Reeves Instrument Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 8, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 21 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

REEVES INSTRUMENT CORPORATION 21
rates, shift starting times, overtime and premium time, leaves of ab-
sence, grievance procedures, and shift differentials are the same at
all three plants. There are differences in working conditions between
the three plants only with respect to seniority systems.
A central office in Coquille handles all the purchasing, billing, ship-
ping, payment of bills, and payrolls for all three plants. A 'single
operating statement is issued for the combined three-plant operation,
All sales are handled by a sales manager at the central office.
IWA offered to prove that there is a history of separate bargaining
at both the Norway and Bandon plants under their previous owner-
ships. However, the Board has held in similar circumstances that sepa-
rate bargaining history is not a significant factor where it was the re-
sult of separate ownership of the plants involved, and not the result
of an expressed preference by the employees for single plant units as
against an employerwide unit .5
In the instant cases, the geographical proximity of the 3 plants,
the high degree of integration and centralized managerial control of
all 3 plants, the similarity of products produced at all 3 plants, the
almost complete uniformity of wages, hours, and working conditions
of all 3 plants, and the interchange of employees between the 3 plants,
all indicate that separate units of the employees at the Bandon and
Norway plants are not appropriate e As neither IWA nor Local 2784
has made an adequate showing of interest in the three-plant unit which
the Employer and Local 2781- contend is appropriate, we shall dismiss
the petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
e See Sargent & Company, 78 NLRB 918.
e See Sara-Lowell Shops, 107 NLRB 590 ; Hess, Goldsmith & Company, Inc., 110 NLRB
1384.
Reeves Instrument Corporation and International Union of Elec.
trical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner eme
No. 2-RC-8382. January 8,1957
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 Meyer G. Reines,
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 Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
117 NLRB No. 6.
22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-, 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.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's New York City and Roosevelt Field, Long
Island, facilities, with certain specific inclusions and exclusions;
which for the most part is the same unit found appropriate by the
Board in 1952.1 The Employer agrees that the unit sought is appro-
priate, except that the Employer, unlike the Petitioner, would include
in the unit the employees.in the planning department and the em-
ployees in the purchase order control section of the purchasing
department.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of precision, me-
chanical, and electronic equipment. Its manufacturing plant is
located at Roosevelt Field, and its offices are located in New York
City.
Planning Department
This department, which is located at Roosevelt Field, has 10
planners and 21 assistant planners, and also 14 planning clerks, 12
clerk-typists, a secretary, and 2 clerk expediters.
The functions now performed by the planning department were
performed in 1952 by two departments which have since been elimi-
nated, the mechanical production engineering group and the electrical
production engineering group. The planners and the assistant plan-
ners are, for the most part, the same individuals who held the titles
of production engineers and assistant production engineers, respec-
tively, in 1952, and their work is to a very large degree the same now
as that-described in the Board's decision in 1952. Thus, the Employer
testified specifically that the planners and assistant planners now
perform the same functions described by the Board as then being
performed by the production engineers and assistant production
engineers. These functions are : (1) To collect data pertaining to the
parts, materials, and components which are used in manufacturing the
finished .product of the Employer; (2) to use such data to advise the
production department of the quantity of each part to make; (3) to
use such data to instruct the purchasing department as to what mate-
rials must be purchased for production; (4) to see' that shortages are
replenished; (5) to coordinate and integrate the flow of materials
through the production shop' into the final product; and (6) to elimi-
nate snags and delays in the production process. The'only differences
in functions pointed to by the Employer are: (1) The planners and
assistant planners are no longer concerned with purchasing materials
from outside vendors as they were in 1952; and (2) their collection of
1100 NLRB No. 194 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders).
REEVES INSTRUMENT CORPORATION 23
data. is now more of a compilation of data supplied to them by other
departments rather than an additional physical collection of the data
from these other departments. In 1952, the Board did not consider
the outside contact with vendors as detracting from the technical
-status of the production engineers' and assistant production engineers.
Moreover, we do not now consider the absence of a physical, collection
of the data by the planners and assistant planners as detracting from
a technical status. In addition, we note that planners now average
about $3.40 an hour, and assistant planners average about $2.70 per
hour, both of which are comparable to the wage rates received by the
Employer's professional engineers. In view of the foregoing, and
-particularly the fact that the planners and assistant planners per-
form substantially the same functions as the production engineers and
-assistant production engineers found to be technical employees in
1952, we find that the planners and assistant planners are technical
,employees who may not appropriately be grouped with production
-and maintenance employees over the objection of the Petitioner.'
Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit.
The remaining 29 employees in the planning department perform
the necessary clerical work in connection with the work of the planners
and assistant planners. They work in an enclosed area, but this area
is located in the plant, at Roosevelt Field. The planning department
has its own immediate separate supervision, but the overall super-
vision of the department is handled by the production control manager,
who also supervises the stockroom employees, the receiving clerks, and
-about 13 other admitted plant clericals in the production control sec-
tion. All 60 employees in the planning department sign in and out
for their time rather than punch in and out as the production em-
ployees do, but some admitted plant clericals also sign in and out.
"There appears to be a basic difference in working conditions between
the clerks in the planning department and the admitted plant clericals
in other departments only in that the former have a base workweek
of 45 hours like the office clericals, and the latter have a base workweek
,of -50 hours like the production employees. It also appears that the
clerks in the planning department are often promoted to assistant
planners and planners. However, it was also testified that the present
,duties of these clerks are substantially the same as those of 19 "pro-
duction clerical" employees whom the Board in 1952 found to be plant
clerical employees. Accordingly, and also in view of the close rela-
tion between the planning department and the production depart-
ments, the location of the planning department in the production area,
the,"production control" supervision of the department, and the fact
that the clerks in this department have substantially the same working
conditions as admitted plant clericals, we find that the 29 clericals in
9 See Hancock ' Eiectrdndcs Corp.,, 116 NLRB 442.
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the planning department are plant clerical employees , who, in accord-
ance With our usual policy, should be included in the production ,and
maintenance unit sought.
Purchasing Department
The purchasing department, which consists of approximately 30,
employees, is located at the Employer's New York City office, and con-
sists of several sections . The Employer would include, and the Peti-
tioner would exclude , the 12 clerical employees in the purchase order
control section of the department . Both parties agree that the re-
maining 18 clerical employees in the other sections of the department
should be excluded as office clerical employees . All sections of the
department are under the same overall supervision of the purchase
manager; work in the same room; sign in and out on the same piece of
paper; work the same hours; and have similar classifications of em-
ployees with similar skills, who receive the same wage rates according
to classification . There have also been transfers of employees be-
tween sections . In 1952 the 12 employees in question may have been
included in the unit as "production clerical " employees then working
in the , plant as part of the mechanical and electrical production con
trol departments . However, although they now perform substan-
tially the same functions of processing purchase requisitions prepared
by the planning department and thus are more closely connected with
the Employer 's production process than the other employees in the
purchasing department whose work deals mostly with negotiations
with outside suppliers , it appears that the 12 employees in question
have now become an integral part of the purchasing department. In
view of the foregoing , we find that the employees in the purchase order
control section are office clerical employees who, in accordance with
our usual policy , should be excluded from the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's New York, New York, and Roosevelt Field, Mineola, Long-
Island , New York, facilities , including planning clerks, clerk -typists,.
the secretary , and clerk expediters in the planning department , chauf-
feurs, shop expediters , material handlers and processors , instructors,.
trainees, leadmen, setup men, wiremen -technicians, receiving clerks,
stock clerks , and production clerical employees , but excluding planners'
and assistant planners , all purchasing department employees includ-
ing the purchase order control section, laboratory technicians, tech-
nical representatives , timekeepers , tool designers , methods engineers,
office clerical employees, professional employees , executives , guards,.
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for-
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section7
9'(b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]