Philharmonic Radio Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 17, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 1232 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of PHILHARMONIC RADIO CORPORATION and INTER-
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF ARCHITECTS, -ENGINEERS, CHEMISTS &
TECHNICIANS, METROPOLITAN CHAPTER 31, CIO
Case No. 2-R-5301.-Decided May 17, 1945
Mr. I. Gerard Juliber, of Brooklyn, N. Y., Mr. Victor Brociner, of
New York City, and Mr. George C. Willis, of Westfield, N. J., for the
Company.
Mr. Thomas R. Sullivan, of New York City, for the Union.
Mr. Louis Monas, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by International Federation
of Architects, Engineers, Chemists & Technicians, Metropolitan Chap-
ter 31, CIO, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affect-
ing commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees
of Philharmonic Radio Corporation, New York City, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Leon Novak, Trial Ex-
aminer. Said hearing was held at New York City on March 7, 1945.
The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded
an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Philharmonic Radio Corporation, a New Jersey corporation and
a wholly owned subsidiary of American Type Founders Inc., has its
61 N. L. R. B., No. 202.
1232
PHILHARMONIC RADIO CORPORATION 1233
principal office at Elizabeth, New Jersey, and operates a plant in New
York City, with which we are solely concerned, where it is engaged
in the manufacture of radio and electronic equipment. During 1944
the Company purchased raw materials valued in excess of $500,000,
approximately 66 percent of which was obtained from sources outside
the State of New York. During the same period, the Company man-
ufactured and sold finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000,
approximately 75 percent of which was shipped by it to points outside
that State. The Company is wholly engaged in the production of
materials for war purposes.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists & Tech-
nicians, Metropolitan Chapter 31, affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to member- -
ship employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees until
the Union has 'been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of a Board Field Examiner, introduced into evidence
at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial num-
ber of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union desires a unit of all engineering department employees
at the Company's New York City plant, excluding confidential secre-
taries 2 and supervisory employees. The Company is in general agree-
ment with the composition and scope of the unit, but disputes the
Union's proposed inclusion of the model makers, the model shop fore-
1 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 30 authorization and applica-
tion cards , 29 of which bore the names of persons appearing on the Company ' s pay roll
containing the names of 44 employees in the alleged appropriate unit.
2 These are the secretary to the vice president and director of engineering, the secretary
to the assistant to the vice president and to the supervisor of projects , and the secretary
to the director of development . The record indicates that they have access to confidential
information pertaining to the Company 's labor relations.
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
man, the reproduction group supervisor, the engineer in charge of
standards group, the supervisor of bill of material group, and the tech-
nical writer. It seeks to exclude the model makers, the only hourly
paid employees in the proposed unit, arguing that their work is more
closely identified with production, and would exclude the other per-
sons, excepting the technical writer, on the ground that they are super-
visory employees ; the Company is doubtful as to the present super-
visory,status of the technical writer, and takes no position with respect
to him.3
Model makers
The model shop is located on the same floor as the working places
of the other engineering department employees. A foreman in charge
is officially responsible to the director of development who is subject to
the authority of the Company's vice president and director of engineer-
ing.4 The four model makers construct models or prototypes, jigs,
laboratory and test equipment, and electronic parts; and they experi-
ment with wire lay-outs from written guides, blueprints, sketches and
schematics furnished by the mechanical design and laboratory sec-
tions of the engineering department. They appear to have special
skills in experimental work which is the responsibility of the engineer-
ing department. While they are not required to have a technical edu-
cation or a knowledge of theory, they must have the necessary ability
properly to perform their duties. Interchange between the model
shop and the production machine shop has been infrequent and only on
a temporary basis, since the machine shop employees are less versatile
than the model makers.5 They are frequently in consultation with the
mechanical design and laboratory engineers, and attend monthly meet-
ings of the entire engineering department presided over by the vice
president and director of engineering; at these meetings engineering
matters are discussed. The Company has acknowledged that the model
shop is a functional part of the engineering department. It is clear
that these employees have interests in common with the other employ-
3 The parties agree to the exclusion of 8 other persons as supervisory employees They
are the vice president and director of engineering , the assistant to the vice president, the
commercial engineer , the project supervisor ( also known as the'quality control engineer),
the director of development, the laboratory supervisor , the mechanical design supervisor,
and the drafting group supervisor . Failure to include the 5 categories in dispute would
result in the exclusion of it total of 13 persons as supervisory , from a unit of about 50
employees
4 As hereinafter indicaled, it is evident fiom the iecord that the mechanical design super-
visor, the previous model shop foreman, is still the actual supervisor of the model shop.
G Model makers must be able to operate many kinds of machines and tool equipment
in the construction of models For the most part , that is not true of machine shop em-
ployees, who produce the finished product Furthermore, it is required that model makers
possess the ability to wire lay-outs, whereas this is not demanded of machine shop
employees.
PHILHARMONIC RADIO CORPORATION 1235
ees of the engineering department, and do related work. We shall in-
clude the model makers.
Model shop foreman, reproduction group supervisor, engineer in charge
of standards group, supervisor of bill of material group, and techni-
cal writer
The model shop foreman was one of the model makers until the last
Company reorganization in January 1945, when he was designated
foreman of the model shop hereinabove discussed. While officially in
charge of the model shop, it appears that he has actually remained the
assistant to the previous foreman, now the mechanical design super-
visor, who apparently is still the actual supervisor of the model shop.
The only difference in the model shop since the reorganization ap-
pears to be that the mechanical design supervisor, no longer physically
within the shop confines, relies to a greater extent on the assistance of
the present model shop foreman. Furthermore, the latter's duties re-
main the same as those which were performed by him while a model
maker, except that as foreman he is required to furnish new assign-
ments to the model makers, which he obtains for them from the mechan-
ical design supervisor. Because of his "specialized" skills, mechanical
aspects of assignments are discussed with him by the model makers as
they were prior to the reorganization, and these employees continue
to consult with the mechanical design supervisor and other engineers
involved. regarding electrical problems. Moreover, while assisting
the four model makers he also spends some time doing work similar
to that performed by them. It is evident that no actual supervisory
change has occurred in the model shop as a result of the Company's
reorganization.
The reproduction group supervisor is in charge of a "subdivision" of
the drafting group and is directly responsible to the drafting group
supervisor, who, in turn, is also subject to the authority of the me-
chanical design supervisor. He directs the work of and is assisted by
two technicians in the operation of the three reproduction machines.
The graduate engineer in charge of standards group is responsible
to the director of development, and is assisted by a secretary and a
clerk. This group's functions are to establish and maintain standards
in materials and practices for the engineering department.
The bill of material group supervisor is a technical engineering
employee in charge of a "subdivision" of the mechanical design
group. He is assisted by a clerk-typist. He translates and decodes
into standard formulae information submitted by the design engineers
with respect to material requisitions, checks the contents for proper
expression, and has the information entered in a bill of material and
properly distributed; he also edits change notices to conform to
standard company procedures and practices.
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The technical writer is accountable to the director of development.
A secretary assigned to him divides her time about equally between
him and the two design coordinators. His function is to prepare and
order technical manuals which are supplied with company equipment.
The Company contends that these employees may accept or reject
applicants for positions who are referred to them by the personnel
department; that they may recommend the discharge of employees
assisting them, and that such recommendation is given weight it
arriving at a final determination after a separate and independent
investigation; and that these employees also report facts relative to
violations' of company rules and regulations committed by the em-
ployees working with them. It asserts, furthermore, that they pre-
pare periodic written ratings to establish the efficiency of employees
assigned to them which it uses as a guide in adjusting salaries. It
also claims that the reproduction group supervisor, the engineer in
charge of standards group, and the technical writer have exercised
the foregoing duties, and that the model shop foreman, and the super-
visor of bill of material group, have similar authority but have not
exercised it because they were recently elevated to their respective
positions.
However, upon the entire record, it is evident that while these
employees may possess some directive authority, they are not super-
visory employees within the purview of the Board's customary defi-
nition. As to the engineer in charge of standards group, the super-
visor of bill of material group, and the technical writer, it is apparent
that their relationship to the persons assisting them is not that of
supervisor and subordinate, but rather that of professional employee
to clerical assistant. Similarly, as to the model shop foreman and
the reproduction group supervisor, it is evident that their duties and
functions do not go beyond those normally and usually exercised by
skilled workers with respect to their less skilled assistants. More-
over, we note that the excluded supervisory employees adequately
cover the various operations of the Company's engineering depart-
ment. We shall, accordingly, include all of the disputed categories
of employees.
We find that all engineering department employees of the Com-
pany's New York City plant, including the model makers, the model
shop foreman, the reproduction group supervisor, the engineer in
charge of standards group, the supervisor of bill of material group,
and the technical write, but excluding the secretary to the vice presi-
dent and director of engineering, the secretary to the assistant to the
vice president and to the supervisor of projects, the secretary to the
director of development, the vice president and director of engineer-
ing, the assistant to the vice president, the commercial engineer, the
project supervisor (also known as the quality control engineer), the
PHILHARMONIC RADIO CORPORATION 1237
director of development, the laboratory supervisor, the mechanical
design supervisor, the drafting group supervisor, and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction."
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Philharmonic
Radio Corporation, New York City, an election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding
any who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not
been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by Federation of Archi-
tects, Engineers, Chemists & Technicians, CIO, Chapter 31, for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
The Union requested that it be designated on the ballot as its name appears in the
Direction.