Research Craft Mfg. Corp., Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1960

129 N.L.R.B. 723 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

RESEARCH CRAFT MFG. CORPORATION, ETC. 723
A majority vote for the Petitioner will be taken as an indication of
the employees' desire to be included in a unit with the Denison and
Ida Grove employees now represented by the Petitioner, and the
Regional Director conducting the election herein is instructed to issue
a certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Research Craft Mfg. Corporation , Research Craft Corporation,
and Research Craft Plastics Corporation and United Electri-
cal, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), Petitioner.
Case No. 91-RC-6,088. November 18,1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Laurence D. Steinsapir,
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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers.'
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act._
4. In its petition, the Petitioner sought to represent a unit of pro-
duction and maintenance employees of the Employer and/or Em-
ployers, jointly or severally, who are named in the caption above. In
its brief, however, it notes that its first choice is a unit limited to the
i Research Craft Employees Committee , referred to herein as Employees Committee, inter-
vened on the basis of a showing of interest in the employees involved , over the Petitioner's
objection that it was not a labor organization , and that its organization may have been
assisted by the Employers. A representative of the Employees 'Committee testified that it
is an informal organization in which employees participate and that it exists for the pur-
pose of dealing with the Employers concerning wages and other conditions of work. We
find that it is a labor organization as defined in the Act. The Root Dry Goods Co., Inc.,
126 NLRB 953. We disregard all testimony relating to alleged assistance given by the
Employers in the formation of the committee . Southeast Portland Drug Association,
124 NLRB 467.
Allied Industrial Workers of America, Local 976, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as AIW,
intervened at the hearing on the basis of its contract interest, but thereafter withdrew,
disclaiming any further interest in representing any of the employees herein. It requested
that its name not appear on the ballot in any election directed.
129 NLRB No. 79.
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of Research Craft Mfg. Corporation, referred to here as
Manufacturing, on the ground that such a unit has already been estab-
lished in the course of a collective-bargaining history between the
Employer and AIW; but it is also willing to represent the employees
of all three corporations in a single unit if the Board believes that
the bargaining history should be disregarded. The Employer and
Employees Committee contend that the appropriate unit consists of
all production and maintenance employees of the three named
corporations.
A. R. Ellsworth owns all the capital stock of the three corporations,
is the active head of the combined operations, and directs and formu-
lates their business and labor relations policies. In 1956, Ellsworth
was the sole owner of Research Craft Company (referred to as Com-
pany) and was engaged in the business of manufacturing and dis-
tributing phonograph records. In that year he entered into a 2-year
collective-bargaining agreement with AIW covering all employees of
Company, its successors and assigns. In 1957 Ellsworth formed
Research Craft Corporation (referred to as Craft) which then took
over the shipping and distribution functions of Company. In July
1958, Company signed another 2-year agreement with AIW, again
covering its employees and those of its successors and assigns. Al-
though Craft was then functioning, the agreement did not specifically
name it as an employer, but nevertheless continued to list, as had the
previous agreement, such job classifications as packers, buffers, in-
spectors, expeditors, and order fillers, who presumably were then
employed by Craft. The agreement also continued to list the job
classification of press operator, which is the only classification in the
manufacturing of phonograph records, and which presumably, then
included only employees of Company.
In July 1958, the same month in which Company signed the second
agreement with AIW, Ellsworth organized Manufacturing, which
then took over the manufacture of phonograph records from Com-
pany. The following year, in April 1959, Ellsworth organized Re-
search Craft Plastics Corporation, referred to as Plastics, which then
undertook a different manufacturing process, that of converting raw
plastics into a compound known as preform, which is the major com-
ponent in the pressing of phonograph records. The three corpora-
tions are housed in adjacent buildings, with a connecting door between
the area where the raw plastic is converted and the area where the
records are pressed, inspected, packaged, and shipped. Ellsworth
acts as general manager for the combined operations, assisted by a
plant manager, a superintendent, and a number of individuals whose
supervisory status is discussed below.
The corporations were established to maintain better financial and
tax controls over the entire operation which is otherwise conducted
RESEARCH CRAFT MFG. CORPORATION, ETC. 725
as a single, integrated enterprise for the production and sale of phono-
graph records. Employees are hired by and remain on the payroll of
one of the three corporations and are not interchanged, although
supervisory personnel may be temporarily transferred between the
various parts of the business. A single clerical staff and the mainte-
nance man work for all three corporations.
Although the parties seem to agree that AIW represented only the
employees of Manufacturing after it took over the production of
records from Company in July 1958, the coverage provisions of the
agreement indicate that it also encompassed those employees of Com-
pany engaged in shipping and distribution who had been transferred
to Craft when it was activated in 1957, during the term of the first
agreement. We find, on the basis of the 4-year history of collective
bargaining, that the employees of Manufacturing and Craft, suc-
cessors to the business conducted by Company, may constitute an
appropriate unit. The Petitioner's showing of interest is adequate
for that unit, which is broader than the Petitioner's first choice.
In view of the common management and integrated operations of
the three operating companies, we believe that the unrepresented Plas-
tics employees may properly be included in the unit of Manufacturing
and Craft employees for which AIW has been recognized. This does
not, however, preclude a finding that a separate unit of Plastics em-
ployees may also be appropriate. The plastic compound which they
produce requires a production process and machinery which is dissimi-
lar from that used in pressing records; AIW, the bargaining repre-
sentative, never claimed that it represented these employees; and
furthermore, the Board normally permits employees engaged in a new
operation to decide whether they wish to be separately represented
even when the new operation is integrated with the old .2 We shall,
therefore, make no final determination with respect to the appropriate
unit or units at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of the em-
ployees as expressed in the elections directed herein.
There remains for consideration, however, the supervisory status of
three individuals whom the Petitioner would exclude and whom the
Employer and Employees Committee would include. Ozawa and Tat-
sumi are variously referred to as leadmen or foremen of the record
pressing operations. They are employed on different shifts. They set
up the presses for the operators, but do not operate them on production
runs. There are 18 or 20 press operators, divided between the two
shifts. Ozawa and Tatsumi represent the only level of supervision
below the plant manager and superintendent, who are also responsible
for the compounding and the distribution operations. They are not
authorized to hire or discharge employees, nor to discipline them.
2Pacqua, Inc., 124 NLRB 895.
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
However, they assign work to the press operators and transfer them to
various jobs in the department. As each leadman is responsible for
the work of 10 or more men, and as no other supervisors are continu-
ously present in the record pressing department, we find that they re-
sponsibly direct the work of the employees in that area. We shall
exclude them. Van de Veer, the brother-in-law of Ellsworth, is the
only maintenance man at the plant. He has no regular supervisory
responsibilities for any plant personnel but has on occasion taken over
some of the plant manager's functions when the latter was on vacation.
Even though this may have involved some supervisory work, we find
that, because of its sporadic and irregular nature, it does not confer
supervisory status on Van de Veer. The Petitioner would, in any
event, exclude him because of his close family relationship to Ells-
worth, the sole owner of all the capital stock of the corporations. Van
de Veer does not work a regular shift but the Employer explains this
as due to the nature of his work rather than to any special considera-
tion because of his family connections. He is the only manual em-
ployee who receives a bonus based on the production of the entire
plant. The Employer attributes this to his responsibility for plant-
wide maintenance as a factor in increasing production. Based on the
foregoing, we are satisfied that Van de Veer's relationship to Ells-
worth gives him no special status and has not invested him with any
managerial functions.' Accordingly, we shall include him in the
voting group which includes the employees of Manufacturing, by
whom he is employed.
We find that all regular part-time employees have a substantial ex-
pectancy of continued employment on a part-time basis with these
employers, and we shall include them in both voting groups.
Accordingly, we shall direct elections among employees in the fol-
lowing voting groups :
A. All production and maintenance employees of Research Craft
Mfg. Corporation and Research Craft Corporation at Los Angeles,
California, including regular part-time employees, but excluding office
clerical, laboratory and professional employees, guards, leadmen, and
other supervisors as defined in the Act.
B. All production and maintenance employees of Research Craft
Plastics Corporation at Los Angeles, California, including regular
part-time employees but excluding office clerical, laboratory and pro-
fessional employees, guards, leadmen, and other supervisors as defined
in the Act.4
Trinac Metalcrafts , Inc., 121 NLRB 1368, 1370.
Employees Committee has made a 30-percent showing of interest in the overall unit
which it claims to be appropriate. No breakdown of interest showings on the basis of
the various corporations is available , since the Employers refused to furnish any payroll
lists. We shall , therefore , permit both labor organizations to participate in the election
directed herein for voting group B.
NPOJ, INC. (KPOJ), ET AL . 727
If, in the elections hereinafter directed, a majority of the employees
in each of the above voting groups vote for the same labor organiza-
tion, both groups will be merged into a single overall unit which, under
the circumstances, we find to be appropriate. If a majority of the
employees in voting group A vote for one of the labor organizations,
and a majority of the employees in voting group B vote for the other
labor organization, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certi-
fication of representatives to each labor organization for such unit,
which the Board under these circumstances, finds to be appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
If, on the other hand, a majority of employees in one voting group
vote for one of the Unions and a majority of employees in the other
voting group vote for no labor organization, the Regional Director is
instructed to issue the appropriate certifications in accordance with the
outcome of the elections.'
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
'For the reasons indicated by the majority in Waikiki Biltmore, Inc., 127 NLRB 82,
we have not provided for pooling of the votes in the elections directed herein.
KPOJ, Inc. (KPOJ), King Broadcasting Company, d/b/a Pioneer
Broadcasting Company ( KGW), Mount Hood Radio and Tele-
vision Broadcasting Corporation (KOIN), and Essex Produc-
tions Inc ., and Dena Pictures Incorporated , d/b/a a joint
venture ( KXL) l and American Federation of Television and
Radio Artists, Portland Local , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 36-RC-1508. November 01, 1960
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 Robert J. Weiner, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
1 The names of the four Employers appear as amended at the hearing.
2 The Petitioner sought to introduce into evidence certain questionnaires signed by the
announcer-technicians. Item 1 of the questionnaire asked whether they regarded them-
selves primarily as performers or as technicians ; item 2 elicited their preferences with
respect to a bargaining unit. Rulings on the admissibility of these two items was re-
ferred to the Board by the hearing officer The items are rejected. The best evidence as
to item 1 is the testimony of the announcer-technicians themselves.
Item 2 is rejected because the desires of the employees will be best expressed at a
Board-conducted election.
In view of the unit findings in this case, we find it unnecessary to pass on the objec-
tions of the Petitioner to the evidentiary rulings of the hearing officer.
129 NLRB No. 81.