Foster Wheeler Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 211 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION 211
assigned to driver-salesmen routes and who spend 50 percent or more
of their time at this work shall be eligible to vote.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION and LODGE 1665, INTERNATIONAL Asso-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-622. May
1',1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (e) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John C. MeRee, 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 Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
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 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 Petitioner seeks to represent a separate unit of factory clerks
at the Employer's Dansville, New York, plant, where the Employer
is engaged in the manufacture of oil refining, steam generating, and
other heavy machinery and equipment. In the alternative, the Peti-
tioner would merge these employees with the production and mainte-
nance employees whom it currently represents.' The Employer
contends that the factory clerks sought by the Petitioner do not con-
stitute an appropriate unit, and further contends that they should not
be added to the existing production and maintenance unit. The
Employer. contends that the interests of the factory clerks are more
closely identified with those of the office clerks than with those of the
production and maintenance employees. However, the factory clerks
' On April 26, 1943, following a consent election, the Petitioner was designated as bar-
gaining representative for a unit of production and maintenance employees excluding,
among others, the factory clerks. Case No 3-R-560 (unpublished). On November 12,
1950, the Employer and the Petitioner executed a contract covering the production and
maintenance employees to remain in effect for 1 year, and which contained an automatic
renewal clause.
94 NLRB No. 37.
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sought by the Petitioner work in various plant buildings, while the
office clerks work in a separate main office building, and the duties of
the former are more closely integrated with production work than the
duties of the office clerks. We find, therefore, in accordance with our
usual policy, that, the factory clerks may, if they so desire, be added
to the existing unit of production and maintenance employees 2 We
shall, therefore, accord the factory clerical employees the opportunity
through an election to express their desires as to whether or not they
should be added to the established production and maintenance unit
represented by the Petitioner.
There is a dispute as to the unit placement of the following em-
ployees, whom the Petitioner would include as factory clerks, and
whom the Employer would exclude from the proposed unit.
Shop clerks.-There are three categories of shop clerks known as
"A" clerks, "B" clerks, and "C" clerks. The plant consists of five
buildings, and each major department in the plant has a small office
in which the shop clerks and the production foreman work. Shop
clerks prepare time cards, personnel records, and requisitions for mate-
rials under the supervision of the production foreman. They have
frequent contact with production employees. The Board has here-
tofore held that clerical employees such as these are plant clerks, and
may be represented in the same unit as production and maintenance
employees .3
The Employer contends, however, that the shop clerks should be
excluded as confidential employees. They may be present in the office
when discussions involving labor relations occur between the foreman
and assistant foreman, and they know what rates of pay other em-
ployees receive. As it does not appear from the record that the fore-
man is concerned with the Employer's general labor relations,4 and as
knowledge of salaries paid to employees is not alone sufficient to bring
the shop clerks within the Board's definition of confidential em-
ployees,,' we find that they are not confidential employees.
The Employer contends, further, that the "C" clerks should be ex-
cluded from the unit as supervisors. "C" clerks, in addition to per-
forming duties similar to "A" and "B" clerks, are responsible for the
accuracy of the work of the other clerks, receive a higher salary, and
train new employees. They have on occasion been consulted with
respect to transfers and the efficiency of the other clerks. Although
the record indicates their reports on the efficiency of other clerks are
in most cases accepted without question, there is no evidence that the
2 aemmer Manufacturing Company, 85 NLRB 700; General Petroleum Corporation, 83
NLRB 514.
3 Waterous Company, 92 NLRB 76; Truscon Steel Company, 88 NLRB 331.
4 Hotpoint, Inc, 85 NLRB 485
5 Chicago Railway Equipment Company, 85 NLRB 586.
FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION 213
"C" clerks recommend the other clerks for promotions , and the rec-
ord indicates that transfers are initiated by the chief shop clerk alone.
Although it was stated at the hearing that the "C " clerks have the
power to recommend disciplinary action against other employees, it
does not appear that they have ever exercised that power or that any
weight would be given to such recommendation , if made. Accord-
ingly, we shall permit them to vote in the election directed below.6
Stockroom clerks.-These clerks work in the stockroom located in a
plant building across the road from the main office building. Two of
the clerks in the stockroom check material requisitions , three handle
perpetual inventory records , one, known as the cutting specifications
c]erk, prepares cutting lists for sheet metal for the use of the shop,
one is the chief stockroom clerk, who supervises the stockroom clerks 7
and one is the chief inventory clerk who was recently moved to the
stockroom from the accounting office and is under the direct super-
vision of the chief accountants The Employer contends that the
stockroom clerks should be excluded on the ground that they are not
factory clerks .9 The chief stockroom clerk, who supervises these
clerks, is responsible to the stockroom foreman, who in turn is re-
sponsible to the factory superintendent . Records kept by these clerks
are for the direct use of the production department , they work the
same hours as shop clerks and production and maintenance employees,
punch time cards in the same place as the production and maintenance
employees , and work in the same locale as production and maintenance
employees and shop clerks.
In view of the foregoing , we find the interests of the stockroom
clerks are allied with those of the production employees , and we shall
,permit them to vote in the election directed below.10
Chief inspector 's ofce.-This office is located within a few feet of
the stockroom . There are two clerks working in this office; one
prepares affidavits and keeps records, and the, other acts as a stenog-
rapher and writes reports from daily foundry tests. The Employer
contends that these two employees should be excluded as confidential
employees . The chief inspector handles grievances of the inspectors
under his supervision , and prepares reports on these grievances which
may be typed by either of his two clerks . The plant inspectors super-
6 Indianapolis Newspapers Inc., 83 NLRB 407.
7 The Petitioner takes no position as to the unit placement of this employee. As the
record discloses that he has the authority effectively to recommend the discipline and
promotion of stockroom clerks, we shall exclude him from the voting group as a supervisor
8 In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we shall exclude the chief inventory
clerk , as his interests are more closely allied with the accounting department than with
the plant clerks.
9 We find without merit the Employer 's contention that the material requisition clerks
should be excluded as confidential employees . See footnote 5, above.
10 Wm. P McDonald Corporation , 83 NLRB 427 , Mississippi Products, Inc., 78 NLRB
873: Goodman Manufacturing Company, 58 NLRB 531.
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vised by the chief inspector are included in the existing production
and maintenance unit. The chief inspector does not represent the
Employer in contract negotiations with the Petitioner, and informa-
tion on his reports .on grievances is already known to the shop steward
when the report is made. He also prepares reports of a confidential
nature for the Employer in connection with defense contracts. As
the chief inspector does not formulate or effectuate the Employer's
general labor relations policies, we find these clerks are not confi-
dential employees,",. and, as their interests are allied with the plant
clerks, we shall permit them to vote in the election directed below.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting
group :
All factory clerks at the Employer's plant at Dansville, New York,
including shop clerks, stockroom clerks, and the two clerks in the
chief inspector's office, but excluding guards, professional employees,
the chief stockroom clerk, the chief inventory clerk, and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. 12
If a majority of these employees vote for the Petitioner they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the produc-
tion and maintenance unit currently represented by the Petitioner.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
11 Amplex Manufacturing Company, 85 NLRB 523.
12 The Employer contended at the hearing that the Petitioner 's showing of interest is
inadequate . The adequacy of a showing of interest is a matter for administrative deter-
mination , not litigable by the parties . See Elastic Stop Nut Corporation of America, 87
NLRB 1532 . In the instant case, the Board is administratively satisfied that the Petitioner
has made a sufficient showing of interest.
THE ZIA COMPANY, PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 611 AND INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 9 AND LOCAL No. 9A.
Case No. 33-RM-11. May 0, 1951
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 Joseph A. Jenkins,
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 Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
94 NLRB No. 50.