Oliver Iron and Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 1043 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

OLIVER IRON AND STEEL CORPORATION , BERRY DIVISION 1043
periodically since Basic assumed responsibility for the fire
protection . The commissioner indicated that it is quite possible
that within a year Henderson may incorporate and in such
event, after the township has elected its own governing bodies,
the fire department will then become the city government
responsibility , thereby eliminating both the county commis-
sioners and Basic from the picture . Because , however, this
contingency is uncertain , the commissioners and Basic have
continued to discuss the possibility of a contract under which
the county commissioners may operate the fire department
until Henderson ,, is incorporated . With this in mind, 2 weeks
before, and on the Thursday preceeding the hearing in this
proceeding , and again on the night before the hearing, the
commissioners met with Moore , representing both Basic and
Galbreath , to discuss the question of contracting for the opera-
tion of the fire department . Notwithstanding these negotiations,
no formal agreement was worked out and another meeting was
scheduled for the Thursday following the date of the hearing.
As such or similar meetings and discussions have continued
for some 3 years without a resulting contract , we do not find
that the current discussions for that purpose indicate the
probability of a change in control that would warrant deferring,
an election in this proceeding.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
OLIVER IRON AND STEEL CORPORATION, BERRY DIVISION
and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
LODGE NO. 952 , AFL, Petitioner . Case No . 32-RC-607.
May 18, 1953
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 Caso March,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. The Petitioner ' s request for oral argument is denied
because in our opinion the record and briefs adequately
present the issues and position of the parties.
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, Murdock, and
Styles].
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
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
104 NLRB No. 132.
1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all laboratory
technicians A and B of the Employer in Corinth, Mississippi.
Lodge No. 1189, also of the International Association of
Machinists, was certified in 1952 for a unit of all production
and maintenance employees including inspectors but excluding,
inter alia , technical employees.' In the alternative, the Peti-
tioner, which indicates that it intends to request the Board to
amend that certification by substituting its name therein,
desires clarification of the production and maintenance unit
description to include the technicians. The Employer moves
the dismissal of the petition on the grounds that (1) the issue
herein was decided in 1952 when the Board excluded technical
employees from the production and maintenance units; (2)
the technicians are managerial and confidential employees who
should not be included in any bargaining unit; and (3) the
technicians, unit requested by the Petitioner is inappropriate
because it includes the A technicians who are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act. For reasons given below, we
deny the Employer' s motion.
The Employer, a manufacturer of pumps and motors, employs
4 A technicians and 4 B technicians in its separately located
research and development laboratory, where the Employer's
engineers plan and conduct experiments leading to improve-
ments in their machines. The technicians, who have no prior
technical education or experience, are trained to perform
certain operations including connecting the experimental models
designed by the engineers to testing apparatus, running
various tests, recording data, and disconnecting the models
when the tests are completed. There is no interchange between
the laboratory technicians and the production and maintenance
employees. Unlike the latter group who are, with the exception
of the inspectors, paid on an hourly basis, the technicians
receive monthly salaries and enjoy the same pension and sick
leave benefits as those accorded the Employer's director of
research and development, Frank Berry, and other "manage-
ment personnel."
The laboratory, which operates on a 24-hour basis, with the
technicians rotating on the various shifts, is under the overall
supervision of the research director and the immediate super-
vision of George O'Neill, acting chief test engineer, and his
principal assistant , John M. Jordon. During the day shift both
O'Neill and Jordon are present to direct the activities of the
4 or 5 technicians who are then on duty. Although neither
O'Neill nor Jordon is at the laboratory during the other shifts,
which usually have 1 A and 1 B technician on duty, O'Neill
leaves written or oral directions regarding the work to be
done. These technicians also have a standing order to call
O'Neill at his home if any serious difficulties occur. In
addition, the technicians on all shifts receive instructions
from other engineers of the Employer when they come in the
laboratory to observe or check special pumps.
198 NLRB 1110.
OLIVER IRON AND STEEL CORPORATION, BERRY DIVISION 1045
Despite the Employer's contention that the A technicians
exercise supervisory powers over the B technicians in the
absence of O'Neill and Jordon, the record is clear that the
technicians do not responsibly direct the work of the B
technicians. The A technicians help train newly hired B
technicians, but it is customary for combinations of these
employees to work thereafter as a team . O'Neill, rather than
the A technicians, is responsible for making out efficiency
ratings for the B technicians. Finally, the record contains no
convincing evidence that the A technicians have the authority
to effectively recommend the promotion, transfer, or discharge
of B technicians. Although the research director indicated that
he was "told" by O'Neill and Jordon that a B technician was
discharged as the result of the recommendation of an A
technician, this testimony is at most of a hearsay nature.
Moreover, O'Neill and Jordon have first-hand knowledge of
the work of each technician and are therefore in a position
to make independent judgments before effecting a discharge.
On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the A technicians
are not supervisors as contended by the Employer. Although
there is no admitted supervisor present during the night shifts,
the work performed is of a relatively routine nature and control
is exercised by the chief engineer of the laboratory through
his regular instructions and telephonic advice.2 We find also
that the technicians are not confidential or managerial em-
ployees as the secret information to which they have access
is not concerned with the Employer's labor relations or the
formulation of personnel policy.3
In view of the special nature of the technicians' work, the
physical separation of the laboratory from the plant, the
separate supervision, and the absence of interchange between
the technicians and the Employer's other employees, we believe
that the technicians constitute a separate appropriate bargaining
unit.4 Under the circumstances, we find it unnecessary to pass
upon the Petitioner's alternative request for a clarification of
the existing production and maintenance unit. Accordingly, we
find that all of the laboratory technicians A and B of the
Employer in Corinth, Mississippi, excluding all office clerical
employees, plant clerical employees, professional employees,
guards and watchmen, all other employees, and all supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.,]
=Potash Company of America , 97 NLRB 511.
3 Swift & Company, 98 NLRB 746 ; Pittsburgh Metallurgical Company, Inc ., 95 NLRB 1.
4Pittsburgh Metallurgical Company , Inc., supra International Harvester Company, 82
NLRB 185.
283230 0 - 54 - 67