The Black and Decker Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 825 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

THE BLACK AND DECKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 825
the circumstances permit the employees to express their free choice regarding the
selection of a collective-bargaining representative 36
ss In the event Respondent fails or refuses to comply with the terms of the order In Case
No. 13-CA-5561, I recommend that the Regional Director also be authorized to conduct
the new election recommended herein, upon the written request of the Union. Ideal
Baking Company of Tennessee, Inc., 143 NLRB 546, footnote 9.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT question you concerning your membership in or activities on
behalf of International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, IUE,
AFL-CIO, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of your jobs, curtailmentin the amount
of work available, with less favorable working conditions, or other reprisal, if
you elect to have a union represent you, or engage in other union activities.
WE WILL NOT grant wage increases or other improvements in your working
conditions, for the purpose of influencing you to accept or reject any union;. and
we understand that nothing in the order of the National Labor Relations Board
requires us to modify or change the wages or any other condition of employment
which you now enjoy.
WE WILL NOT urge or attempt to influence you to select any union, or to
select one union rather than another, as your bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT make statements reasonably calculated to give the impression
that we are watching the union activities in which you might engage.
WE WILL NOT dominate, interfere with, contribute assistance or support to,
nor will we recognize or meet with the Liaison Committee which we created,
or any successor thereof. The Liaison Committe has been completely and un-
conditionally disestablished. -
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce you in your
choice of bargaining representatives, or in any other manner interfere with,
restrain or coerce you in the exercise of your right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, or to join or asisst any labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of your own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective, bargaining or -other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
You are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or remaining, a mem-
ber of any union.
S.N.C. MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, Midland
Building, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, Telephone No. Central 6-9660,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
The Black and Decker Manufacturing Company and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-4381.
June 06, 1964
DECISION AND.DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relation Act, a hearing Was held before Hearing Officer Anthony P.
147 NLRB No. 101.
826 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
St. John. 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins]. 7.
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' claim to represent' certain employees of
the Employer. -
3. A question affecting commerce exisf 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 Employer is presently engaged in the manufacture of power
tools at its facilities located at Towson 'and Hampstead, Maryland.
The Employer contends that the petition requesting a unit of hourly
rate production and maintenance employees at its Towson plant fails
to'set forth an identifiable, unit. appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining under the Act. The' Employer further contends that
its Towson and Hampstead plants are so functionally integrated as
to make both plants the only appropriate bargaining unit. Petitioner
maintains that the Towson plant constitutes an appropriate bargain-
ing unit.2
The Employer's plants at Towson and- Hampstead are located 24
miles apart. The Towson plant was built first and as the Company's
volume expanded the Hampstead plant was built in 1951. In' 1953
and 1956, operations which were formerly located at Towson were
transferred,to Hampstead. The Company contends it has completed
three phases of a five-phase plan which will ultimately complete the
transfer of all operations to Hampstead. The Employer admittedly
has not set a definite timetable on the completion of the transfer and
this is presumably -a long-range objective.
The Towson plant has approximately 775 maintenance 'and produc-
tion employees and its principal production process is the bar stock
machining operation. Towson produces a number of component parts
for the basic motorized parts made by the Company and these are
shipped to the Hampstead plant which assembles, packages, stores, and
ships the finished products. There are three major production sub-
divisions at Hampstead and they include the plastics molding division,
the sheet metal and castings machining division, and an assembly
'The Intervenor, District No . 12, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO,
did not participate after the first day of the hearing and did not take any position with
regard to any aspect of the case.
2 Petitioner agrees the petition should be dismissed if the Board finds the two -plant unit
to be the only appropriate bargaining unit.
THE BLACK AND DECKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 827
division. which have . A total .of . approximately 1,000 production - and
maintenance employees.. Component parts are being constantly trans-'
ferred between the plants' and there are three tractor-trailers employed
for this purpose.
Operations of-the two plants- are integrated, with 'respect to execu-
tive, managerial, and engineering' activities. Purchasing and sales
are done centrally for both plants and there is one central payroll and-
one seniority list. For both plants there is one director of industrial
relations, one safety .and health -manager, one wage administrator,
one cafeteria- manager, and one vice president for manufacturing.
These officers are located at either one plant or the other and they
handle the problems arising from either plant. In addition, the Com-
pany's two plants have numerous single service departments , e.g., one
credit department, one advertising department, etc., which provides
services for both plants. Both -plants work the same hours, have the
same lunch period, and are closed-for the same periods of time during
vacation periods. Employees at both plants receive substantially
the same wages, hours, vacations, bonuses, and are covered by the same
life insurance, accident-and sickness, insurance, and pension programs.
- While the Employer has one personnel department, hiring of em-
ployees is done independently at each of the two plants.' Immediate
and intermediate supervision' is largely autonomous in the respective
departments of the two plants and decisions as to promotions, merit
increases, and discipline, including discharges, are normally made by
the foremen and assistant foremen subject to occasional overruling by
the vice president of manufacturing.
With respect to the transfer and. interchange of.employees between
the plants, the most relevant evidence in the record indicates that there
were approximately 136 interplant transfers in the period from Sep-
tember 1962 to September 1963. Of that total, however, 83 were trans-
fers of 30'days or-less.3 -A company station wagon makes three regular
trips a day transporting hourly paid- personnel between the plants.
Salaried personnel are required to use their own cars for travel between
the plants and maintenance people have two vehicles reserved for their
transportation'needs between the two plants.
The issue of whether a single or a multiplant unit is appropriate
for bargaining is often difficult to resolve. In this case, operations
appear integrated with respect to executive, managerial, and engineer-
ing activities. However, a plant manager or superintendent is re-
sponsible for the day-to-day operations of the Towson plant. Im-
3 As transfers of more than 30 days in length approach a semipermanent change of
status, we find the shorter transfer periods more significant in determining the integrated
nature of the two plants. -
Although other figures were submitted on transfers which the Company contends estab-
lishes a 42 percent transfer rate over a 12-year period, the Union argues the same figures
established a 3-percent transfer rate. We conclude that the most relevant figures are
those noted above.
828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mediate and intermediate supervision is largely autonomous within
the departments of each. plant and questions as to promotions, merit
raises, and discipline are handled primarily by foremen and assistant
foremen. Although there is only one personnel department, inter-
viewing and hiring is done separately 'at the respective plants.
. We are aware that a substantial degree of product .integration
exists here and that the interchange of employees between the plants
is more than minimal. However, product integration is becoming a
less significant factor in determining an appropriate unit because mod-
ern manufacturing techniques combined with the increased speed and
ease of transport make it possible for plants located in. different States
to have a high degree of product integration and -still maintain a
separate identity for bargaining purposes. The limited interchange
of employees here does not preclude finding a single-plant unit ap-
propriate inasmuch as there were only 83 transfers for 30 days or less
over a 1-year period, and a relatively small number of other employees
traveled between the two plants on a regular recurring basis.
As the Board has previously noted, a single-plant unit is presump-
tively appropriate absent a bargaining history in a more comprehen-
sive unit or a functional integration so severe as to negate the identity
of a single-plant Unit .4 Moreover, it has been our declared policy to
consider only whether the requested unit is an appropriate one even
though it may not be the optimum or most appropriate unit for collec-
tive bargaining.-' We are convinced that such a policy is compatible
with the objectives of the Act which seeks to encourage rather than
impede the collective-bargaining process.
Upon consideration of the entire record, including particularly the
relatively wide geographical separation of the plants, the substantial
degree of autonomy reflected by the control exercise by departmental
managers and foremen in day-to-day operations, the absence of any
bargaininghistory, and the fact that no labor organization is seeking
a larger unit, we are satisfied that the requested Towson plant con-
stitutes an appropriate unit.
Accordingly, the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for purpose of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All hourly rated production and maintenance employees at the Com-
pany's Towson, Maryland, plant, including cafeteria employees, fac-
tory trainees, apprentices, experimental department employees, and
plant clericals and related technical employees and leadmen in the
industrial engineering division, the plant engineering division, and
the manufacturing, research, and development division, and produc-
4 Dixie Belle Hills, Inc., a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Bell industries, Inc., 139
NLRB 629.
Dixie Belle Hills, Inc., supra ; Ballentine Packing Company, Inc., 132 NLRB 923.
ARROW CO., A DIV. OF CLUETT, PEABODY & CO., INC. 829
tion engineering division ,e but excluding office clericals and other em-
ployees,' guards, firemen , chauffeur guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 As more fully set out by the parties in Employer ' s Exhibits Nos. 27 and 27-A which was
stipulated to by the parties.
7 As more fully set forth in Employer 's Exhibits Nos. 26 and 26-A which was stipulated
to by the parties.
The Arrow Company, a Division of Cluett, Peabody & Co ., Inc.'
and Local Union No. 445, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-13098. June 26, 1964
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On December 31, 1963, the Regional Director for the Second Region
issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, directing a self-determination election in a voting group of
employees at the Employer's Chester, New York, warehouse. There-
after, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, as amended, the Employer and the Intervenor, Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, filed with the Board
timely requests for review of the Regional Director's Decision on the
grounds that he departed from officially reported Board precedents.
The Petitioner filed a statement in opposition to the Employer's re-
quest for review.
On January 23, 1964, the Board, by telegraphic order, granted the
requests for review and stayed the election pending its decision on
review. On February 4, 1964, the Employer filed a notice of motion
for leave to file annexed affidavit, which affidavit it requested be made
part of the record. Thereafter, on February 17, 1964, the Board
issued an Order reopening the record and remanding proceeding to
Regional Director for further hearing, for the purpose of adducing
evidence with respect to the matters contained in the Employer's
motion and the affidavit attached thereto, and any other matters bear-
ing on the issues occurring since the original hearing.
On March 5, 1964, pursuant to such Order, a further hearing was
held before Hearing Officer Robert E. Harding. The Hearing Of-
ficer's rulings made at the reopened hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the reopened hearing.
147 NLRB No. 98.