Kiekhaefer Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 17, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 1097 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

KIEKHAEFER CORPORATION 1097
Kiekhaefer Corporation and National Industrial Workers Union,
affiliated with National Independent Union Council , Petitioner.
Case No. 13-RC-5713. December 17, 1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph Cohen, hearing of-
ficer. 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 Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
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 organizations involved claim 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 parties are in agreement that a unit of the Employer's pro-
duction and maintenance employees at its outboard motor plant at
Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, is appropriate. The Employer would ex-
clude from the unit all inspectors, testers, and experimental me-
chanics, while the Petitioner and Intervenor would include them .2
The Intervenor has represented the Employer's production and main-
tenance employees under successive contracts following a certifica<
tion pursuant to consent election in 1950. The most recent contract
expired in June 1957. The testers and all inspectors except two paint.
inspectors and a final line inspector have been included in the contract
unit. The paint and final line inspectors and nine experimental me-
chanics have been excluded from the contract unit, and have not been
otherwise represented.
The Employer would exclude all inspectors and testers on the
ground that they are technical and managerial employees. The Em-
ployer's layout inspectors are required to be high school graduates
and to have taken additional courses in trigonometry and algebra,
as well as to have an understanding of blueprints and layouts. Their
function is to inspect new parts, castings, jigs, and fixtures to deter-
mine whether their dimensions meet specifications. At times they
' Lodge No. 1947 , International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, intervened at the
hearing on the basis of a contractual interest.
2 While the Intervenor took no position with respect to the experimental mechanics at
the hearing , in its brief it takes the position that they should be included in the unit.
119 NLRB No. 125.
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are required to perform these functions at plants of the Employer's
suppliers. The layout inspectors perform no production work, are
the highest paid of the Employer's inspectors, and are among the
highest paid employees at the plant. Accordingly, we find that the
layout inspectors are technical employees and will exclude them from
the unit .3
The remaining inspectors and the testers are required to have at
most a high school education. The inspectors perform various types
of inspections on production parts, less complicated than those per-
formed by the layout inspectors. The testers run completed motors,
adjust them, and check them for idle, speed, noise, leaks, rattles, and
appearance. While a degree of experience appears necessary for
these jobs, none require any special technical training. The rates of
.pay received by these employees are comparable to those received by
the production and maintenance employees. These employees are
relied upon to maintain the Employer's standards of quality, and their
decisions to reject parts or products may affect the earnings of other
employees. However, upon the entire record it appears that the testers
and inspectors other than the layout inspectors are neither technical
nor managerial but have training, authority, and duties similar to
those of inspectors whom the Board regularly includes in production
and maintenance units. 4
At the hearing, the Employer contended that the experimental
mechanics should be excluded from the unit. These employees work
in a separate laboratory with engineering employees on research and
development in connection with the improvement of the Employer's
products. They are supervised by the laboratory manager. We find
that their interests are more closely linked with the laboratory em-
ployees with whom they work than with the production and mainte-
nance employees. Accordingly, we shall exclude them.'
As the paint inspectors and final line inspector have been excluded
from the existing contract unit, we will not place them in the bargain-
ing unit without first giving them an opportunity to vote as to whether
they desire representation .6 Accordingly, we shall direct elections in
the following voting groups at the Employer's Fond du Lac, Wisconsin,
plant:
A. All production and maintenance employees including all classi-
fications in the production department, the production toolroom, the
machine shop, the testing department, and the maintenance depart-
ment, and all final inspectors, floor inspectors, and salvage inspectors
3 Schick Incorporated, 114 NLRB 931, 933.
4 Metal Products Corporation, 107 NLRB 94, 96.
5 Weles, Jet Services, Inc., 119 NLRB 489.
O Rathbun Molding Corporation, 116 NLRB 1002; General Electric Company, 114
NLRB 597.
BEN FORMAN & SONS, INC. 1099
Vin the inspection department, but excluding executives, office and
clerical employees, salesmen, lake testers, layout inspectors, laboratory
employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
B. All paint and final line inspectors, excluding all other employees.
If a majority of the employees in voting group B vote against repre-
:senation by either union, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to be, and they will be, excluded from the production and main-
tenance unit. If a majority vote for representation, their ballots will
be pooled with those of the employees in the voting group A and the
two groups will constitute a single appropriate unit. The Regional
Director is instructed to issue certification of representatives or
certification of results as dictated by the outcome of the elections herein.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Ben Forman & Sons, Inc. and Local 810, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers,'
Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-8946. December 17, 1957
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 Harry E. Knolton, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
.Bean and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 2
1 The Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters' certifi-
cate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of this Union is hereby
amended.
2 The Intervenor, Local 875, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers, contends that a 1952 collective -bargaining agreement between the
Employer and Local 512, Amalgamated Miscellaneous, Production and Cleaners Union,
AFL, bars this petition . The Intervenor , chartered in March 1954, asserts that it became
the successor in interest to this contract in that year when Local 512 ceased to exist,
119 NLRB No. 136.