Palmer Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 336 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Mocanaqua , Pennsylvania, plant, excluding executives, mana-
gers , foremen, assistant foremen, foreladies, assistant foreladies,
chauffeurs, truckdrivers, office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, confidential employees, guards, and supervisors, 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 in this
volume.]
PALMER MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UAW-CIO, PETITIONER.1
Case No. 21-RC-2807. March 5, 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 P. J. Driscoll, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers
3. Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election in-
volving the Employer's plant,4 an election and runoff election were
respectively conducted on November 16 and 30, 1951. The results
of the election determined that neither of the contesting unions re-
ceived a majority of the valid votes cast .5 On December 5, 1951, the
petitioning labor organization filed objections to the conduct of the
election and, upon the recommendations of the Regional Director, the
Board on April 23, 1952, overruled these objections., At the present
time no bargaining representative has been certified or recognized for
1 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing
2 The Employer 's motion to dismiss is denied for reasons hereinafter stated.
8 At the hearing International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 49, and
Local Union 359, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, were permitted to
intervene.
Case No. 21-RC-2083, not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
Participating in the election were International Association of Machinists , District
Lodge No. 49, and the present Petitioner.
9 Case No. 31-RC-2083, not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
103 NLRB No. 18.
PALMER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 337
any of the employees at the Employer's plant. The present petition
was filed on October 23, 1952.
The Employer, at the hearing and prior thereto, moved to dismiss
the petition upon the ground that less than 12 months had elapsed
since the holding of the last election. It is the Employer's contention
that the 12-month statutory period began to run on April 23, 1952,
when the Board dismissed the objections filed to the conduct of the
last election. The Employer further asserts that the filing of the
present petition on October 23, 1952, was untimely, and violative of
the rule announced in the Centr-O-Cast d Engineering Company
case.'
The Board has previously held that the 12-month limitation pro-
vision in Section 9 (c) (3) of the Act begins to run from the date
of the first balloting and not from the date of the final determination
of the results of the election.' As the date of the first balloting in
the last election was November 16, 1951, and more than 12 months
have elapsed since that time, we reject as without merit the Employer's
first contention .9
The Employer's assertion that the present petition is untimely be-
cause it was filed within the year of the determination that no bar-
gaining representative had been selected is equally without merit. A
petition filed at or near the close of the year after an election in which
no bargaining representative was selected is timely filed 10 More-
over, the rule of the Centr-O-Cast & Engineering Company 1, case,
upon which the Employer relies, is inapplicable where, as in the instant
case, no certification period was ever established. Accordingly, as
the election directed herein will not be held until more than a year
after the 1951 election, we find without merit the Employer's motion
to dismiss the instant proceeding.
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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner and the two Intervenors seek a unit of all produc-
tion and maintenance employees at the Employer's Phoenix, Arizona,
plant, including inspectors, timekeepers, over-the-road truckdrivers,
mechanics, shipping clerks, receiving clerks, and experimental depart-
ment employees, but excluding office clerical employees, engineers,
I In the Ccntr-O-Cast & Engineering Co. case, 100 NLRB 1507, the Board reconsidered
its former administrative rule of holding in inactive status all employee and decertification
petitions filed in the 12th month of a certification year , and announced that thereafter
it would dismiss all petitions filed before the expiration of the certification year.
• Fruitvale Canning Company, 85 NLRB 684.
• Heekin Can Company, 97 NLRB 783.
20 Igieheart Bros. Div., General Foods Corp ., 96 NLRB 1005 , and cases cited therein.
31 See footnote 7, supra.
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
printing department employees, advertising department employees,
production control clerks, watchmen, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors. The Employer agrees with the Petitioner and In-
tervenors that a unit of production and maintenance employees is
appropriate, but contends that the inspectors, timekeepers, over-the-
road truckdrivers, shipping clerks, receiving clerks, and experimental
department employees should be excluded. The Employer, in addi-
tion, would exclude from the unit the inventory control clerks and
the office janitors, while the Petitioner and Intervenors take no posi-
tion as to their inclusion or exclusion.
The Employer, an Arizona corporation, is engaged in manufactur-
ing coolers and furnaces. The present management and ownership
took over the operation of this plant in July 1952. At the time of
the hearing, a study conducted by the Arizona State Employment
Service, analyzing the existing job classifications and descriptions,
was under way but had not been completed.
Inspectors: The Employer, in opposition to the Unions, would ex-
clude the inspectors on the ground that because they act for manage-
ment, their inclusion in the proposed unit would produce a conflict
of loyalty. The inspectors work in the production division inspect-
ing parts and finished products. They are under the immediate su-
pervision of a chief inspector, who is in turn supervised by the engi-
neering department. The inspectors are responsible for the quality
of the work performed, and have authority to accept or reject parts
and finished products. Their rejections may affect the bonus earn-
ings of employees working on the incentive plan. Inspectors are,
however, paid on an hourly basis, punch the same time clock, and
work in the same general area as production employees. Moreover,
there is no evidence that inspectors exercise any supervisory author-
ity. Under these circumstances, as the inspectors have a community
of interests with the production workers and are not supervisors, we
shall include them with the production and maintenance employees
in accordance with our usual policy 12
The timekeeper and the inventory control clerks: The timekeeper
and the inventory control clerks work in the production area of the
plant. The timekeeper works in close association with the production
employees and records the amount of time that individual production
employees devote to each particular job. The timekeeper also places
the timecards in the racks each evening and collects the cards each
day. The inventory control clerks keep records of the Employer's
inventory and compile perpetual inventory cards of requisitions from
the stockroom. Although the timekeeper and the inventory control
>a Bell Aircraft Corporation, 96 NLRB 1211 ; Farrell-Cheek Steel Company , 88 NLRB 303 ;
Bryant Heater Co., 77 NLRB 744.
PALMER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 339
clerks are paid on a salary rather than an hourly basis, this factor
does not necessarily differentiate them from the production employees
with whom they work and have other common interests 13 From the
foregoing facts, it is clear that the timekeeper and inventory control
clerks are plant clerical employees with interests closely allied with
those of production employees. We shall, therefore, include them
in the unit 14
The experimental department employees: The experimental de-
partment employees are salaried employees who work under close
professional supervision in the experimental shop separate from the
production division. They are responsible for the fabrication of new
models developed by the engineering department and work not from
blueprints but from the ideas of the engineers expressed orally or in
rough sketches. The experimental employees are required to have a
mechanical engineering background, and are expected to be creative
and to exercise independent judgment in the performance of their
work. In view of the dissimilarity in interests between the experi-
mental employees and the production and maintenance employees,
we shall exclude the experimental employees from the unit 15
The office janitor: The Employer would exclude the janitor who
cleans the Employer's office. The Petitioner and the Intervenors take
no position as to her inclusion or exclusion from the unit. As the
nature of the work performed by the office janitor allies her more
closely with the production and maintenance employees, we shall in-
clude her within the unit 16
The over-the-road truckdrivers: The Petitioner and the Intervenors
would include, and the Employer would exclude, the over-the-road
truckdrivers. These employees work under the direction of the traffic
department during the 9-month trucking season , and are paid on a
salary basis. During the 3-month off-season, the over-the-road truck-
drivers are employed in the plant as production workers and are paid
upon an hourly basis. At least 2 of the present complement of 8 truck-
drivers are driver-mechanics performing mechanical repair work dur-
ing the off-season and under the immediate supervision of the chief
mechanic. Moreover, there is a possibility that once having gone into
the plant as production workers, these employees may remain as pro-
duction employees rather than return to truck driving. As the over-
the-road truckdrivers have interests in common with the production
workers during a substantial period of time, and as no union seeks to
1 Daystrom Furniture Division , DaijRtrom. Inc, 101 NLRB 343.
11 W. F. & John Barnes Company , 96 NLR;t 1138 1 ( timekeepers ) ; Carbide and Carbon
Chemicals Division, 92 NLRB 1555, 1558 ( inventory clerks).
15 Librascope, Incorporated, 91 NLRB 178.
16 California Spray Chemical , 86 NLRB 453; Evans Milling Co., 85 NLRB 391.
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
represent them as a separate unit, we shall include them in the pro-
duction and maintenance unit 17
We find that all production and maintenance employees 18 at the
Employer's Phoenix, Arizona, plant, including inspectors, timekeep-
ers, over-the-road truckdrivers, mechanics, inventory control clerks,
and the office janitor, but excluding official clerical employees, engi-
neers, printing department employees, advertising department em-
ployees, production control clerks, experimental department employ-
ees, watchmen, guards, professional employees, and 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 in this
volume.]
17 Swift & Company, 99 NLRB 1497 ; Birmingham Casket Company, 92 NLRB 578; Tell
City Furniture Company, Inc., 88 NLRB 284.
18 The Petitioner and Intervenors would include the shipping clerk and the receiving
clerk as plant clericals . The Employer seeks their exclusion as supervisors . As the record
is inadequate to determine whether or not these two employees are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act, they will be permitted to cast challenged ballots in the election herein-
after directed. If either of them exercises supervisory powers within the meaning of the
Act, he is to be excluded from the unit ; otherwise , he is to be included.
LEON-FERENBACH, INC. and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL, PETITIONER. Case No . 4-RC-1869. March 5, 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 Bernard Samoff, hearing
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A 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.
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board a motion by the Intervenor , Textile Workers
of America , CIO, herein called the CIO, that the Board take judicial notice of certain
portions of the transcript in Case No . 4-RC-1637, involving this Employer . The motion
is hereby granted.
103 NLRB No. 31.