The New Britain Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1076 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of THE NEW BRITAIN MACHINE COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and LOCAL 207, UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO i MACHINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R-3013.Decided July 31, 1946
Maguire, Walker c Middleton, by Mr. Keith 7'. Middleton, of
Stamford, Conn., for the Employer.
Mr. Nicholas Tomassetti, of New Britain, Conn., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Martin F. Rendelman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New
Britain, Connecticut, oil June. 4, 1946, before Julius Kirle, Trial Ex-
aminer. 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
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The New Britain Machine Company is a Connecticut corporation
engaged in the manufacture and sale of machine tools, screw machine
products, airplane engine parts and projectors at its two plants in New
Britain, Connecticut. In its operations, the Employer uses raw ma-
terials, the annual cost of which exceeds $5,000,000, approximately
50 percent of which it receives from points outside the State of Con-
necticut . The Employer's gross annual sales of finished products is
in excess of $5,000,000, more than 50 percent of which is shipped to
points outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
69 N. L. R. B., No. 128.
1076
THE NEW BRITAIN MACHINE COMPANY
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
1077
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Ii". TILE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit comprising all timekeepers employed in
the Employer's plants at, New Britain, Connecticut, excluding head
timekeepers and all other supervisory employees. The Employer
while not objecting to the composition of the proposed unit, contends
that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate because (1) its
timekeepers are managerial representatives rather than employees
within the meaning of the Act, and (2) the Petitioner presently rep-
resents the production and maintenance employees.
The timekeepers perform the usual duties associated with that
position.' The Board, in numerous cases involving timekeepers, has
invariably rejected the arguments that timekeepers are not employees
within the meaning of the Act 2 and that a unit of such employees
represented by the same union which represents production and main-
tenance employees is inappropriate.' Accordingly, we regard as
without merit the similar arguments advanced by the Employer in the
present proceeding.
We find that all timekeepers at the Employer's plants in New Brit-
ain, Connecticut, excluding head timekeepers and all other super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis-
IIn a previous representation proceeding involving this Employer, the Board, in exclud-
ing the timekeepers from a unit of production and maintenance employees, described the
work of timekeepers as essentially clerical. Matter of The New Britain Machine Company,
48 N. L. R. B. 263.
2 Matter of Sullivan DT•ydock and Repair Corporation, 56 N. L. It. B. 582; Matter of
Bethlehem Steel Company. Shipbuilding Division, 59 N. L. R. B. 1376, and cases cited
therein.
3 Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company, 67 N. L. R. B. 159. Matter of Ingalls Ship-
building Corporation, 55 N. L. R. B. 529.
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As a part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the New Britain Machine
Company, New Britain, Connecticut, 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 First Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, among 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 , including employees who did not work during said pay-
roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid
off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States
who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those em-
ployees 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 Local 207, United
Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0., for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
Mim. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part. in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.