Hevi Duty Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 798 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

798 • DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hevi Duty Electric Company and Electrical Workers Local 494,
I. B. E. W., AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-4779. March
13,1956
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 Allen P. Haas, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed:
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 employees
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 appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's plant in Watertown, Wisconsin, includ-
ing shipping and receiving employees, inspectors, group leaders, and
the office janitress, but excluding office clerical employees, plant cleri-
cal employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act. The Employer contends that the inspectors,
group leaders, and the office janitress should be excluded. We shall
therefore consider the unit placement of these employees.
Inspectors: The Petitioner seeks the inclusion of inspectors in the
unit. The Employer urges that these employees should be excluded,
apparently on the ground that they are supervisors. The inspectors,
who work in the same area as the final assemblers, perform electrical
tests and inspect finished products to insure that appearance and
quality meet standards set by the Employer. When these stand-
ards are not met, the inspectors report the matter to their supervisors
and may stop production until the supervisors authorize its resump-
tion. For approximately 2 hours per week inspectors perform final
assembly work. The inspectors are under the same supervision as
final assemblers, who are included in the unit, they receive the same
rate of pay, work the same hours, and receive the same benefits. As
the inspectors do not appear to have supervisory powers and as their
interests are closely allied with those of the production employees,
we shall include them in the unit.'
1 See Bell Aircraft Corporation , 96 NLRB 1211.
115 NLRB No. 115.
HEVI DUTY ELECTRIC COMPANY 799
Group leaders : The Employer contends that the group leaders
should be excluded from the proposed unit because they are super-
visors within the meaning of the Act. The Petitioner seeks their
inclusion. The Employer employs two group leaders who work in
the hot plate section of the furnace assembly and the laboratory
furnace assembly departments, respectively, under the supervision
of a general foreman of fabricating and furnace assembly. Each
group leader is in charge of approximately five employees. The rec-
ord discloses that the group leaders recommend the retention or
.termination of probationary employees under them and possess and
exercise the authority to transfer employees. In view of the fore-
going, we find that the group leaders are supervisors within the mean-
ing of the Act and we shall therefore exclude them'from the unit .2
Office janitress: The office janitress works 3 hours a day cleaning
the general offices and ladies' rooms. The office janitress does no pro-
duction work and does not participate in the employees' benefit plans.
She is supervised by the office manager. The Employer contends
that the office janitress be excluded from the unit. The Petitioner
urges her inclusion. Contrary to the Employer's contention, we find,
as the Board has in the past,3 that the nature of the work performed
by the office janitress allies her with the production and maintenance
-employees. Accordingly, we shall include her in the unit.
We find that the following employees, at the Employer's plant in
Watertown, Wisconsin, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act : All production and maintenance employees, including
shipping and receiving employees,-inspectors, and the office janitress,
but excluding group leaders, office clerical employees, plant 'clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as de-
fined in the Act. -
. 5. The Petitioner requests that eligibility to vote in the election
be determined by the payroll period next preceding* the date-of filing
the petition. The basis for this request is an allegation that the Em-
ployer has made certain changes in wages, hours, and working con-
ditions since that date which may otherwise affect the-outcome of the
election. An allegation of this nature, however, pertains to the. pos-
sible commission of unfair labor practices, which are not litigable in
a representation case. Accordingly, _ we find that the allegation is
not a valid reason to depart from our "normal election rules. The
Petitioner's request is denied.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 See Diamond Bros. Company, 96 NLRB 1420.
a United States Gypsum Company, 109 NLRB 1402. To the extent that J P. Stevens
& Co., Inc., 93 NLRB 1513, is inconsistent with our decision herein, that case is overruled.