The Griscom-Russell Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 1299 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of THE GRISCOM -RussELI. COMPANY , EMPLOYER and
OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL #72 (AFL),
PETITIONER
- Case No. 8-R-2350.-Decided September 10, 1946.
Mr. Joseph D. Fox, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Mr. C. M. Murphy, of
Massillon , Ohio, for the Employer.
Mr. R. M. Daugherty, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Martin T. Camacho, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Mas-
sillon, Ohio, on July 24, 1946, before Louis S. Belkin, Trial Examiner.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:,,
FINDINGS OF FACT ,
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Griscom-Russell Company is a Delaware corporation, with its-
principal office in New York City. It has a plant and office at Mas-
sillon, Ohio, with which this proceeding is concerned, where it is
engaged in the manufacture of heat exchanges, water heaters, vapora-
tors, and air coolers. During 1945, 90 percent of the Employer's
purchases of raw materials was made outside the State of Ohio, and
95 percent of its finished products was shipped to points outside the
State of Ohio.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in, commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with American
Federatiol^. of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
70 N. L. R. B., No. 124..
1299
712344-47-vol 70-83
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
M. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer on the
grounds that the unit requested is inappropriate and that the Peti-
tioner does not represent a majority of the employees in the unit
sought: -
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. -
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all office and clerical employees in-
cluding those in its general office, and in its engineering and standards
departments, but excluding private secretaries and-supervisory em-
ployees. The Employer agrees as to the exclusions, but disagrees as
to the general composition of the unit. It contends that two separate
units should be established, one consisting of all the salaried em-
ployees, and the other of all hourly rated employees. It argues that
separate units in the aforesaid categories would be more conducive to
-harmonious collective bargaining than would a single unit comprising
all the employees.
The engineering department has 13 draftsmen, 5 specification
writers, 3 checkers, 1 file clerk, 2 blue print clerks, 1 stenographer and
2 non-supervisory assistants to' the department chief. The stenog-
rapher and the 2 assistants are salaried and the other employees are
all hourly rated. The standards department -has 13 time clerks, 4
shop clerks, 4 work process employees, 1 stenographer and 1 non-
supervisory assistant to the department head. The assistant and
the stenographer are both salaried and the other employees are all
hourly rated. The general office has 3 estimators, 9 stenographer-
typists, 5 typists, 13 general clerks, and 1 file clerk, all of whom are
salaried.
It is clear that all employees in the Petitioner's proposed unit are
either clerical or technical personnel and, therefore, may together
constitute a 'single appropriate unit." It is true that the Board will
separate technical from clerical employees where any of the parties
object to their inclusion in the same unit.2 However, no such ob-
jection has been specifically made in the instant case. Nor can such
an objection be inferred from the Employer's desire to separate the
'Matter of Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company (Porcelain Division), 31
N L. R. B. 605, Matter of Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation (San Dieqo Division),
54 N L R B 103; Matter of Libby-Owens Ford Glass Company, 31 N. L. Its. B. 569.
2 Matter of International Harvester Company, West Pullman Works, 56 N L R B. 1111;
Matter of Spicer Manufacturing Corporation, 55 N L. It. B. 1491.
THE GRISCOM-RUSSELL COMPANY 1301
hourly paid from the salaried employees inasmuch as the differences
in the mode of payment do not correspond with the line of cleavage
between clerical and technical employees. Although the perquisites
attached to the salaried and hourly status are different, these differ-
ences do not of themselves justify the establishment of separate units
for the salaried and hourly rated employees, respectively." _
Accordingly, we find that all office, clerical and technical employ-
ees of the Employer, including employees in the general office and the
engineering and standards departments, but excluding private sec-
retaries and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, ,discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with The Griscom-Russell Company,
Massillon, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as
early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for,the Eighth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections
10 a>^d 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 3, as anieuded, among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, in-
cluding-employees who did not work during said pay-roll period be-
cause they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including
employees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated. prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or
not, they desire to be represented by Office Employees International
Union, Local #72 (AFL), for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Mn. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
3 Matter of E I du Pont de Ne,hours & Company, Inc . Rayon Division, 62 N. L. R. B.
146, Matter of Edgewater Steel Company, 56 N L R. B 1778; Matter of Jones &
Laughlin Steel Corporation , Pittsburgh Woiks, 57 N L R B 357 ,