Pickering & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1980

248 N.L.R.B. 772 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pickering & Company, Inc. and Local 810, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Peti-
tioner. Case 29-RC-4469
March 28, 1980
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On April 11, 1979, the Regional Director for
Region 29 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the above-entitled proceeding in which he
found appropriate the requested unit of production,
maintenance, and warehouse employees employed
at the Employer's facility located in Freeport, New
York. Thereafter, in accordance with Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the
Employer filed at timely request for review of the
Regional Director's decision on the grounds, inter
alia, that in finding the Freeport, New York, facili-
ty an appropriate unit for purposes of collective
bargaining, he made erroneous findings as to sub-
stantial factual issues and departed from officially
reported precedent.
By telegraphic order dated May 9, 1979, the
Board granted the Employer's request for review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case with respect to the issues under review
and finds that the appropriate unit here must in-
clude the Employer's production, maintenance, and
warehouse employees of both the Freeport and
Plainview facilities for the following reasons:
The Employer is a New York corporation which
is engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of
audio components, turntables, headsets, measure-
ment, and control devices and related products at
two locations in the State of New York and one lo-
cation in Florida. Its main facility is located at 101
Sunnyside Boulevard, Plainview, Long Island. Ad-
ditional Plainview facilities, including unstaffed
storage facilities, are located within I mile of the
main facility. There are approximately 191 employ-
ees employed at the Plainview facilities. The Em-
ployer also operates a second facility at 137 East
Merrick Road, Freeport, Long Island, where ap-
proximately 80 employees are employed.' The
Freeport facility is approximately 11 miles from the
main facility at Plainview.
l The Employer's facility in Florida is not involved in this case.
248 NLRB No. 99
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit com-
posed of the production, maintenance, and ware-
house employees at the Freeport facility. The Em-
ployer contends that the only appropriate unit
would consist of all its production, maintenance,
and warehouse employees at its Plainview and
Freeport locations.
In his report, the Regional Director found that
the record reveals some functional integration,
common supervision, centralized purchasing and
support operations, and common fringe benefits.
He nevertheless found the petitioned-for unit of
employees at Freeport to be appropriate in view of
record evidence that day-to-day labor relations rest
with the respective personnel managers at each lo-
cation, as well as little employee interchange on a
day-to-day basis, a lack of geographic proximity,
and no history of collective bargaining among the
employees on any basis.
The Employer's production operations are under
the control of the vice president in charge of oper-
ations. Production is carried out in five depart-
ments: audio and turntable assembly, audio, mea-
surement and control (M&C), quality control, and
packaging and shipping. Each department is
headed by a manager or supervisor located in
Plainview. The audio department located at Free-
port is under the immediate direction of an acting
supervisor who is also the Freeport personnel man-
ager. Within the departments are seven basic job
classifications: assembler, inspector, coil winder,
machinist, moulder, packer, and shipping clerk.
The audio and turntable department produces
several styli cartridge combinations for use in
phonographic sound reproduction units. Raw mate-
rials are purchased in Plainview and production of
the various combinations requires work by several
subdepartments at both Plainview and Freeport. 2
Final assembly, testing, and packaging take place at
Freeport and the packaged product is shipped back
to Plainview for storage.
The M&C department produces approximately
150 different linear and notary measurement and
control products. As with audio production, M&C
production also is highly integrated between the
Plainview and Freeport facilities. Richard Cole, the
M&C manager, is based at Plainview but maintains
an office at Freeport. The M&C production con-
trol office at Plainview performs all M&C produc-
tion planning. Cole, who establishes the production
schedule for both facilities, testified:
T2 ransportation of materials and products between the two facilities is
handled by the transportation department which is based in Plainview.
The drivers make two scheduled trips daily as well as special trips as
needed
The Freeport facility neither initiates the manufacture of audio prod-
ucts nor produces such products in its entirety.
PICKERING & COMPANY, INC. 773
. . .the type of work that I keep up here
[Plainview] are the ones that need more atten-
tion, constant attention, and more sophisticated
type of work. What I send down to Freeport
are the ones that I can take care of by my
daily visits to Freeport.
Upon completion of Freeport's part of the process,
the items are shipped back to Plainview where
they undergo electronic testing and/or further
molding or machining operations.
Cole spends about 2 hours a day at Freeport.
During these visits, Cole discusses with the group
leader the daily work assignment and the employee
complement. Cole also testified that he relies on
Mary Williams, the Freeport personnel manager, to
initially screen job applicants and to make recom-
mendations on discipline and promotions for the
M&C employees at Freeport, but that he makes the
final decision in each case. With regard to wage in-
creases, Cole testified that he makes such decisions
based on records he maintains on the employees
without consulting Williams.
The testing and inspection of the Employer's
products is performed by inspectors in the quality
control department under the overall direction of
the quality control manager and quality control en-
gineer, both located at Plainview. Immediately
under the quality control engineer is the product
test supervisor and 13 inspectors at Plainview and a
group leader and 8 inspectors at Freeport. Al-
though the day-to-day work assignments in the in-
spection department at Freeport are made by the
group leader, the assignments are in accord with
the production schedules by the production depart-
ment at Plainview. In addition, the quality control
manager at Plainview telephones the group leader
at Freeport daily and spends approximately half a
day each week at Freeport. The quality control en-
gineer at Plainview reviews, and his concurrence is
necessary for approval of, requests for overtime at
both facilities. Wage increases and vacation change
requests are submitted by the respective managers
at each facility to managers at Plainview who usu-
ally routinely approve them. Terminations at both
facilities must be approved by the quality control
engineer and the quality control manager at Plain-
view.
Equipment installation and maintenance is per-
formed by maintenance employees stationed at
Plainview. These employees maintain the electrical,
heating, cooling, and water supply lines, and all
machinery and equipment for the Employer's oper-
ations at both the Plainview and Freeport loca-
tions. The toolroom supervisor is in charge of all
tool including dies, fixtures, molds, and assembly
tools used in the Plainview and Freeport oper-
ations. Much of the maintenance work on tools is
performed at the Plainview facility with the porta-
ble Freeport tools needing service being transport-
ed by the shuttle drivers from Freeport to Plain-
view. However, the Plainview toolroom employees
regularly go to the Freeport facility to perform ser-
vice on heavy machinery and equipment.
The packing and shipping manager stationed at
Plainview is in charge of all packaging and ship-
ping. There is a group leader at Freeport. The
equipment used at both locations is similar. On sev-
eral occasions, one of the Freeport packers has
moved to Plainview to assist in handling increased
shipping orders. All shipments to customers are
from the Plainview facility.
All administrative functions for the two locations
are performed at Plainview. Both facilities operate
on similar schedules and shut down for vacations at
the same time. All employees receive the same
fringe benefits, and eligibility requirements for cal-
culating benefits is determined by total service at
both locations. The wage review committee at
Plainview makes the final decision on all wage in-
creases. All hiring requisitions are submitted to and
approved by Plainview management and the final
approval for discharges is by the director of per-
sonnel in Plainview.
In sum, it is clear that the Employer's Plainview
and Freeport facilities operate with a high degree
of functional integration and that the Freeport fa-
cility is largely dependent on the management in
Plainview for both administrative and production
matters. The authority of the first-line supervisors
at Freeport does not dilute this dependence in view
of the direct involvement of Plainview managers in
the day-to-day operation of the Freeport facility.
Similarly, the impact of the geographical separation
of the two locations is minimized here by the Em-
ployer's shuttle system of cars, vans, and trucks
which operates daily. Furthermore, employees of
one facility, have been transferred to the other fa-
cility to satisfy overtime requirements. In addition,
there is frequent transfer of machinery-not only
equipment, but also whole production lines as
space was needed and became available-and a
centralized maintenance crew located at Plainview
performs machinery repairs and other maintenance
at both locations.
In these circumstances, we find that the pre-
sumptive appropriateness of a single-plant unit has
been rebutted, that the requested unit limited to the
Freeport facility is an arbitrary segment of employ-
ees in the Employer's Long Island, New York, op-
erations, and that the appropriate unit must include
the employees at both Plainview and Freeport,
PICKERING & COMPANY, I C.
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Long Island, New York.3 Accordingly, we find
that the following employees of the Employer con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act:
All production, maintenance, and warehouse
employees employed by the Employer at its
Plainview and Freeport, New York, facilities
excluding all office clericals, guards,
nightwatchmen, group leaders and supervisors,
as defined in the Act.
Accordingly, the case is remanded to, the Re-
ginal Director for the purpose of conducting an
election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of
Election, as modified herein, except that the eligi-
bility payroll period therefor shall be for that
ending immediately before the date of this, Decision
on Review, and a revised eligibility list, containing
the names and addresses of all eligible voters, must
be filed by the Employer with the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 29 within 7 days of the date of this
Decision on Review. 4
3 U-Wanna-Wash Frocks, Inc., 203 NLRB 174 (1973).
Our dissenting colleague seeks to isolate the high degree of production
integration between the Plainview and Freeport facilities by pointing out
that it is unaccompained by any day-to-day interchange oF employees at
those facilies. We have found the Employer's integrated production pro-
cess to be significant, however, because the Freeport facility is largely
dependent on the management in Plainview for both administrative and
production matters. Thus, this case differs from Wescore, Inc., 230 NLRB
1159, 1160 (1977), relied on by our dissenting colleague, where there was
a substantial degree of autonomy over day-to-day supervision of the
Gardner plant employees by the Gardner plant manager Furthermore,
we rely here on the considerable contact between the employees of the
two plants as a result of the centralized maintenance function, the small
geographical separation minimized by the daily operatior of th eshuttle
system between facilities, and the transfer of employees from one facility
to the other to satisfy overtime requirements. In these circumstances, the
limited authority of the Freeport personell manager over day-to-day
labor relations at Freeport is insufficient to grant a separate unit at Free-
port. Nor is this case like Hamburg Knitting Mills Compcny, 239 NLRB
No. 178 (1979), also relied on by our dissenting colleague. There, the sep-
arate immediate supervision was supported by a "total lack of inter-
change and near absence of integration between employees at the plants"
as well as a "difference in training, pay, and number of shifts to be
worked at each plant." No such comparable differences between the two
plants exist here.
4The unit found appropriate is larger than that sought by the Petition-
er. Accordingly, the Regional Director shall not proceed with the elec-
CHAIRMAN FANNING, dissenting:
For the reasons stated by the Regional Director,
I would find that the Petitioner's requested unit of
employees at the Employer's Freeport, New York,
facility is appropriate for collective bargaining. The
Freeport facility is geographically separate, there is
no bargaining history, and the day-to-day supervi-
sion of the Freeport employees, including work as-
signments, rests with Freeport supervisors. While
there exists a high degree of product integration
between the Freeport and Plainview facilities, it is
unaccompanied by any day-to-day interchange of
employees. Further, while the majority makes
much of the fact that the final decisions regarding
hires, fires, promotions, wage increases, and vaca-
tions for Freeport employees rests with managers
at Plainview, it does not dispute the Regional Di-
rector's findings that approval of wage increases
and vacations is routine. Nor does it disturb the
Regional Director's findings that the Freeport per-
sonnel manager has the authority to screen job ap-
plicants, make wage recommendations, handle
grievances, issue warning slips, grant sick leave,
and recommend terminations. Thus, it can hardly
be said that the Freeport facility lacks autonomy in
regard to day-to-day labor relations or that the
day-to-day concerns of the Freeport employees are
not separate from those at Plainview. Under such
facts, the Regional Director correctly concluded
that the common administrative control and prod-
uct integration between the Plainview and Free-
port facilities were insufficient to rebut the pre-
sumptive appropriateness of a single-plant unit at
Freeport.5
tion herein until he has determined that the Petitioner has an adequate
showing of interest among the employees in the appropriate unit. In the
event the Petitioner does not wish to proceed with the election in the
broader unit, the Petitioner will be permitted to withdraw its petition
without prejudice upon written notice to the Regional Director within 10
days from the date of this Decision on Review.
' Hamburg Knitting Mills Company, 239 NLRB No 78 (1979); Wescom,
Inc., 230 NLRB 1159 (1977).
__ .