Dixie Spindle and Flyer Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1949

84 N.L.R.B. 109 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of DIXIE SPINDLE AND FLYER COMPANY, INC., EM-
PLOYER and LODGE No. 263 , INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS , PETITIONER
Case No. 341-RC-MI.-Decided June 10, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Howard Mc- -
Intyre, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with,
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce , within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. A question of representation affecting commerce exists concern-
ing employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
( 1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner's amended petition requests a unit of all machin-
ists, machine operators and helpers , and production and maintenance
employees engaged in the manufacture , erection, dismantling, or re-
pair of textile machinery at the Employer 's plant in Charlotte, North
Carolina , but excluding all frame mechanics employed outside the
plant, part -time employees , office and technical employees , guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer contends that the
one part-time employee, the outside frame mechanics and a toolroom
employee, whom the Petitioner would exclude , should be included in
the unit.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and repair of textile
machinery and parts at its plant at Charlotte , North Carolina . It also
84 N. L. R. B., No. 17.
109
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
services textile machinery already installed in textile plants in North
Carolina and elsewhere. This outside service work is performed by
seven frame mechanics, whose placement in the unit is in dispute.
'These employees are hired at the Employer's office in Charlotte and
receive their work assignments from there. They move from one
city to another as a job is completed and may stay out on the road for
several months at a time. Instructions are sent out from the office as
to the location and nature of the repair jobs, but the shop superin-
tendent who supervises the shop mechanics does not direct the work
of these employees. The outside frame mechanics submit their own
work reports to the office each week. Intermittently, they may return
to the plant if there is no new assignment waiting, or if repairs that
are required cannot be done on the job. The frame mechanics work
40 hours per week, but determine their own schedules and method of
handling the job assigned. They are paid an hourly rate comparable
to that of machinists in the plant and receive, in addition, a certain
.sum for travel expenses. Only on rare occasions has there been an
interchange of mechanics between plant work and outside work.
From the foregoing it is apparent that although the outside frame
mechanics are engaged in the same general type of work as the em-
ployees sought to be represented by the Petitioner, their interests and
working conditions are clearly distinguishable from those of the shop
employees. In these circumstances, we shall exclude them from the
unit hereilfafter found appropriate?
As noted above, the Petitioner would exclude the part-time em-
ployee, Bishop. We do not agree. This employee attends a vocational
training school in Charlotte in the mornings and works regularly
every afternoon for 4 hours. He is classified as a machinist's ap-
prentice, is subject to the same supervision and receives wages and
benefits comparable to the other shop employees. It is the intention
,of the Employer to hire him for full-time work upon completion of
his schooling. We shall include this employee in the unit described
below 2
Likewise, we find untenable the Petitioner's contention that Butz
be excluded because he is a supervisor and does contract work outside
the shop. Butz works in the toolroom and is a machinist of consider-
able experience who formerly had a machine shop of his own. On
certain machining jobs which the Employer lets out on a contract
basis Butz submits bids along with other companies. If his bid for
' See Matter of The Connecticut News Company , Division of the American News Company,
71 N. L. R. B. 30.
2 Matter of Florsheim Retail Boot Shop, 80 N. L R. B. 1312 ; Matter of American Lawn
Mower Company, 79 N. L R. B 367.
DIXIE SPINDLE AND FLYER COMPANY, INC. 111
the work is accepted he does the work on his own time at his home
where he has his own machine tools. He works a full 8-hour shift
at the shop of the Employer performing work of a similar nature to
that of other employees. He is paid an hourly rate no higher than
that received by some of the other employees. Because of his experi-
ence he instructs and assists other employees in the toolroom 8 in
machining or repairing parts, but he is not responsible for generally
directing the work of these employees, and he has no authority to
hire, discharge, discipline, or effectively recommend such action. On
these facts, we conclude that Butz is not a supervisor as defined in
Section 2 (11) of the Act, as amended, and as his interests, working
conditions, hours and wages are similar to those of the other em-
ployees sought to be represented by the Petitioner we shall include
him in the unit described below.
We find that all machinists, machine operators, toolroom employees,
production and maintenance employees, and regular part-time em-
ployees at the Employer's Charlotte, North Carolina, plant, but ex-
cluding all outside frame mechanics, office and technical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
.of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case
was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered
4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also ex-
cluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of
collective bargaining, by Lodge No. 263, International Association of
Machinists.
8 There are two employees who work in the toolroom with Butz, one being the part-time
employee , Bishop.