Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 768 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees from exercising their rights under the Act, it will likewise be recommended
that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in such conduct.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and entire record in the case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Heiland Division of Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. is an employer en-
gaged in commerce and a business affecting commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1823, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. By making threats, interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating with respect to the terms and conditions of employment of
Ivan Steyer and Joe Olguin , thereby discouraging concerted activities and mem-
bership in the Union , Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
5. Respondent did not commit unfair labor practices by advising the employees of
Respondent 's preference in dealing with the employees as individuals rather than
as a group.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Sylvania Electric Products , Inc. and International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 6-RC-2911, 6-RC-92912, and 6-RC-2913. January 31,
1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before F. J. Surpre-
nant, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board 2 finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claiins to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. No questions affecting commerce exist concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
Petitioner requests separate units at the Employer's Altoona, Penn-
sylvania, plant, of over-the-road truckdrivers (Case No. 6-RC-2911) ,
machine shop employees (Case No. 6-RC-2912), and maintenance
employees (Case No. 6-RC-2913). The Employer contends that the
I Hereinafter referred to as the LUX. ,
2 Member Fanning dissents from the majority findings, Member Rodgers concurs, and
Member Leedom concurs in part and dissents in part . Their separate opinions are set
forth below.
135 NLRB No. 69.
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 769
only appropriate unit is an overall production and maintenance unit
which would include all these employees. The basis of its contention
is that (1) an overall production and maintenance unit was repre-
sented from 1944 to 1950 at the Altoona plant by the United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America; (2) overall production and
maintenance units have been established by the Board at the Em-
ployer's Shawnee, Oklahoma, and Emporium and Mill Hall, Penn-
sylvania, plants, where the operations are similar to those at Altoona;
and (3) the units requested do not constitute either true craft units
or functionally distinct and homogeneous departmental groups.
The fact that an overall production and maintenance unit at the
Altoona plant was found in the past to be an appropriate unit does
not, in itself, preclude a finding at present that narrower groups of
employees may constitute separate appropriate units. Nor does the
fact that overall units have been found appropriate at other plants of-
the Employer dictate that only such a unit is appropriate at the
Altoona plant. These-facts, however, must be considered as part of
the totality of circumstances and factors concerning the Altoona
plant. Whether any particular group of employees constitutes a
functionally distinct and homogeneous group such as the Board will
grant the right of separate representation must be decided upon the
facts of each case. We shall proceed to a consideration of the request
for the separate units.
The Altoona plant is a highly integrated plant. All the employees
at the plant, including those petitioned for separately, are paid on an
hourly basis and are part of an overall grade pay system. All em-
ployees receive identical fringe benefits, are paid on the same day,
use the same parking lot and cafeteria, and are subject to the same
company policies, rules, and general working conditions. Seniority is
on a plantwide and/or departmental basis. There is "cross bidding
and bumping" throughout the plant, as well as within the various
departments. It is against these factors pointing to the appropriate-
ness of an overall unit, that we consider Petitioner's requests for
narrower units.
Case No. 6-RC-2911
There are four over-the-road truckdrivers employed by the Com-
pany at Altoona. The truckdriving operation consists of the use of
three trucks by these truckdrivers within a 200-mile radius, and
primarily between plants owned by the Employer. There are no
overnight trips, and normally only one truck is on the road each day,
and one other is on the road three times a week. Upon occasions, there
have been three trucks on the road at the same time, but even during
such abnormal periods at least one driver is in the plant all day.
These truckdrivers are classified as "trailer driver-stock handlers"
634449-62-vol. 135-50
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and are under the supervision of the "shipping-receiving traffic"
supervisor. Although the drivers spend as much as 35 (out of a total
of 55) hours a week driving over the road, the remainder of their time
is spent in loading and unloading, taking stock inventory, preparing
finished goods for shipping (putting on labels, etc.), picking up and
delivering materials to various parts of the plant (including the
production areas), and performing various minor clerical duties.
In the performance of duties other than driving, these employees
work with other hourly paid, production employees, and use the
same hand trucks, fork trucks, machines, etc. They can, and do ",bid
and bump" into other production and maintenance jobs, and were
part of the overall production and maintenance unit which existed
between 1944 and 1950.
Although the Board has in many cases found that a unit of truck-
drivers constituted a separate appropriate unit, such findings have
always been based upon the fact that the truckdrivers in those cases
formed a functionally distinct and homogeneous department whose
duties and interests were different and distinct from the duties and
interests of their Employer's other employees. However, in the instant
case it is seen that the truckdrivers spend a substantial amount of time
each week in the performance of production functions in the Em-
ployer's plant, are paid on the same basis as all other plant employees,
are under the supervision of the shipping and receiving department,
and have plantwide seniority. In view of these facts, and especially
in view of the fact that the Employer's operations at Altoona are so
highly integrated, we find that the truckdrivers do not constitute a
separate appropriate unit.'
Case No. 6-RC-2912
There are approximately 25 men assigned to the machine shop.
They are engaged primarily in handling replacement parts for pro-
duction equipment, working with maintenance employees to install
production equipment and keep the production machines running, and
performing general maintenance work. The machine shop is imme-
diately adjacent to the production floor, and access thereto is through
a wide, open doorway. It contains grinders, milling machines, lathes,
shapers, drill presses, and heat treatment and welding, almost all of
which machinery is also located elsewhere throughout the plant and
operated by production employees. Production employees come into
the machine shop area to use these machines on occasion. The ma-
chine shop is supervised by J. Bullers, who is classified as a mechanical
maintenance supervisor and who coordinates with the general main-
8 The parties stipulated that , if a separate unit of truckdrivers be found appropriate,
the shipping and receiving clerks should be excluded from the unit. In view of the dis-
missal in this case it is unnecessary to pass upon this issue.
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 771
tenance supervisor and his employees (located on the production
floor). The subject employees spend substantial portions of their
time on the production floor; for an individual employee, this can last
from 1 day to over a month at a time. There is no apprenticeship pro-
gram for machine shop employees, and the only requisite skill that
an employee must have is some general mechanical aptitude. These
employees can, and do, "bid and bump" into other production and
maintenance jobs, and were a part of the overall unit which existed
between 1944 and 1950.
From these facts, it is clear, and we find, that the machine shop and
maintenance department functions are thoroughly integrated, and
that the machine shop employees do not constitute a functionally dis-
tinct and homogeneous department such as the Board will grant the
right of separate representation.4 We therefore find the machine shop
employees do not constitute an appropriate unit for collective-
bargaining purposes.
Case No. 6-RC-2913
There are approximately 130 maintenance employees at the Altoona
plant, divided into plant maintenance (with about 25), electrical main-
tenance (with about 30), and the remainder in mechanical
maintenance.
The plant maintenance employees perform such tasks as assisting
in the installation of machines, controlling the flow of electricity, air
conditioning, and gases, and general production and maintenance jobs
such as moving materials, cleaning up around the production ma-
chinery, and loading and unloading trucks. They are supervised by
the general maintenance supervisor, or by the production supervisor
in the area to which assigned. As a department, at least 50 percent
of their time is spent in "bull labor."
The electrical maintenance employees "run power" to the heavy
machinery and electrical equipment in the production areas, set ma-
chines for quantity and quality control, and assist other maintenance
employees. They are under the joint supervision of electrical main-
tenance, the quality control engineer, and the plant maintenance
supervisor.
The mechanical maintenance employees are assigned to the various
production departments in the plant (grid, filament, automount, hand
mounting, stem-autoweld, and units departments), each of which de-
partments is engaged in the production of a separate product and is
composed of a great number of hourly production employees who
operate the production machinery with the help of the maintenance
The parties stipulated that , if a separate unit of machine shop employees be found
appropriate , the draftsmen should be excluded from the unit . In view of the dismissal in
this case it is unnecessary to pass upon this issue. It is also unnecessary to resolve the
dispute of the parties as to the supervisory status of the "tool inspector."
772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees. Their main job is to install and repair machines, in con-
junction with the other maintenance employees and the machine shop
employees. Virtually all of the mechanical maintenance employees
perform some "pure" production functions, such as setting up and
operating machinery, which require no mechanical skill. The amount
of time each spends in such pure production functions ranges from 5
to 95 percent. There is one group of employees in the department
called "mechanic attendants," and these employees all spend at least
80 percent of their time operating machines. The mechanical main-
tenance department is under the dual supervision of the production
supervisor and the maintenance supervisor, with the exception of the
mechanic attendants, who are supervised only by the production super-
visor. All maintenance department employees can, and do, "bid and
bump" into other production and maintenance jobs throughout the
plant, and all were a part of the overall unit which existed between
1944 and 1950.1
The Board recently reaffirmed its policy of examining on a case-by-
case basis the appropriateness of separate maintenance department
units, saying : "Thus we shall continue to examine on a case-by-case
basis the appropriateness of separate maintenance department units,
fully cognizant that homogeneity, cohesiveness, and other factors of
separate identity are being affected by automation and technological
changes and other forms of industrial advancement." 6 Where it can
be shown that a maintenance department constitutes a readily identi-
fiable and functionally distinct group, such department will be granted
the right of separate representation. We are satisfied that the record
in this case fails to establish the appropriateness of a separate main-
tenance department unit, but rather shows that the operations of the
maintenance department are so integrated with the production opera-
tions as to lose for the maintenance department its identity as a sep-
arate department for collective-bargaining purposes. In view of these
circumstances we find that only a production and maintenance unit is
appropriate. As Petitioner is unwilling to represent the production
employees, we shall dismiss its petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
MEMBER FANNING , dissenting :
I cannot agree with the decision of the majority to dismiss the
I.U.E.'s petitions in these cases, or with the majority's finding that the
5 The Board , in 1952 , found that a separate unit of maintenance employees at the Altoona
plant was appropriate , and directed an election in that department ( Case No. 6-RC-998,
not published in NLRB volumes ). The union ( I.U.E.) lost the election . It must be
noted , however , that the Employer 's operations at the time were not nearly so integrated
as they are at present . Employer 's testimony shows that in 1952 the maintenance depart-
ment had no "mechanic attendants ," and none of the maintenance employees spent a
substantial amount of time in the performance of production functions.
6 See American Cyanamid Company, 131 NLRB 909.
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 773
Employer's operations at Altoona are so highly integrated as to dictate
that only an overall production and maintenance unit is appropriate.
I would find (1) that a unit of truckdrivers, and (2) that a unit of
maintenance department employees, including the machine shop em-
ployees, constitute readily identifiable, functionally distinct, and ho-
mogeneous departments, and I would grant those two groups the right
of separate representation.
Case No. 6-RC-2911
The truckdrivers work 55 hours each week, 35 hours of which is
spent in driving over the road, and the remainder of which is spent in
the plant. Although the drivers spend some time delivering materials
to production areas and helping take stock inventory, a good portion
of their nondriving hours is spent in preparing finished goods for load-
ing, and then loading and unloading trucks. The drivers do not work
on any regular schedules when performing tasks other than driving.
It has long been the practice of the Board to grant truckdrivers the
right of separate representation, so long as they regularly spend a
majority of their time in driving and in performing functions inci-
dental to driving, and the Board has repeatedly found that the fact
that drivers spend less than a majority of their time performing non-
driving functions does not destroy the homogeneity of such a unit?
I can see no valid reason for departing from that practice. Accord-
ingly, on the facts of this case, I would find the truckdrivers constitute
a separate appropriate unit.
Cases Nos. 6-RC-2912 and 6-RC-2913
The work of the employees in the machine shop is to make replace-
ment tooling for production machines, and to assist the maintenance
department in installing these replacement parts and maintaining
the production machines. In performing the task of making replace-
ment parts, the employees use grinders, milling machines, lathes,
shapers, drill presses, heat treatment, and welding equipment. Simi-
lar machines are located elsewhere throughout the plant and operated
by production employees, but none of the production employees ever
uses these machines for the same purposes as do the machine shop
employees. Although none of the other employees in the plant are en-
gaged in making replacement parts, the machine shop employees spend
a substantial portion of their time working with the maintenance de-
partment employees in the installation, repair, and general mainte-
nance of the production machines. The machine shop is supervised
4 See, e.g., Ballentine Packing Company , Inc., 132 NLRB 923 ; Beechnut Foods Division
of the Beechnut Life Savers Co., Inc., 118 NLRB 123; Painesville Works, General Chemical
Dsvisson, Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation, 116 NLRB 1784.
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by J. Bullers. He is classified as a mechanical maintenance supervisor
and he coordinates work scheduling with the general maintenance
supervisor and his employees. There is no apprenticeship program
for machine shop employees; the prerequisites for their jobs are the
same as for the mechanical maintenance employees, i.e., some general
mechanical aptitude:
In the maintenance department there are plant maintenance, elec-
trical maintenance, and mechanical maintenance employees. The plant
maintenance and electrical maintenance employees perform no pure
production functions at all. Of approximately 32 job classifications
among the mechanical maintenance employees, those in 21 of these
classifications spend a majority of their time in the performance of
maintenance functions, and those in the remaining classifications are
pointing to the day when they can move into the classification of
mechanics. Although all of these mechanical maintenance employees
perform some production functions, their jobs are not interchangeable
with production employees, and the latter cannot perform the main-
tenance functions which the mechanical maintenance employees per-
form. The Employer lists all the job specifications of the maintenance
department employees separately from those of production employees,
and the maintenance department employees have seniority rights sepa-
rate from those of production employees.
In view of these facts, and consistent with the Board's prior deter-
mination in this plant, 8 I would find that the interrelated duties and
comprehensive coordination of the functions of the machine shop and
maintenance department employees dictate that the machine shop
employees must be included with the maintenance department em-
ployees in whatever unit found appropriate, and I would find, fur-
ther, that the maintenance department, together with the machine
shop, functions as a readily identifiable and homogeneous depart-
ment distinct from production.
I would therefore permit the LU.E. to go to two separate elections :
(1) among the Employer's truckdrivers; and. (2), among the machine
shop,and maintenance department employees. I see no inconsistency
in allowing'the 'same union to petition for more than' one separate
appropriate' unit in the same proceeding.
MEMBER LEEDOM, concurring in part and dissenting in part :
I join my colleagues of the majority in their finding that a separate
maintenance department is not appropriate. However, I cannot agree
with them that the two other units requested by the Petitioner are not
appropriate.
As to the truckdrivers, I join Member Fanning in finding, for
the reasons given by him, that the truckdrivers constitute a readily
8 Case No. 6-RC-998, decided June 25, 1952.
GRACE LINE, INC. 775
identifiable, distinct, and homogeneous grouping entitled to separate
representation. As to the machine shop, I would find, contrary to both
my colleagues of the majority and Member Fanning, that the em-
ployees in the machine shop constitute an appropriate unit. The ma-
chine shop is made up of tool-and-die men, designer-draftsmen, and
machinists. These employees perform traditional machinist functions,
are separately supervised, separately located, do not interchange with
other employees, have separate seniority, perform no production func-
tions, and perform only incidental maintenance functions. They
constitute, therefore, a readily identifiable, functionally distinct and
homogeneous department to which the Board has traditionally
granted the right of separate representation e
MEMBER RoDGERS, concurring :
I concur in dismissing the petitions.
9 The Electronic and Instrumentation Division of Baldwin -Lima-Hamilton Corporation,
11-8 NLRB 917.
Grace Line , Inc. and Union Naccional de Marinos de Colon Rep.
de Panama, Latin American Maritime Federation , Petitioner.
Case No. 2-RC-11013. January 31, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Carl B. Davidson, 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 Petitioner seeks a unit of some 48 employees who in groups
of about 8 are hired as "coast crews" on the Employer's vessels as they
pass through the Panama Canal Zone for South American ports. The
Employer, for reasons set forth below, contends that the Act does not
cover the maritime operations involved and moves that the petition
be dismissed.
The Employer, a Delaware corporation, owns and operates, insofar
as is material here, a fleet of vessels, registered under, the laws and
flying the flag of the United States, which sail between United States
and various South American ports. On trips to the west coast of
South America, the ships pass through the Panama Canal and there
pick up a "coast crew" of some eight employees, who are hired by the
Employer at its Cristobal, Canal Zone, office, which apparently assigns
them to the particular vessels. The coast crews, which are composed
of citizens of Panama, work on the vessels doing such jobs as raising,
lowering, and securing hatches. Their principal function is, however,
135 NLRB No. 70.