The Filtron Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 781 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

THE FILTRON CO., INC. 781
All perishable inspectors employed at the Employer's Boston,
Massachusetts, place of business, excluding office and clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
THE FILTRON Co., INC. and FILTER WORKERS GROUP , PETITIONER.
Cases Nos. 2-RC-3605 and 2-RC-3606. December 18,1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Lloyd
C. Greenidge, 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 Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
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 2 involved claim 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 a unit of all production and maintenance
employees, including draftsmen, in Case No. 2-RC-3605, and a unit
of all office clerical, secretarial, and accounting employees in Case No.
2-RC-3606. The Intervenor, intervening only in Case No. 2-RC-
3605, agrees with the unit request of the Petitioner, but would
exclude the draftsmen from the production and maintenance unit and
include them in the office clerical unit. The Employer agrees with the
I The hearing officer denied the motion of Local 463 , International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, hereinafter called the Intervenor , to adjourn the hearing
for 1 or 2 days until its attorney could be present. The record shows that the Intervenor's
business agent participated fully in the proceeding , examined and cross-examined witnesses,
and was afforded full opportunity to introduce evidence . Under these circumstances, and
in view of two previous postponements of the hearing, one at the request of the Intervenor,
we find that the hearing officer ' s refusal to adjourn the hearing was not an abuse of his
discretion , and we hereby affirm the ruling.
I The record shows that both the Petitioner and the Intervenor exist for the purpose of
engaging in collective bargaining on matters of wages, hours , and working conditions of
employment and that each admits to membership employees of the Employer . Accord-
ingly, we find that the Petitioner and the Intervenor are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act . Peerless X-ray Laboratories Manufacturing Corp., 89 NLRB 1432;
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company , 88 NLRB 600.
97 NLRB No. 140.
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Petitioner's unit requests. However, neither the Employer nor the
-Petitioner appears to object to the inclusion of the draftsmen in the
office clerical unit, should the Board so decide.
The employer employs four draftsmen, who draw up and make
additional copies of original drawings of the Employer's electronic
products. The draftsmen work in a separate room which adjoins the
area in which the office employees perform their work. John Lory,
an engineer and draftsman, "directs the work" of the other three
draftsmen and reports directly to the vice president in charge of
engineering. Although the Employer indicates that it requires no
particular educational background for an employee to qualify as a
draftsman, applicants for this work must have sufficient practical
experience to enable them to produce good, clean, representative
.drawings.3 Draftsmen, like the office employees, are salaried, have a
different lunch hour than the production employees 14 have different
vacation pay than production employees,' and sign time sheets rather
than punch a time clock as do the production and maintenance
employees. All employees receive the same hospitalization and insur-
ance benefits, and a cash fund for emergency borrowing is available
to both the office and the production employees.
It is clear, and we find, that the draftsmen are technical employees
with a community of interest different from that of the production and
maintenance employees. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from
the production and maintenance unit .6 However, as the Petitioner
and the Employer do not object to grouping the draftsmen with the
office employees, we shall include them in the unit of office clerical,
secretarial, and accounting employees.'
We find that the following employees of the Employer at its Flush-
ing, Long Island, New York, plant, excluding from each unit all pro-
fessional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors within the
meaning of the Act,' constitute separate units appropriate for the
8 Blanche , recently hired as a draftsman was first given "an item to put on to a three
dimensional view" and then was interviewed orally as to her interpretation of the markings
she had made on the drawings . She also took another practical test to determine her
-ability to do neat, clean lettering.
The lunch hour for the office employees and draftsmen extends from 12 : 30 to 1 : 30, and
the production employees lunch period is from 12: 30 to 1 : 00.
s The production and maintenance employees receive 1 week vacation with pay until the
third year of employment at which time they receive 2 weeks vacation with pay. The office
employees and draftsmen receive 1 week vacation with pay after 1 year, 2 weeks after
2 years, and during the intervening period between 1 and 2 years they receive one -half day's
pay per month plus their week's vacation.
9 Welding Shipyards, Inc., 81 NLRB 936; Ingersoll Milling Machine Company, 78 NLRB
535.
7 E. W. Bliss Company, Toledo Machine Tool Division , 81 NLRB 428 ; The Murray Ohio
Manufacturing Company, 61 NLRB 47; see also Republic Steel Corporation , 94 NLRB 1294;
-The Ohio Steel Foundry Company , 92 NLRB 683.
8 In accordance with the agreement of the parties , we shall exclude Sam Edelberg, be
Lametta, and Al Chandler as supervisors within the meaning of the Act. -
HEEKIN CAN COMPANY 783
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act :
1. All production and maintenance employees.
2. All office clerical, secretarial, and accounting employees, and
draftsmen .9
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
9 The record does not reveal sufficient information as to the duties of John Lory to enable
us to determine whether he is a supervisor . If he is not a supervisor , he shall be deemed
Included in the unit and may vote in the election.
HEEKIN CAN COMPANY and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMER-
ICA, CIO, LOCAL #8, PETITIONER . Case No. 9-RC-116. December
29, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Under a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Seymour Goldstein,
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 Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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 1 involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Elections involv-
ing the Employer's plant,' separate elections were conducted on May
24, 1950, in the following two voting groups: (1) All lithographic
processing employees, which is the group with which this proceeding
is concerned; and (2) all production and maintenance employees
excluding lithographic processing employees. The unions whose
names appeared on the ballots in voting group (1) were the- Petitioner
herein and an independent union known as the Association of Em-
ployees of Heekin Can Company, hereinafter called the Association,.
while the ballots in voting group (2) contained the names of the
Intervenor herein and the Association. In voting group (1) neither
' United Steelworkers of America , CIO, and its Local 4372, were permitted to intervene on
the basis of a current contract with the Employer.
2 89 NLRB 717.
97 NLRB No. 136.