Martin Parry Corp.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 31, 195195 N.L.R.B. 1506 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation 1506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ishers, operators, rippers, and pressers at the Employer' s stores are all engaged in manual work, much of it highly skilled, which is easily differentiated from the duties of the selling personnel. Tailor shop employees are paid on a different basis than other employees and in one instance work at times when the remainder of the store is closed. They are separately located and in most instances salesmen are under direction not to enter their work quarters. The majority decision apparently considers the unit to be inappropriate as a departmental grouping because a limited number of these employees do a limited amount of work outside the department. I do not consider this fac- tor to be determinative. It should be noted that such "interchange" is confined to instances where alteration department employees per- form duties elsewhere in the store for, in most instances, minor por- tions of their work time.' There is no instance in the record of nonalteration employees doing work in the tailor shop. To hold that such "interchange" indicates a community of interest obscuring the distinctness of the alteration departments' skills is to ignore its lim- ited nature. The instant situation is clearly distinguishable, accord- ingly, from those cases in which we have held a unit of alteration employees to be inappropriate because it did not include all personnel performing that type of work." On the entire record, I find that the alteration employees constitute a basically highly skilled, distinct, and homogeneous departmental group which, in the absence of any past or present representation on a broader basis, could constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.9 'The incidents noted in the record almost entirely concern relief selling clone by the lesser skilled employees or janitor work done by individuals who also In the pressing in the tailor shop . In none of these instances does the employee perform it majority of his or her «ork outside the department 8 See Carson Perm Scott & Co , 75 NLRB 1244 ; and Mandel Brothe, s, Inc , 77 NLRB 512. In these , the only two instances where the Board has so held , the units requested did not encompass both men's and women ' s alteration depaitments despite the basic similarity of the work. Extent of organization was accoidingly found to be the basis for the proposed grouping Such a situation is, of course, not present in the instant case. ° See Angelaca Hosiery Mills, Inc., 95 NLRB 1284 , and cases cited therein for comparable instances in which the Board has granted separate representation MARTIN PARRY CORPORATION 1 and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 12, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-1 228. August 31, 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 Carroll L. Martin, hearing ' The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing. 95 NLRB No. 146. MARTIN PARRY CORPORATION 1507 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 employees of the Employer. . 3.. In September 1946, the. Petitioner, pursuant to a card check, was designated as the representative of a unit consisting of produc- tion, nonproduction, and maintenance workers with certain exclusions.2 The Petitioner now seeks to add to this unit the Employer's four time- keepers. The Employer moved at the hearing that the instant peti- tion be dismissed because it was barred by its existing contract with the Petitioner. • However, this agreement does not cover the em- ployees sought to be represented here. Furthermore, contrary to the Employer's contention, the express exclusion of these employees from the coverage clause of the contract is not tantamount to an agreement by the Petitioner not to represent there. In Briggs Indiana Corpora- tion ,3 upon which the employer relies, the, union had expressly con- tracted not to seek to represent certain employees for a certain period. There is no such agreement between the Employer and the Petitioner affecting the timekeepers. In these circumstances, the contract does not bar a present' determination of representatives,4 and the motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied. We find, accordingly, that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning 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 Employer objects to the inclusion of the timekeepers in the Petitioner's present bargaining unit of production and maintenance employees. The timekeepers are located throughout the plant in the particular production departments which they service, and they per- form the usual duties associated with their job title. They accumulate labor cost data and record the hours worked by each employee, the rate of each employee's production, and maintain records relating to efficiency of the employees. They compute the wages due the em- ployees by applying the applicable piece rate to the number of pieces produced, aid in the taking of inventory, and perform other usual timekeeping duties. Their line of supervision runs to the cost de- . partment and not to the plant foreman. For the most part, their 2 Case No. 8-R-2359, not published. 3 63 NLRB 1270. 4 Philadelphia. Company and Associated Companies , 84 NLRB 115. 961974-52-vol. 95-96 1508 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD work is not checked by ' other employees , though the cards on which they compute the wages due are subject to a cursory inspection to correct obvious errors. The Employer contends that , in view of these% duties of the time- keepers, they are managerial . employees . However, as the timekeepers do not assist in the formulation of management policies, we find that they are not managerial employees.5 The Employer also contends that the timekeepers should be excluded as confidential employees be= cause they have access to wage and- other secret data concerning pro- -ductive processes . It is well settled, however , that access to or knowl- edge of such information does not warrant exclusion of employees'as confidential empldyees .e The, Employer contends , finally, that the timekeepers are supervisors because they are responsible for the taking ,of inventory . However , there is no evidence in the record to indicate the extent , if any, to which they direct the work of other employees or exercise other supervisory functions .'' We find, therefore , that the timekeepers are plant clericals who may appropriately be added td the production and maintenance unit that the -Petitioner currently represents.8 - . Accordingly, we shall give the timekeepers at the Employer's Toledo , Ohio, plant the opportunity through an election to express their desires as to whether , or not they should be added to the estab- lished production and maintenance unit 'represented by Petitioner. If the timekeepers select the Petitioner as their bargaining agent, they will be taken , to have indicated their desire to be bargained for- ts part of the unit currently represented by the Petitioner. - [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 6 Foster Wheeler Corporation, 94 NLRB 211 ; Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, 88 NLRB 1370, 1374. 6 General Electric Company , 89 NLRB 726, 732; Minneapolis-Moline Company, 85 NLRB 597, 599. ' See I. S. Berlin Press, 93 NLRB 13. Wilson Athletic Goods Mfg. Co., Inc., 93 NLRB No. 90 ; Electrical Reactance Corpora= tion, 92 NLRB 1256; Chase Aircraft Company, Inc., 91 NLRB 288; United Screw & Bolt Corporation, 89 NLRB 953 , 955; Farrell-Cheek Steel Company, 88 NLRB 303, 304. BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OP TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS AND DRAFTSMEN'S UNION, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-9095. August 31, 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 Robert S. Fuchs, hear- 95 NLRB No. 212. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation