Schwien Engineering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 173 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

SCHWIEN ENGINEERING CO. 173
(e) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons :
Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all stationary engineers and
firemen employed in the powerhouse of the Employer's Spokane,
Washington, plant. At this plant, the Employer processes logs into
green and dry lumber.
. Pursuant to a Board election held in 1946, Local 10-100 of the In-
ternational Woodworkers of America, CIO, was certified as the rep-
resentative of all the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees. Following certification, Local 10-100 and the Employer en-
tered into successive collective-bargaining agreements. In 1950 an-
other election was conducted, covering the same unit, which resulted
in the decertification of Local 10-100. Since 1950 all employees have
been without representation. The Employer contends that the unit
sought herein is not appropriate. -
The Board has held that the only appropriate unit in a primary
lumber manufacturing operation, such as • that in which the Em-
ployer is engaged, is a production and maintenance unit.' For this
reason, we find that the requested departmental unit is inappropriate.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
'L Weyerhaeuser Timber Company , 87 NLRB 1076 ; cf. American Potash.. & Chemical
Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418; Seattle Cedar Lumber Manufacturing Company, 112
NLRB 54.
Schwien Engineering Co.' and Local #990, International Union,
United Automobile, Workers of America (UAW-AFL), Peti-
tioner. Case No. 21-RC-3876. September 26, 1955 ,
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 George H. O'Brien, 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer .2
i The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
2International Association of Machinists , in behalf of District Lodge No. 727" and
affiliate Local Lodge No. 758 , was permitted to intervene on the basis of a showing of
interest for intervention.
114 NLRB No. 42.
174 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 requests a unit of production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Van Nuys, California, plant. The Em-
ployer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit
sought was inappropriate. The Employer contends that the only ap-
propriate unit should encompass, in addition to the Van Nuys plant
employees, the production and maintenance employees at the two
plants of Wm. R. Whittaker Co., Ltd.3
The Employer is under the control and management of Whittaker.'
At its Van Nuys plant, the Employer is engaged in the manufacture
of control instruments for aircraft and torpedoes, and gyroscopic de-
vices for guided missiles. Whittaker manufactures aircraft valves and
accessories at its 915 North Citrus Avenue, Los Angeles, California
(Hollywood) plant, and its 1915 East Fifty-first Street, Vernon, Cali-
fornia, plant. Whittaker's general offices are located at its Hollywood
plant. In relation thereto, the Vernon plant is 13 miles to the south-
east, just outside the Los Angeles city limits, and the Van Nuys plant
is 15 miles to the northwest, in another section of Los Angeles.
The manufacture of Whittaker products is carried on at the Holly-
wood and Vernon plants. Machine fabrication and subassembly is
done at the latter, and final assembly at the former.' The Employer's
products are fabricated and assembled at the Van Nuys plant. Whit-
taker also produces prototypes at the Hollywood plant. Whittaker
subcontracts for some of the machining and subassembly in its proto-
type operations and, since acquiring control of the Employer, has had
somecenterless grinding for prototypes done at the Van Nuys plant.
Since acquiring control of the Employer, Whittaker has taken a
number of steps to integrate the management and operation of the
Van Nuys plant with the other two plants. Thus, top management
officials of Whittaker divide their time managing both companies.
There is centralized responsibility for engineering, production, finance,
purchasing, sales, accounting, legal counsel, personnel, industrial rela-
tions, and payroll tabulating. Standardized production forms,
adapted for Whittaker, have been extended to the Employer's produc-
tion operations. A shuttle system of trucks and other vehicles
Hereinafter referred to as Whittaker.
Whittaker acquired control of the Employer in 1954. At the time of the hearing,
Whittaker owned all the common stock and 27 percent of the preferred stock of the
Employer. Since the hearing, so the Employer states in its brief, Whittaker has dissolved
the Emphver and formed a new company in its place under the name Whittaker Gvro, Inc.
5 In Williams R. Whittaker Co., Ltd., 94 NLRB 1151, the Board directed an election in a
unit of production and maintenance employees confined to the Vernon plant then newly
acquired by Whittaker, despite the employer's contention that a two-plant unit was alone
appropriate "However , as the circumstances have changed since that-decision , we do not
rely thereon in resolving the issue in the instant case.
SCHWIEN ENGINEERING CO. 175
operates between the three plants. Personnel and industrial relations
policies are centrally formulated and Whittaker policies have been
applied in the main to the Van Nuys plant employees.
The above-outlined aspects of the operations of Whittaker and the
Employer are sufficient to establish the appropriateness of a unit en-
compassing the production and maintenance employees at all three
plants. However, other factors indicate that a unit of such employees
confined to the Van Nuys plant is also appropriate.
Neither Whittaker nor the Employer has a history of collective
bargaining on the basis of a production and maintenance unit. There
is no labor organization at present seeking to represent a unit of such
employees broader in scope than the Van Nuys plant. The Whittaker
plants are geographically separated from the Van Nuys plant. While
it appears that many of the machine tools and employee classifications
utilized in the production processes of both companies are similar,
the, Employer's products are not made at, the Whittaker plants, and
the Employer performs a complete manufacturing operation at the
Van Nuys plant. The only interchange of work between Van Nuys
and the other two plants involves an indeterminate amount of center
less grinding on prototype parts done on one machine at the Van
Nuys plant for Whittaker. Moreover, there is virtually no inter-
change of production and maintenance employees between the Van
Nuys plant and the other plants. Although personnel and industrial
relations policies are uniform for all three plants, the manager of
personnel and industrial relations has an office and staff headed by
an assistant at each of the plants to administer such policy. Each
plant is'located in a separate and distinct community, and although
employment advertisements are placed in the Los Angeles newspapers,
hiring is done locally, subject to final approval by the central office.
Each assistant also approves discharges, promotions, leaves of absence
and sick leave, and handles grievances, again, subject to final approval
from the central- office.
In these circumstances, we do not believe that the degree of integra-
tion between the Van Nuys plant and the 2 Whittaker plants is
sufficient to warrant the conclusion that a 3-plant unit is the only
appropriate unit of production and maintenance employees. In view
of the geographic separation, the lack of employee interchange, the
difference in products manufactured, the degree of local plant auton-
omy, the absence of bargaining history for plant employees of either
company, and the fact that no labor organization is seeking a broader
unit, we find that a unit confined in scope to the production and main-
tenance employees at the Van Nuys plant is appropriate .6' The Em-
ployer's motion to dismiss is therefore hereby denied.
See Kearfott Company, Inc., 112 NLRB 979; Harris Langenberg Hat Company,
106 NLRB 19; Rose Marie Reid, 103 NLRB 498.
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the following employees constitute an appropriate unit
for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act:'
All production and maintenance employees'at the Employer's 16217
Lindbergh Street, Van Nuys, California, plant, including shipping
and receiving department employees, truckdrivers, plant clerical em=
ployees,e engineering aides, junior planners, canning technicians, test
engineers, technical estimators, statistical cost estimators, and time-
study men, but excluding office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 The parties were in agreement as to the composition of the unit.
8 The parties agreed that a secretary, clerk typists , and file clerks in the shop were
plant clerical employees.
Red Owl Stores, Inc., Petitioner and Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America , Local 615, A. F. of L.
Case No. 18-RM-180. September 08,1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on July 6, 1955, under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eighteenth
Region, among the employees in the stipulated unit. Upon conclusion
of the balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots
which showed that of approximately 16 eligible voters, 13 cast valid
ballots, of which 7 were for, and 6 against, the Union. There were also
three challenged ballots, a number sufficient to affect the results of the
election.
On July 9, 1955, the Union filed timely objections, to the conduct of
the election. In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the
Board, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and on
July 22, 1955, issued and duly served upon the parties his report and
recommendations on objections to conduct of election and challenged
ballots in which he recommended that the objections be overruled, that
the challenge to two of the ballots be sustained, and that the challenge
to the remaining ballot be overruled and this ballot be opened and
counted. The Union filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's
report.
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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
114 NLRB No. 43.