McQuay Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 13, 1954107 N.L.R.B. 787 (N.L.R.B. 1954) Copy Citation McQUAYINCORPORATED 787 based upon an unrealistic view of the impact on interstate commerce of industrial disputes in the business involved-14 14See also Hill & McCormick, 107 NLRB 491; Brooks Wood Products Co. 107 NLRB 237. McQUAY INCORPORATED and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, (UAW-CIO), Pe- titioner . Case No . 18-RC-2052. January 13, 1954 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Max Rotenberg, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. I Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.' 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 3 4. The appropriate unit: The parties are in agreement that a unit of production and maintenance employees is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. There is disagreement, however, as 1The hearing officer referred to the Board theIBEW's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that there was pending an unfair labor practice charge against the Employer which had not been waived by the IBEW. Wehavebeen administratively advised that the Regional Director had dismissed Intervenor IBEW's charge (Case No 18-CA-560) a day before the commence- ment of the hearing, and on the same day duly served notice of the dismissal upon the IBEW. In these circumstances, we areoftheopinion that it will best effectuate the policies of the Act, and promote the orderly processes of collective bargaining, to direct an immediate election herein, even though an appeal from the dismissal of the charges is pending before the General Counsel. See United States Smelting, Refining &MiningCompany, 93 NLRB 1280. Accordingly, the IBEW's motion is denied. 2Local 110, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL (herein referred to as IBEW) and Minnesota Factory Workers' Union were permitted to intervene at the hearing. s We find no merit in the IBEW's contention that its contract with the Employer is a bar to this proceeding. The contract with the Employer was effective from August 1, 1951, to December 1, 1953, and year to year thereafter unless changed or terminated upon 60 days written notice prior to November 30, 1953. On September 2, 1953, the IBEW gave the Em- ployer written notice of its desire to terminate this contract On September 10, 1953, the em- ployer gave the IBEW written notice of its desire to negotiate a new contract. As timely notice to terminate the contract was given by both the Employer and the IBEW, and as the peti- tion involved herein was filed on September 4, 1953, prior to the "Mill B" date of the contract, we find that the contract is not a bar to a present determination of representation 107 NLRB No. 160. 788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the inclusion or exclusion of certain classifications of employees which are discussed below: The stock clerk, shipping clerk , and receiving clerk: These three employees work in the stock , shipping , and receiving area of the plant under the immediate supervision of the material-control foreman . 4 They keep records in connection with the storage , receiving , and shipping of materials, and check incoming and outgoing orders for accuracy . As these clerks are essentially plant clerical employees we shall, contrary to the Employer ' s contention , include them in the unit. 5 The production control clerks : The Employer and the Minnesota Factory Workers ' Union would exclude, and the Intervenor IBEW would include , the three production control clerks . The Petitioner took no position with respect to this classification . The production control clerks work upon the administrative control of the plant superintendent and are located in his office. Their duties are to keep records of the progress of orders through the various plant departments. This work requires that they spend substantial periods of time in the production areas recording production information. We find that these employees are plant clerical employees with interests similar to those of production employees-6 Accordingly , we shall include them in the unit. The maintenance department clerk : This employee handles the records and paperwork of the maintenance department and in addition requisitions small tools and supplies which he stocks in the tool crib. It is intended that this employee will, in the future , issue small tools and supplies to the employees requiring them. As the work of this employee is essentially that of a toolroom clerk and plant clerical employee, we shall include him in the unit.T The methods man: This employee works in a separate area in the maintenance department where, under the direction of the methods engineer, he fabricates simple tools, jigs, and fixtures . Although part of his duties include the developing of new ideas for routine jigs and fixtures , he has no formal education and admittedly is not qualified to produce compli- cated tools or dies . On occasion he will instruct employees in the use of a tool, jig , or fixture that he has made, but he has no authority to hire, discharge , or discipline employees, or effectively to recommend such action. In view of his com- 4 We find no merit in the Employer's contention that the stock clerk is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act . The Employer 's production superintendent testified that the six stock handlers , who the Employer claims the stock clerk supervises , work under the supervision of the material- control foreman Moreover , it is clear that at most the stock clerk acts as a conduit for the transfer of orders from the material-control foreman to the stock handlers. 5General Electric Company, 106 NLRB 364; Western Gear Works , Mission Plant, 104 NLRB No. 76. 6Sherold Crystals, Inc., 104 NLRB 1072. 7 See Standard Lime and Stone Company, 95 NLRB 1141. THOMAS-WIENER COMPANY 789 munity of interest with the other production and maintenance employees , we shall, notwithstanding his experimental duties, include him in the unit. 8 The timekeepers : The Employer employs three timekeepers whose duties are to check and collect timecards and to record from them the piecework earnings of the production employees. The timekeepers are located in the factory area and are under the ultimate supervision of the chief accountant . We find that the timekeepers are plant clerical employees who may properly be included in a production and maintenance unit notwithstand- ing the fact that they are under different supervision than the other production and maintenance employees. 9 We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Faribault, Minnesota , plant, including the stock clerk, the shipping clerk, the receiving clerk, production control clerks , the maintenance department clerk, the methods man , timekeepers , setup men, and group leaders,10 but excluding the superintendent, the assistant superintendent , the chief inspector , office employees, the methods engineer , the resident engineer , professional employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 11 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 8J. I. Case Company, 105 NLRB 638. 9General Electric Company, 106 NLRB 364. 10 The parties with the exception of the IBEW agreed that the setup men and group leaders are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act . The IBEW took no position as to these classifications . As the setup men and group leaders do not have the authority to hire , discharge, discipline , or effectively to recommend such action , we find that they are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Meier Electrical & Machine Co., Inc., 107 NLRB 143 Accord- ingly, we include them in the unit. 11 The Employer , the Petitioner , and the Minnesota Factory Workers ' Union would exclude, and the IBEW would include , the three time-study men. As the record does not contain suf- ficient information to warrant a unit determination at this time , we shall allow the time- study employees to cast challenged ballots in the election hereinafter directed. THOMAS-WIENER COMPANY and BAKERY & CONFECTION- ERY WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL 149, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 32-RC-704. January 13, 1954 ORDER PERMITTING WITHDRAWAL OF PETITION WITH PREJUDIC E On November 30, 1953, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding. By telegram dated December 17 , 1953, the Board was administra- tively advised that the Petitioner has requested permission to withdraw its petition for certification of representatives pre- 107 NLRB No. 179. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation