Technicolor New York Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 10, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 588 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the employees; and (4) the Employer's employees had no voice at the
merger convention.
The Board has duly considered the motion and countermotions 3
The IBPM and the UPA at their respective special conventions
held in Chicago, Illinois, on March 4 and 5,1957, duly called, approved
the terms of an agreement for merger and an implementation agree-
ment theretofore negotiated by the international officers of the IBPM
and UPA. These agreements provided for the combination and con-
tinuation of IBPM and UPA as the UPP, with the UPP assuming all
of the assets and liabilities of the IBPM and UPA and the bargaining
rights, privileges, duties, and responsibilities of the existing collective-
bargaining agreements and certifications of the IBPM and UPA to
be vested in the UPP. At its first constitutional convention of the
UPP held on March 7,1957, the constitution and bylaws of the newly
formed UPP were adopted. The two unions were of comparable size
and the officers of UPP are composed of the former officers of the
IBPM and UPA. It is further noted that the IBPM, and not a local,
was certified to represent the employees.
It is apparent from the above that the UPP (the consolidated
group) was intended to function as a continuation of the IBPM and
UPA, its two constituent unions, and the consolidation would there-
fore not impair any of their certifications'
[The Board amended the certification of representatives by sub-
stituting therein United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO,
for International Brotherhood of Papermakers, AFL-CIO.]
a The following motions and countermotions were filed by the parties : On March 18,
1957, the UPP filed a motion to amend the certification ; on March 25 , 1957, the Employer
by telegram opposed the motion to amend the certification ; on April 1, 1957, the Employer
filed a motion to deny the amendment to the certification ; on April 10, 1957, the UPP
filed a supplemental motion to amend the certification ; on April 24, 1957, the Employer
filed an answer to the supplemental motion to amend the certification.
4 We find no useful purpose would be served by holding a bearing as alternatively re-
quested by the Employer, and for the reasons stated in Union Carbide and Carbon Corpo-
ration v . N. L. R. B., 244 F. 2d 672 (C. A. 6), decided May 14, 1957 , we shall grant the
UPP's motion , and amend the certification accordingly.
Technicolor New York Corporation and Motion Picture Labora-
tory Technicians , Local 702, International Alliance of Theatri-
cal Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators
of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 2-RC-8738. July 10, 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 Aaron Weissman, hearing
118 NLRB No. 68.
TECHNICOLOR NEW YORK CORPORATION 589
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 Murdock and Jenkins].
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.
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 to represent a unit of production and
maintenance employees at the Employer's West 57th Street, New
York, New York, plant where the Employer is engaged principally
in the processing and printing of amateur color film. It also manu-
factures photographic film processing and printing equipment for its
own use and for sale to outside customers. There is no history of
collective bargaining for any of its employees. Although the Em-
ployer proposes a unit confined in scope to employees directly engaged
in film processing and printing, we find that a broad unit of the
Employer's production and maintenance employees, including those
engaged in handling, processing, and servicing film, is clearly appro-
priate.2 The maintenance men and janitors in the maintenance
department are therefore included in the unit. Other categories
whose requested inclusion was opposed by the Employer are herein-
after considered seriatim.
The mail sorters, packagers, frankers, and weighers in,-the shipping
department perform functions which are plant clerical, in nature.
The billing clerks, although assigned to the accounting department for
administrative purposes, do not work in the accounting office but are
located with the above-mentioned shipping department employees in
one room. There, the billing clerks prepare invoices for use by other
I The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that: ( 1) The Petitioner's
parent organization , herein called IATSE, had not renewed its compliance with Section
9 (f) and ( g) at the time of the hearing, and (2 ) the petition was prematurely . filed. The
latter basis for the motion is rejected, as there was no impediment to the immediate filing
of the petition. In support of the first ground for its motion, the Employer contends that
the Board lacks authority for its long-established practice of permitting unions to file
certificates of intent to renew compliance and granting them, in its discretion, a grace
period within which to effect such renewals. We reject this contention. Monsanto Chem-
ical Company, 115 NLRB 702; Plant City Welding and Tank Company, 118 NLRB 280,
footnote 9. The Employer's contention as to the adequacy of the Union's compliance with
Section 9 ( f) and ( g) involves administrative matters not cognizable in this proceeding.
We are presently administratively satisfied that the Union and its parent IATSE are in
compliance. See Standard Cigar Company, 117 NLRB 852. The motion to dismiss is
therefore hereby denied.
2 See Eastman Kodak Company, 115 NLRB 591.
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
accounting department employees and fill out labels for attachment.
to the packaged film. The processing clerks, also assigned to the
accounting department, keep production records for such department
and perform their work in the plant areas. A maintenance clerk
assigned to the maintenance department keeps records of maintenance
work performed. The stock receiving clerks in the stockroom located
two floors above the production area receive and store stock for use
by all departments of the Employer. We find that all the aforemen-
tioned clerks' and shipping department employees are plant clerical.
rather than office clerical employees. We shall therefore include
them in the unit consistent with our policy of including plant clerical
employees h production and maintenance units where their unit
placement is in dispute.3
There are12 machinists and mechanics in the machine shop of the
Employer's 'equipment manufacturing department. Although this.
department is under a separate division of the Employer's operations,
it manufactures, makes replacement parts for, and on occasion repairs,
film processing and printing equipment for the Employer's own use
as well as' for other users. No union seeks to represent this group of
employees oii a separate basis. In the circumstances, as machinists
and mechanics of the type involved herein are normally included in
production and maintenance units, we shall include them in the
Petitioner's requested unit.
There. is :one category, methods technicians, which the Petitioner
would exclude and the Employer would include. These employees,
two in number, are part of the production planning department. They
spend most of their time in the operation of various processing and
printing equipment for the purpose of exploring methods to improve
its efficiency. The rest of their time, they prepare reports of the data
obtained by them and make recommendations to departmental super-
visors if changes, in operating procedure are considered desirable.
Upon the foregoing, we find that there exists between the methods tech-
nicians'and the production and maintenance employees a diversity of
interests which warrants the exclusion of the former from the unit."
We. have found in favor of ..the broad production and maintenance
unit requested by the Petitioner. The Employer states in its brief that
should we so find, it would prefer a unit comprising all of its employ-
ees. We reject such request insofar as it proposes a unit broader in
scope than a'production and maintenance unit. However, in view of
the Employer's initial agreement with the Petitioner to exclude the
chauffeur, quality control men, draftsmen, and the product engineer,
we construe-the Employer's alternative request as a change of,position
with respect to these categories. As to the chauffeur, who makes de-
3 TVm. R. Whittaker Co., Ltd., 117 NLRB 339.
4 Textron Incorporated, 107 NLRB 355, 356.
HAMILTON WATCH COMPANY 591
liveries of processed 'film and prints and is under the supervision of the
shipping department head, it is clear that his interests are related to
those of other service employees . We shall therefore include him.
As to the quality control men, draftsmen , and product engineer, the
record establishes that each category comes within our definition of
technical employees . Therefore , in accordance with our policy of ex-
cluding technical employees from production and maintenance units
where a party objects to their inclusion , we shall exclude the quality
control men , draftsmen , and the product engineer from the unit.'
Consistent with the foregoing, we find that the following employees
employed at the Employer 's 533 West 57th Street, New York, New
York, plant comprise a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All, production and maintenance employees engaged in handling,,
processing , and servicing film, including leadmen,s plant clerical em-
ployees,' janitors , chauffeurs , and other employees in the shipping de-
partment , and machinists and mechanics in the machine shop of the
equipment manufacturing department , but excluding office clerical
employees ; accounting department employees other than the billing
and processing clerks, sales department employees , methods techni-
cians and other employees in the production planning department,
quality control men, draftsmen , the product engineer, professional
employees , watchmen , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 Hancock Electronics Corp., 116 NLRB 442, 443.
9 The parties were in accord that leadmen (lid not possess supervisory authority as de-
fined in the Act.
7 This category includes , among others whose inclusion was not disputed , the mail sort-
ers, packagers , frankers , and weighers in the shipping department , the billing clerks and
processing clerks assigned to the accounting department , the maintenance clerk in the
maintenance department , and the stock receiving clerks in the stock receiving department,
Hamilton Watch Company and Hamilton Watch Workers Union,
affiliated with the American Watch Workers Union , Petitioner.
Case No. 4-RC-3305. July 10, 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 Katherine W. Neel,
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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
118 NLRB No. 70.