Kearney & Trecker Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 2, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 891 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

KEARNEY & TRECKER CORPORATION 891
Kearney & Trecker Corporation and Technical Engineers Asso-
ciation (Independent ), Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-4463. No-
vember 2, 1955
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, hearing
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 certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that
the Petitioner was currently the certified bargaining representative
of employees in the requested unit. After a Board-directed election 1
in 1951, the Petitioner was certified as bargaining representative for a
unit of employees in the Employer's process engineering and standards
departments. However, subsequent to its certification, the Petitioner
made no effort to negotiate a contract with the Employer. When the
Petitioner in June 1955 requested recognition, the Employer refused
the request on the ground that the Petitioner no longer represented a
majority in the unit. Thereupon, the Petitioner did not file charges of
refusal to bargain against the Employer but filed the instant petition
for an election in a unit broader in composition than the unit for which
it was certified. As it is clear from the foregoing that a question con-
cerning representation was presented by the Petitioner's demand and
the Employer's refusal of recognition of the Petitioner as the con-
tinued majority representative, we find no merit in the Employer's con-
tention. The Employer's motion to dismiss is hereby denied.
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 unit for which the Petitioner was certified in 1951 comprised
time-study men, time-study analysts, process planners, and process
engineers in the process engineering and standards departments of the
Employer's Milwaukee, Wisconsin, plant. Under its present petition,
the Petitioner originally sought to add to the unit previously found
appropriate, the tool designers and the clerks in the process engineer-
ing and standards departments. At the hearing, however, when it was
193 NLRB 890.
114 NLRB No. 137.
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
developed that the tool designers were located in a separate tool design
department and that the requested clerks performed clerical and not
technical functions, the Petitioner agreed with the Employer to ex-
clude them.
,The Employer would exclude five of the process planners on the
ground that they are assigned to other departments and would exclude
an employee classified as "standards rater computation" because he is
actually a file clerk. The Petitioner contends that these six employees
should be included because their classifications fall within the unit:
The Employer manufactures machine tools. The unit found ap-
propriate by the Board in the 1951 proceeding, apparently comprised
all the technical employees of the Employer.2 Indeed, at the time of
that decision, the Board had a policy of not creating a unit including
some, but not all, of an employer's technical employees.' As the Board
continues to adhere to this policy,4 it must govern our consideration
of the unit herein sought.
As noted above, the Petitioner amended its original unit proposal
by agreeing with the Employer to exclude the tool designers. How-
ever, it appears that the tool designers are technical employees.5
Therefore, in the light of the Board's above-mentioned policy, the tool
designers, notwithstanding their recent segregation by the Employer
in a separate department or the parties' agreement to exclude them;
are appropriately included in the unit of technical employees.6 For
the same reason, process planners, Ray Gaffney, Louis Tanko, and
Edward Obst, and process engineer, William R. Beck,' who apparently
continue to perform work within their classifications despite, their
assignment to departments other than process engineering, are prop-
erly included in the proposed unit. However, with respect to the other
contested process planner, James L. Rother, since he is actually per-
forming clerical duties similar to a technical clerk, we shall treat him
as a technical clerk, a classification which the parties have agreed to
exclude from the unit as office clerical in nature. Likewise, we shall
exclude Samuel Nelson, who, although classified as a "standards rater
computation," is actually working as a file clerk in the standards
department.
5 It did not appear from the record in the 1951 case, nor was it contended , that any of
the employees included in the unit were professional employees. On the other hand, the
included categories , although not designated as such by the parties , were of the types
which the Board has frequently found to be technical employees.
8 See The Monarch Machine Tool Co., 98 NLRB 1243.
4 See Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., 113 NLRB 443
5 See Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., supra ; Heintz Manufacturing Company, -100
NLRB 1521, 1526-1527.
e Although the unit is thus enlarged beyond that agreed to by the parties this unit
coincides with that originally sought by the Petitioner and is supported by an adequate
showing of interest.
7 No contention is made that Beck is a supervisor.
LE ROI DIVISION, WESTINGHOUSE AIRBRAKE CO. 893
We find that all technical employees at the Employer's Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, plant, including time-study men, time-study analysts,
process engineers,' process planners,9 and tool designers, but exclud-
ing technical clerks,10 time-study clerks," file clerks and all other cleri-
cal employees, time-study engineers, all other professional employees,
tool control men, all other employees, and all guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act,12 constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
8 Including Beck, who is assigned to the tool design department.
8 Including Gaffney in the tool design department , Tanko in the development engineering
department , and Obst assigned as staff man to the quality control manager in the manu-
facturing division.
10 Nelson is excluded as a technical clerk.
u Although the Petitioner in its petition sought to include time -study clerks , no testimony
was elicited at the hearing to justify their inclusion . In view of their classification as
clerks, we shall exclude them.
12 The classifications of technical employees specifically included encompass junior and
senior grades The record does not indicate that other classifications of technical em-
ployees are present in the plant.
Le Roi Division , Westinghouse Airbrake Co. and Sam C . Corso,
et al., Petitioner and International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO.
Case No. 13-RD-238. November 2, 1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 dated July 25,
1955, an election by secret ballot was conducted in this proceeding on
August 15, 1955, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region among the employees of the Em-
ployer in the unit found appropriate by the Board. At the conclu-
sion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots.
The tally shows that of approximately 11 eligible voters, 2 voted for,
and 6 voted against, the Union, with 3 ballots being challenged.
On August 17, 1955, the Union filed timely objections to the election
and conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with
the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted
,1.Le'R6t Division, Westinghouse Air Brake Company, 113 NLRB 271'.
114 NLRB No. 139.