Otis Elevator Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 262 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Otis Elevator Company and Local 989, United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-8060. Judy 23, 1956
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Milton Pravitz, hearing of-
ficer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons :
The Employer has its main office at 260 Eleventh Avenue, New York
City, which is solely involved herein. This office has 6 divisions, 1 of
which is the engineering division. The Petitioner now represents what
is primarily and essentially a unit of about 200 technical employees,
in the engineering division.' The Petitioner seeks to add about 24
office clerical employees in this division 2 to the existing technical unit,
or in the alternative seeks a separate unit of the office clerical
employees.
With respect to the Petitioner's primary unit contention, the record
shows that : (1) The office clerical employees are the only unrepresented
employees in the engineering division, except for supervisors and con-
fidential secretaries ; 3 (2) they have the same overall supervision, the
same working conditions, and the same physical location as the em-
ployees in the established bargaining unit; (3) their duties pertain
solely to engineering division functions; (4) although there are some
permanent transfers of office clerical employees between the engineer-
ing and other divisions, there are no temporary assignments or trans-
fers; and (5) although there is "pretty much company seniority"
among all office clericals at Eleventh Avenue, familiarity with the work
in the engineering division is an important consideration in promotions
of office clericals in that division. Thus, there are some factors which
lend support to the Petitioner's primary unit contention. However,
'Although defined in the collective -bargaining agreement as "technicians," there are
a few classifications in this unit which might be described as highly skilled manual
positions of a quasi -technical rather than technical nature.
z File clerks , secretary-stenographers , stenographers, typists , and clerks.
2 There is also one unrepresented laboratory helper whom the Petitioner is willing to
include.
116 NLRB No. 34.
PEORIA UNION STOCK YARDS COMPANY 263
the Board has a well-established policy that where any party, as the
Employer here, objects to the inclusion of office clerical employees
with technical employees, they will not be grouped together.4 We
find, therefore, that the office clerical employees may not appropriately
be added to the existing unit of technical employees.
We also find no merit in the Petitioner's alternative contention that
the office clericals in the engineering division constitute a separate
appropriate unit. Such a unit would comprise only about 24 office
clericals, and there are about 88 other office clericals in other divisions.
These other office clericals perform similar duties, have similar job
classifications,5 and enjoy similar working conditions. Moreover, as
already pointed out, there are transfers of office clericals between the
engineering division and other divisions, and seniority among the
office clericals is "pretty much company seniority" for purposes of
promotion. Thus, the office clerical employees sought constitute only
a segment of a broader group of office clericals with similar skills,
duties, working conditions, and interests. The Board has found such
a fragmentary unit inappropriate." We find, therefore, that the em-
ployees sought do not constitute a separate appropriate unit.
As we have found that the employees sought may not appropriately
be added to the existing unit or constitute a separate appropriate unit,
we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
S See E. I. Dupont de Nemours and Company, Inc., 107 NLRB 734 at 743; The Yale and
Towne Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1268 at 1272.
6 Of 8 office clerical job classifications , 5 are common to the engineering division and
other divisions.
6 See Sperry Gyroscope Company, 94 NLRB 1724; Boeing Airplane Company, 94 NLRB
344; American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corporation, 114 NLRB 1151.
Peoria Union Stock Yards Company and Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO
Local No. 566, Petitioner . Case No. 13-RC-4941. July 23, 1956
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 Richard B. Simon, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Company is a Kentucky corporation engaged in the business
of operating a public stockyard in Peoria, Illinois. During 1955 the
116 NLRB No. 30.