The Bassick Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 15, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1032 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After the strike began the Employer permanently replaced a number
of the strikers and as of the date of the hearing was apparently
operating with a full complement of employees.
In its argument that the petition should be dismissed 'the Union
takes the position that it does not claim to represent the employees.
presently employed but only the individuals who joined the strike.
The Board's certification of the Union in 1954 served to designate .
the Union as the representative not only of those employees who were
in the unit as of the date of the certification, but also those persons
whose subsequent employment placed them within the unit regardless
of their specific identity. As the persons who replaced the strikers
became permanent employees within the unit for which the Union
was certified, we construe the Union's position that it does not claim
to represent employees presently employed to mean that the Union is
no longer interested in representing the employees in the unit for
which it was certified, and therefore the Union has disavowed its
claim to majority status. For this reason we find that there now
exists no question concerning the representation of the Employer's
'employees. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. Further, in
view of the Union's disavowal of its status as majority representative,
it is evident that it would be inconsistent with good practice to permit
the Union's certification to remain in existence. Our Order herein
shall therefore revoke the certification that was granted the Union in
Case No. 4-RC-2409.8
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 4-RM-234, and
revoked the certification of June 21, 1954, in Case No. 4-RC-2409.]
8 See Nathan Warren ,& Sons, Inc., 116 NLRB 1662.
The Bassick Company and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
2-RC-8736. August 15,1967
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the NationalLabor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Max Dauber, 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. 139.
THE BASSICK COMPANY 1033
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.
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 contends that all timekeepers at the Employer's
Bridgeport, Connecticut, casters and small hardware manufacturing
plant constitute a residual group of the Employer's production and
maintenance employees and is therefore eligible for inclusion in an
existing production and maintenance unit, currently covering hourly
paid employees, which it has represented for the past 7 years. The
Employer contends that the timekeepers constitute a portion of its
office clerical group, which is currently unrepresented, and therefore,
under established Board principles, is ineligible for inclusion in a
production and maintenance unit.
The 16 timekeepers work in production areas throughout the 4
buildings which comprise the Employer's plant; some work at desks
on the production floor and others, in adjacent offices. They inspect
the punching of timecards of the production and maintenance em-
ployees, maintain records of their daily working time, and post rates
for work performed. They spend about 65 percent of their time pre-
paring IBM labor cards, used for pay computation and cost account-
ing purposes. They do not weigh or measure the employees' output,
but obtain this data from scale clerks, who the parties agree are factory
clerical employees and are included in the production and maintenance
unit. The timekeepers spend nearly all of their time at their offices
or desks on the production floor. They are under the supervision of
the chief timekeeper, who in turn is responsible to the accounting
department head.
In common with office clerical employees, the timekeepers are
salaried and are paid for all holidays they work, whether or not they
work the day before or afterwards; also, like the office clerical em-
ployees, they qualify for 2-week vacations after 1 year of employment,
whereas the production and maintenance employees require 4 years
and 7 months to so qualify, and they receive 5-day sick benefits, as
compared to none for the production and maintenance employees.
On the other hand, the timekeepers spend nearly their entire working
time in plant areas and have the same working hours as the plant
employees. Like both the office employees and the plant employees,
they punch timecards, observe the same holiday schedule, and enjoy
the same hospitalization and insurance benefits. They do not regu-
1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
larly interchange with office employees or production ,and maintenance
employees.
The Board has frequently held that timekeepers are essentially
plant clerical employees, where it appears that a close community of
interest between them and the plant employees exists. This is true
even where certain of their conditions of employment, such as their
supervision and their method of compensation, also pertain to the
office employees.' In the instant case, in view of the close community
of interest shown to exist between the timekeepers and the plant em-
ployees, as demonstrated by their continuous daily contacts, and not-
withstanding the existence of the aforementioned conditions of em-
ployment common to the timekeepers and the office clerical employees,
we find that the timekeepers are essentially plant clerical employees,'
whom the Board customarily includes in production and maintenance
units,' and we shall therefore grant them a separate election to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be included in the existing pro-
duction and maintenance unit.'
Accordingly, we shall establish a voting group composed of all time-
keepers at the Employer's Bridgeport, Connecticut, casters and small
hardware manufacturing plant, excluding main office employees and
all other office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and foremen and
all other supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the em-
ployees in the voting group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken
to have expressed their desire to become a part of the Petitioner's
present unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certi-
fication of representatives to the Petitioner covering the voting group,
which shall thereafter be deemed as added to the certified unit cur-
rently represented by the Petitioner. If a majority of the employees
in the voting group vote against the Petitioner, they will be taken to
have expressed their desire not to be included in the production and
maintenance unit currently represented by the Petitioner, and the Re-
gional Director will issue a certification of results to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
1 Rudolph tiYurlitzer Company, Inc ., 117 NLRB 6; Daystrom Furniture Division, Day-
strom , Inc.. 101 NLRB 343.
8 Rudolph SVnrlitzer Company , Inc., supra.
3 See The Yale and Towne Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1268.
4 The parties disagreed with respect to Rutkaukas and McDaniels . The Petitioner would
include and the Employer exclude Rutkaukas. Rutkaukas is a clerk in the chief time-
keeper 's office, and although she performs no timekeeping duties, she makes a daily round of
the plant to pick up the departmental daily budget report, answers the chief timekeeper's
telephone , and handles his mail. So far as the record shows, she is under the chief time-
keeper's exclusive supervision . In view of her similar work interests and common super-
vision, we shall include her in the voting group . The Employer would include McDaniels
and the Petitioner would exclude hint as a supervisor . McDaniels is a spare timekeeper
who instructs new timekeepers and substitutes for the chief timekeeper during his absence.
However , the record is inconclusive with respect to the allegation that he exercises
.supervisor duties. Under the circumstances , we shall include him subject to challenge.