Savage Arms Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 1, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 1323 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

SAVAGE ARMS CORPORATION 1323
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by
Fischbach and Moore, Inc., or any other employer, to engage in, a strike or a
refusal in the course of his employment to perform any services with an object of
forcing or requiring New York Telephone Company or Western Electric Com-
pany to assign, directly or indirectly, to employees represented by Local 3 the
work which the Labor Board held that employees of Western Electric Company
are entitled to perform.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Diesel Construction Company, Inc.,
or any other employer, with an object as set forth above.
LOCAL 3, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If anyone has any questions concerning this notice or whether Local 3 is complying
with its provisions, he may communicate with the Board's Regional Office, Fifth Floor,
Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Telephone No. Plaza
1-5500.
Savage Arms Corporation and Office Employes International
Union , Local 228, AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-322.
November 1, 1963
DECISION, ORDER, AND CLARIFICATION OF
CERTIFICATION
In May 1948, Office Employes International Union Local 228,
AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), was certified as the collective-
bargaining representative for employees in the following unit:
All office and clerical employees of the Savage Arms Corpora-
tion at Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts, excepting production and
maintenance employees, executives, confidential employees, pro-
fessional employees, guards, and supervisory employees, as de-
fined in the Act.
On May 6, 1963, the Union filed a motion to clarify bargaining
unit, contending that the job classification of secretary to the personnel
manager should be included in the bargaining unit and requesting
a hearing on the issues. On June 3, 1963, the Employer filed an answer
in opposition to the Union's motion averring that the classification in
question has become a confidential job and should, therefore, appro-
priately be excluded from the unit. In addition, the Employer con-
tends that this dispute should be resolved by means of the grievance
and arbitration procedures provided in the parties' current labor
agreement rather than by the Board. On June 21, 1963, the Board
referred the matter to the Regional Director for the First Region for
the purpose of holding a hearing and receiving evidence on the issues
144 NLRB No. 128.
1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
involved.' A hearing was held on July 17, 1963, before Hearing
Officer S. Anthony diCiero. All parties appeared and participated.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial 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
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Fanning and Brown].
Upon the entire record, the Board finds:
1. The Employer contends that the Board is not the proper forum
for the disposition of the issue over the subject job classification.
According to the Employer, the Union should be required to attempt
a resolution of the dispute through certain grievance and arbitration
measures provided in the contract. We find no merit in the Employer's
contention.
The record shows that on March 5, 1963, the Union was first ap-
prised of the Employer's decision to exclude the job of secretary to
the personnel manager from the bargaining unit on the ground that
it had become a confidential position? Thereafter, the Union's repre-
sentatives and the Employer's treasurer, who was in charge of labor
relations, discussed the matter during the course of an afternoon con-
ference, but reached no mutually satisfactory conclusion. The Union
proceeded to file the instant motion. It is manifest that the foregoing
discussions engaged in by the Union's representatives with the Em-
ployer did not constitute a formal invocation by the Union of the
grievance and arbitration machinery contained in the parties' labor
agreement, but were primarily exploratory and for the purpose of
obtaining information. In any event, it is clear that the issue between
the parties requires a unit determination, which involves an inter-
pretation of Board standards rather than of the intent of the parties?
We do not believe, therefore, that such preliminary discussions as were
engaged in here should preclude the Board from resolving this issue.
Accordingly, we overrule the Employer's contention and will proceed
to clarify the unit.
2. As noted above, the Union, by its motion to clarify, is seeking
to have included within the certified unit the job classification of secre-
tary to the personnel manager. In October 1962, the Employer en-
gaged a new personnel manager, G. Carpenter. Prior to that time,
the responsibilities of the personnel manager did not encompass mat-
ters in the field of labor or industrial relations. Hence, the secretary to
1 The Board, in its order of June 21, 1963, directing hearing, also amended the certifica-
tion to show the location of the Employer as Springdale Read, Westfield, Massachusetts.
2 Previously, this job had been included in the unit The preceding secretary to the
personnel manager had been classified as "Clerk Typist-A." The Employer now classifies
this position as "Confidential Secretary "
3 Cf. Raley's Inc. d/b/a Raley's Supermarkets , 143 NLRB 256.
INSULATING FABRICATORS, INC., SOUTHERN DIVISION 1325
the personnel manager was included in the unit. However, Carpenter
was appointed personnel manager in conformity with the Employer's
plan to enlarge the scope of this position so that it would eventually in-
clude industrial relations duties. The record indicates that Carpenter
has participated in management's discussions concerning the Em-
ployer's contract proposals for future negotiations with the Union
covering the office clerical unit, and will, in the future, be part of the
Employer's negotiating team. Carpenter has also dealt with such
matters as the instant motion and an unrelated pending arbitration
proceeding. Finally, the industrial relations director of the parent
Company herein, American Hardware Corporation, testified uncon-
trovertedly that the Employer's intent is to broaden the ambit of the
personnel manager's position so that it will subsume (within 12 to 20
months) all phases of labor relations pertaining to the unit represented
by the Union. In view of the foregoing, we find ;that the personnel
manager formulates , determines, and effectuates management's labor
relations policies with respect to the office clerical unit which the Union
represents .4
M. Lynch, the newly designated secretary to the personnel manager,
acts as personal secretary to Carpenter, handles all of his mail, takes
his dictation, has access to all of the files in the personnel office, and gen-
erally assists him in performing his various responsibilities. We find
that the secretary to the personnel manager is 'a confidential employee
and we hereby exclude her from the office clerical unit .5
[The Board ordered the Certification of Representative, heretofore
issued in Case No. 1-RC-322, clarified by specifically excluding from
the unit therein found appropriate, the classification of secretary to
the personnel manager. ]
, It is also clear from the record , and the Union concedes , that Carpenter' s present duties
include labor relations functions with reference to a production and maintenance unit in
the Employer 's factory, which unit is represented by another labor organization.
8 Vulcanized Rubber and Plastics Company, Inc., 129 NLRB 1256, 1258; The B. F.
Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722 , 724, 725.
Insulating Fabricators , Inc., Southern Division and International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO.
Case No. 11-CA-3049. November 4, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 1, 1963, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his
Intermediate Report iii the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
144 NLRB No. 125.