Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 18, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1191 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REGULATOR CO. 1 191
3. The above-named labor organization was on January 25, 1952, and at all times since
then has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on February 16, 1952, and at all times thereafter to bargain collectively
with the aforesaid labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor Practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of A. B. Culp, W. P.
McGuire, Deatry Berry, James Pickens, Clifton Gilbert, Vernest Parker, Johnny Parker,
Curtis Smith, Coolidge Watts, L. C. Williams, Sim Wyrick, Lucius Kener, R. L. Wyrick, Joe
McKeller, Pleas Cook, and Freeman Green, and thereby discouraging membership in the
above-named labor organization the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REGULATOR CO. and LOCAL
#1114 , UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner . Case No. 13-RC-
3690 . February 18, 1954
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 Hubert J. Sigal,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
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 cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
4. The parties generally agree that a unit of salaried office
clerical employees, including the chauffeur, but excluding the
secretaries to the plant manager and the chief engineer as
confidential employees and the chief clerk of the purchasing
department, sales employees, technical employees, profes-
sional employees, employees in the personnel department, pro-
duction and maintenance employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act, is appropriate for bargaining purposes at the
Employer's Chicago, Illinois, plant. The parties disagree as to
the unit placement of the secretaries to the manager of the
107 NLRB No. 247.
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
order department and the production control manager, mail
clerks, switchboard operators , and the teletype operator. The
Petitioner would include these employees . The Employer
would exclude them and the secretary to the plant superintend-
ent (as to whose unit placement the Petitioner takes no posi-
tion ), on the ground that they are all confidential employees.
The Employer is engaged at its Chicago plant in the manu-
facture of temperature - control equipment . The plant occupies
three buildings , each on a different street. Employees in the
salaried office clerical group sought by the Petitioner work in
each of the buildings.
Alleged Confidential Employees
The secretaries to (1) manager of the order department, (2)
the production control manager, and (3) the plant superintendent:
These managers and the plant superintendent serve as depart-
ment heads .' Each department head is responsible for. the
operation of his respective department . He analyzes workloads,
schedules overtime work , in isolated cases changes working
hours , originates and grants transfers and promotions, and,
within certain limits undefined in the record , effectuates merit
increases.
The secretaries to the department heads perform the usual
duties of such employees . Among other things, they take dicta-
tion, receive incoming telephone calls, and type change of
status reports , which relate to personnel actions, before they
are approved . In view of the foregoing circumstances , we find
that the secretaries to (1) the manager of the order department,
(2) the production control manager, and (3 ) the plant super-
intendent are confidential employees , and we shall therefore
exclude them as such from the bargaining unit.
Mail clerks , switchboard operators , and the teletype operator:
These employees perform the customary duties of their classi-
fications . In the course of their work duties , they may inciden-
tally see or hear matters relating to the Employer ' s business,
including its labor relations.' We find that this is not suffi-
cient to constitute them confidential employees , and we shall
include them in the unit.
Upon the entire record in this case , we find that the following
employees of the Employer at its Chicago, Illinois, plant
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the Act: All
salaried office clerical employees , including the chauffeur,
mail clerks , switchboard operators , and the teletype operator,
' The chief engineer and the purchasing department manager also serve as such.
2 Although , among other things , mail clerks open and read mail , they are not authorized to
open mail marked "Personal and Confidential." However, because the Employer has a letter-
opening machine , even such mail is sometimes opened and may thus be read by mail clerks.
It is assumed, however, that appropriate steps can be taken by the Employer to safeguard
confidential material.
ANIMAL TRAP COMPANY OF AMERICA 1193
but excluding the secretaries to the plant manager, the chief
engineer , the manager of the order department , the production
control manager , and the plant superintendent , sales employees,
technical employees , professional employees, employees in the
personnel department , production and maintenance employees,
and the chief clerk of the purchasing department s and other
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3As noted above, the parties agree that this clerk should be excluded from the unit. It is
not clear , however, whether they agree to exclude her as a confidential employee or as a
supervisor . Because the record discloses that, inter alia, she hires employees , we find that
she is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and exclude her as such.
ANIMAL TRAP COMPANY OF AMERICA and DISTRICT NO. 98,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION. OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Pe -
titioner . Case No. 4-RC-2095. February 18, 1954.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
On December 21, 1953, pursuant to a .Decision and Direction
of Election ' issued by the Board , an election by secret ballot
among the employees of the Employer , in the maintenance unit
found appropriate , was conducted under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director of the Fourth Region. The
tally of ballots showed that of 25 votes cast, 13 were for the
Petitioner , 6 against the Petitioner , and 6 were challenged. On
December 24, 1953, the Employer filed objections to the elec-
tion, alleging that : ( 1) The Board's agent exceeded the scope of
his authority in permitting to vote under challenge 3 individuals
whom the Board, in its Decision , excluded from the unit;' (2)
by such action the Board ' s agent enlarged upon the scope of
the unit; (3) this action could create a conflict between the
Employer and the Petitioner when collective -bargaining nego-
tiations begin; and ( 4) the presence in the voting room of these
3 individuals, 2 of whom the Employer asserts are super-
visors, could be deemed to be coercive and could have intimi-
dated other voters who were present.
After an investigation, the Regional Director on January 13,
1954, issued a report on objections, inwhichhe found that even
assuming 2 of them were supervisors , there is no evidence that
1107 NLRB No. 58.
2 The Board excluded 2 of the individuals from the maintenance unit found appropriate be-
cause they are engaged solely in production work , and excluded the third individual because
he is engaged solely in developing new production equipment . The Board did not rule upon
the Employer ' s contention that 2 of them were supervisors.
107 NLRB No. 256.