Federal Cartridge Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 529 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CORPORATION 529
Having found that none of the units sought is appropriate for
severance, we shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition."
[The Board dismissed the petition].
Chairman Herzog took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
itln view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to rule upon other issues raised
by the Employer and the Intervenors in their motions to dismiss
FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CORPORATION and FEDERATION OF
ARSENAL ENGINEERS, Petitioner. Case No. 18-RC-1908.
June 11, 1953
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 Clarence A.
Meter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's ruling 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 Houston, Styles, and Peter-
son].
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
representation 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 the manufacture of small arms
ammunition at its Brightwater, Minnesota, plant.
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of professional
employees of the Employer consisting of production engineers,
quality control engineers , engineers II and III, chemists I, II,
and III , senior process engineers , senior planning engineers,
section heads in the planning division, excluding maintenance
contact men, guards, all other employees, and supervisors as
defined by the Act. The Employer agrees that production
engineers , quality control engineers , engineers II and III, and
chemists I can appropriately constitute a unit of professional
employees. It contends, however, that the contact maintenance
men are also professional employees and should be included in
such a unit. The Employer further claims that the senior
planning engineer should be excluded from the unit because he
is a managerial employee and that the chemists II and III, the
105 NLRB No 62.
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
senior process engineers, and the section heads in the planning
division should be excluded because they are supervisors.
The contact maintenance men: These individuals are a
subcategory of engineers II, a category which the Petitioner
seeks to represent except for the contact maintenance men.
The chief function of the contact maintenance men is to see
that the craftsmen perform the work according to the blueprints
prepared by the planning section. They also make estimates
of costs and methods of repair. Except for minor engineering
work consuming less than 5 percent of their time, contact
maintenance men do no engineering or designing work. There
are no specific educational requirements for the job and the job
does not require the exercise of independent judgment. Under
these circumstances, we find that the contact maintenance men
are not professional employees and shall exclude them from
the unit.I
Senior planning engineers : These employees correlate the
work necessary to reactivate buildings at the Employer's
plant. They make plans for such reactivation, but all of these
plans, except minor ones, are forwarded to a review board
which may accept or reject them. The planning engineers can
make only minor changes without consulting the review board.
In connection with their work, they consult with vendors of
machinery and with officials from the Army Ordnance Depart-
ment. However, they cannot, on their own, commit the Employer
to any course of action vis-a-vis these individuals. Under these
circumstances, we find that the senior planning engineers are
not managerial employees and shall include them in the unit.z
The Alleged Supervisors
Final authority concerning disciplinary action at the
Employer's plant rests with the grievance committee. This
committee acts on the recommendations of the employee's
immediate supervisor and his department head andmay conduct
investigations on its own. Pending final disposition of his case
by the grievance committee, an employee may be suspended by
his immediate supervisor or the department head. New
employees are subject to 30-, 60-, and 90-day appraisal reports
which contain ratings of their work in detail and upon which
their eventual retention and rating depend.
The senior process engineers and the section heads of the
planning division: These individuals assign work to and are
responsible for the work of several of the engineers and
engineering aides working under their direction. They make
recommendations to the grievance committee concerning
disciplinary action to be taken against employees working under
their direction and, pending final action by that committee,
may suspend an employee. Senior process engineers and section
heads make appraisal reports on employees' progress. The
'See Sonotone Corporation, 90 NLRB 1236.
2See Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 97 NLRB 1271.
FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CORPORATION 531
senior process engineers attend foremen ' s meetings and the
section heads meet each morning with their department head.
Senior process engineers are consulted as to what employees
are to be laid off in a reduction in force and section heads have
interviewed job applicants and had their recommendation that
they be hired , accepted . Under these circumstances , we find
that senior process engineers and section heads of the planning
division are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit.
The chemists III: The various control laboratories, the
analytical laboratory , and the metallurgical laboratory of the
Employer are each supervised by a chemist III. Chemists III
assign work to and are responsible for the work done by the
chemists II and I working under their direction . They make
recommendations concerning disciplinary action to the griev-
ance committee , and can suspend employees , pending final
action by the grievance committee . Chemists III make appraisal
reports on employees ' progress . They are required to attend
foremen's meetings . Under these circumstances , we find that
chemists III are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and
shall exclude them from the unit.
The chemists II: The Employer ' s control laboratories
operate on a 24 -hour , 3-shift basis. One chemistIlI is in charge
of each of these laboratories for the full 24 hours. He arranges
his shift in such a way as to be personally in charge of each of
the 3 shifts at sometime during the week . During the period
when no chemist III is in charge , each of the control laboratories
is under the direction of 1 of the chemists II who then exercises
the same authority concerning personnel matters as does the
chemist 111.3 The chemists II assigned to the control labora-
tories attend foremen ' s meetings.
Apparently the metallurgical and analytical laboratories
never operate under the direction of chemists II, several of
whom are employed in each of the laboratories together with
chemists I and technicians . Chemists II assigned to the
metallurgical and analytical laboratories do not attend fore-
men's meetings, some of them do not have any employees
working under them. However , the record indicates that those
chemists II who do have employees working under them
possibly may have authority such as to suspend employees.
We find that all those chemists II who regularly substitute
for chemists III and those who are otherwise vested with
supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act are
supervisors and we shall exclude them from the unit as chemist
II supervisors . Those chemists II who donothave such author-
ity, we find not to be supervisors and we shall include them in
the unit asj chemists U nonsupervisors.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees employed
at the Employer ' s Brightwater, Minnesota , plant constitute a
3On each shift in the control laboratories there is only 1 chemist II, except in 1 of the
laboratories on 1 shift where there are 2 chemists II.
532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section9 ( b) of the Act : All production engineers,
quality control engineers , senior planning engineers , engineers
II and III , chemists I, and chemist II nonsupervisors , excluding
contact maintenance men, guards , all other employees , senior
process engineers , section heads in the planning division,
chemists III , chemists II supervisors , and all other supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 As the Petitioner has indicated its willingness to have an election held in any unit found
appropriate by the Board, the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground
that the Petitioner failed to propose an appropriate unit is denied.
DIAMOND HOSIERY CORPORATION and AMERICAN FEDER-
ATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, AFL. Case No. 11-CA-444
(Formerly Case No. 34-CA-444). June 11, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 17, 1953, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued
his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief.
The Board ' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in the case, 2 and hereby adopts the
findings , conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the exceptions , modifications , and additions set
forth below.3
1. We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that Super-
visor Ina Amos' accusing employees McLamb and Freeman of
being "ringleaders with the Union," and her statement that
employee Worrell was "with the Union," were violations of
Section 8 ( a) (1). These remarks were in the form of statements
rather than questions, and the language employed was not of
the type which we have held is intended to elicit a reply con-
'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 Houston, Murdock, and
Styles].
2 The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied, because the record, exceptions,
and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
3 The date "October 1951" in paragraph numbered 10 of Conclusions of Law is hereby
corrected to ''April 1952."
105 NLRB No. 66.