Loews Theatres, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 590 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lorillard, a Division of Loews Theatres, Incorporated,
Inc. and Tobacco Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO-CLC, Petitioner. Case 9-RC-10801
July 28, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS , KENNEDY , AND PENELLO
On December 4, 1974, the Regional Director for
Region 9 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found
appropriate the Petitioner's requested unit of salaried
quality control employees at the Employer's Louis-
ville, Kentucky, plant, on the basis that they have a
community of interest separate and identifiable from
the interests of the already represented plant employ-
ees. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Reg-
ulations, Series 8 , as amended, the Employer filed a
timely request for review of the Regional Director's
decision on the ground, inter alia, that in making the
above unit finding he departed from precedent. The
Petitioner filed opposition to the request for review.
On January 2, 1975, the National Labor Relations
Board by telegraphic order granted the request for
review insofar as it involves the issue of a separate
unit or a self-determination election for the quality
control group employees, denied it in all other as-
pects, and stayed the election pending decision on
review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review and
makes the following findings:
The Employer urges that the interests of the re-
quested quality control employees are so closely
linked with those of the employees currently repre-
sented by Petitioner's Local 201 that they do not
constitute a separate appropriate unit but may only
be added to the existing unit through a self-determi-
nation election. We agree.
The Employer manufactures tobacco products at
its Louisville facility here involved. Since 1937, the
Petitioner's Local 201 has represented a unit of pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the plant. Be-
ginning in 1938, hourly paid quality control employ-
ees have been included in the unit. In 1958, the
Employer instituted a two-tier inspection quality
control system and the salaried quality control group
was added under the separate supervision of the
quality control manager . Although the bargaining
unit inspection employees are under the day-to-day
supervision of production and maintenance supervi-
sors , they also receive supervision from the quality
control supervisors with regard to the technical as-
pects of their duties. The salaried quality control em-
ployees have not been included in the unit repre-
sented by Local 201.1
It is undisputed that both the hourly paid inspec-
tors in the existing unit and the approximately 30
salaried quality control employees now employed at
the plant frequently perform similar job functions,
work the same hours, and have daily contacts with
production and maintenance employees. In view of
the current representation of the hourly paid quality
control employees as part of the existing production
and maintenance unit, we are unable to agree with
the Regional Director that other factors, such as dif-
ferences in mode of payment, fringe benefits, super-
vision, skills and educational qualifications, and in-
frequent interchange, support a finding that the
salaried quality control employees share a sufficient
community of interest apart from other employees to
warrant their establishment as a separate unit. Fur-
ther, while the salaried quality control employees
constitute a residual unrepresented group, the Board
has held, in the absence of another labor organiza-
tion seeking to represent them as a residual unit, that
they may only be represented as part of the existing
unit, after a self-determination election?
In the circumstances, we shall direct a self-deter-
mination election herein in the voting group de-
scribed below to determine whether or not such em-
ployees wish to be included as part of the existing
unit represented by the Petitioner's Local 201:3
All salaried quality control group employees em-
ployed by the Employer at its Louisville, Ken-
tucky, plant, including quality control examin-
ers, factory and office waste control clerks, the
quality analyzer technician, production quality
control instrument clerk, and the production
quality control clerk, but excluding all other em-
ployees, office clericals, confidential employees,
professionals, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
i Local 201 did not intervene herein.
z See Arizona Public Service Company, 182 NLRB 505 (1970); The Budd
Company Automotive Division, Detroit Plant, 154 NLRB 421, 428 (1965); The
Cessna Aircraft Company, 123 NLRB 855, 858 (1959).
3 The conduct of the election is contingent upon the filing of a motion
with the Regional Director by Local 201, as the incumbent representative of
the existing unit , to substitute itself for the Petitioner herein . If Local 201
does not file a motion to such effect within 5 days from the date of this
Decision on Review and Direction of Election, the Regional Director shall
dismiss the petition.
219 NLRB No. 106
LORILLARD, A DIVISION OF LOEWS THEATRES 591
If a majority of employees in the above voting production and maintenance unit currently repre-
group vote for Local 201, they will be taken to have sented by Local 201, and the Regional Director shall
indicated their desire to constitute part of the existing issue a certification of results to that effect.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]