Eastern Container Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1985

275 N.L.R.B. 1537 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

EASTERN CONTAINER CORP
Eastern Container Corporation and General Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers,
Building Materials, Heavy and Highway Con-
struction Employees Local Union 404, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
-Petitioner . Case 1-RC-18339
27 August 1985
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
Upon a petition filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held
before Hearing Officer William A. Hurley. Follow-
ing the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure, and by
direction of the Acting Regional Director for
Region 1, this case was transferred to the Board
for decision. Thereafter, the, Employer and the Pe-
titioner filed briefs.
The National L abor Relations Board has dele-
gated its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer's rulings,
finding them free from prejudicial error.
On the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization which
claims to represent certain employees of the Em-
ployer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employ-
er within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of
eight employees, six maintenance mechanics and
two licensed boiler firemen, who constitute the
Employer's maintenance department at its Spring-
field, Massachusetts facility, excluding all other em-
ployees. Specifically, the Petitioner contends that
the maintenance department employees, while not
a craft unit, possess a distinct set of duties and skills
that separates them from the production unit em-
ployees. The Petitioner also asserts that, in any
event, these employees constitute a residual group
of employees not sought by the representative of
the production unit employees, International Union
1537
of Electronic, Electrical, Technical, Salaried and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC (the IUE).1
The Employer contends that the petitioned-for
unit is inappropriate and the only appropriate unit
consists of an overall production and maintenance
unit, a total of 160 employees. The Employer fur-
ther contends that the maintenance employees do
not constitute a residual unit as they are only a part
of the unrepresented employees at the plant.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture;
sale, and distribution of corrugated fibreboard
boxes at its Springfield facility. The Employer em-
ploys approximately 200 people in 3 administrative
divisions: sales, administration, and finance, and
production. The maintenance department is within
the production division.
The employer's production employees have been
represented by the IUE since 1955. A collective-
bargaining agreement is currently in effect. There
is no history of collective bargaining for the main-
tenance employees.2
Production and maintenance employees work ba-
sically the same three shifts. In addition, the corru-
gator machine operators, as well as two mainte-
nance classifications, the boiler fireman and one
mechanic, work on two shifts that overlap the
basic shifts.
Maintenance employees spend "about 90 percent
of their time on the production floor. Their pri-
mary responsibility is to perform machine setups
and make various adjustments or repairs to keep
production equipment in operating condition. The
mechanics are often assisted by the machine opera-
tors in making adjustments. After repairs are com-
pleted mechanics will run the machine to ensure it
operates smoothly. Production employees do per-
form simple preventive maintenance on the equip-
ment. Complicated machine maintenance or instal-
lations and building construction work are per-
formed by outside contractors. -
The Employer requires no special training or
skills for either maintenance or production employ-
ees. Only the boiler firemen are licensed by the
State. The Employer provides the necessary tools
and on-the-job training. The maintenance and pro-
duction employees are hourly paid, and the pay
scale for both groups is comparable. Except for
pension benefits, which production employees re-
ceive under their collective-bargaining agreement,
both groups receive the same fringe benefits.
' The IUE was advised of the filing of the petition and the hearing,
but chose not to intervene
2 The IUE petitioned to represent the maintenance employees as part
of the existing production unit in Case i-RC-18054 The IUE lost the
election conducted on 15 December 1983
275 NLRB No. 215
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1538
- In the circumstances of this case, we find the pe-
titioned-for maintenance unit is appropriate. In
doing so, we need not determine whether the main-
tenance employees have a community of interest
separate from the production unit because we find
the unit appropriate even if they do not.
Thus, the parties have stipulated that all unrepre-
sented employees; other than the maintenance em-
ployees, should be excluded. from either the peti-
tioned-for unit or a combined production and main-
tenance unit. As the maintenance employees are
the only unrepresented employees who could ap-
propriately be included in the production unit; and
the IUE does not seek to represent them, we find
the petitioned-for unit appropriate as a residual
unit, whether or not the maintenance employees
enjoy a separate ,community of interest from the
{, ,
production employees. 3 < Accordingly, we shall
direct an'election in the following unit: .
A11 full-time maintenance mechanics, f remen
and maintenance employees, excluding all
other employees, including all production em-
ployees, foremen, supervisors, office 'clerical
employees, salesmen, shipping and -receiving
department employees, and guards as defined
in the Act. _
[Direction -of Election omitted from publication]
3 See S D Warren Co, 114 NLRB 410, 411 (1955)
The Acting Regional Director transferred This case to the Board be-
cause of a perceived conflict between our decisions in Franklin Mint
Corp, 254 NLRB 714 (1981), finding appropriate a maintenance employ-
ee only unit, and Armco, Inc, 271 NLRB 350 (1984), in which a metallur-
gy department employee unit was found inappropriate We need not,
however, address whether there is any inconsistency between the two
cases, because the Board 's determination in both rested on a factual com-
munity-of-interest analysis Unlike the' instant` case, there was no issue
whether the employees in either requested unit constituted an appropriate
residual unit
I