical
employees.
The production scheduling clerk (Elliott) keeps a record of the
progress of individual items through the various stages of the produc-
tion process for assistance to management in scheduling production
and for customer information. The shopwork order clerk (Hatfield)
keeps a cumulative record of fabricated parts, and issues work orders
for material to be manufactured. The service parts clerk (Penland)
works for the sales department, writing up orders for shipments to
dealers and distributors of the Employer's products. All these em-
ployees perform paperwork only, are located in the general office, and
keep regular office hours 4 under office supervision. They have no
e Jones-Dabney Company, 116 NLRB 1556.
White Provision Company, 116 NLRB 1552, 1555.
• The working hours of the plant are from 7 to 4, whereas the office hours are from
8to5.
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant supervision and have little or no contact with plant personnel.
We find that their work and interests are more closely allied with those
of office clerical employees, and we shall, therefore, exclude them from
the plant clerical voting group.'
The timekeepers keep time records of production employees and
incentive workers from which earnings are computed. They do no
costing or rate setting. They are physically located and spend most
of their time working in the production areas of the plant. They
keep plant rather than office hours. We find, contrary to the Em-
ployer, that the timekeepers are not technical employees but are
essentially plant clerical employees whom we shall include in the
voting groups
We shall, therefore, direct an election in the following voting
group :
All plant clerical. employees at the Employer's vehicle manufac-
turing plant in Richmond, Indiana, including plant scheduling clerks,
plant inventory stock record clerks, warehouse receiving clerks,
warehouse general clerks, bondarite clerks, pattern clerks, and time-
keepers, but excluding time study manufacturing methods and pro-
cedures employees, the production scheduling clerk, shopwork order
clerks in the office, the service parts clerk, all other employees, guards,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the above voting group vote
for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to be included in the production and maintenance unit currently
represented by the Petitioner. . If a majority of the employees in
the voting group vote against the Petitioner, they will be taken to
have indicated their desire to remain outside the existing production
and maintenance unit. In either event, the Reigonal Director is
instructed to issue a certification of the results of the election to such
effect.
B. Technical employees
The parties agree that a unit of all technical employees is ap-
propriate, but disagree as to the unit placement of the electrical
engineer (Johns) and the data or chassis engineer (Scheel), who
the Employer contends are professional employees.
The electrical engineer (Johns) is responsible for the design and
development of all electrical equipment and devices installed in the
Employer's products. He has attended three service schools and has
had extensive experience equivalent to an electrical engineering degree.
The data or chassis engineer (Scheel) calculates, sets up standards,.
and gives recommendations and approvals regarding chassis and.
c Northrop Aircraft, Inc., 110 NLRB 1.349, 1351.
The Bassick Company , 118 NLRB 1032; The Rudolph Wurlitzer Co., 117 NLRB 6.
,GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 165
body mountings. He has a college degree in mathematics and
physics. A college degree or its equivalent in schooling and experi-
ence is required for both positions. The work these engineers perform
is intellectual and varied in character entailing the exercise of inde-
pendent judgment and discretion. Under these circumstances we
find that Johns and Scheel are professional employees Within the
meaning of Section 2 (12) of the Act, and shall exclude them from
the unit of technical employees.7
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning. of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act:
All technical employees at the Employer's vehicle manufacturing
plant in Richmond, Indiana, including draftsmen, blueprint machine
operator, experimental mechanics, and the working ,foreman in the
experimental enginering department, but excluding; the electrica
engineer, the data or chassis engineer , all other employees , : guards,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
7 See Southern CaUfornia Edelson Company/, 107 NLRB 951.
General Electric Company and International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO 1 and International Union of Electrical,
Radio ' and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,' Petitioners. Cases
Nos. 11-RC-1131 and 11-RC-1136. November 20, 1968,
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Jerold B. Sindler, 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 Fanning].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
1 Hereinafter called the IAN.
® Hereinafter called the IUE.
122 NLRB No. 21.