The Rudolph Wurlitzer Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 4, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 6 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

B DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Rudolph Wurlitzer Company and Office Employees Interna-
tional Union , Local 212, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 3-RC-
1750. January 4,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Bernard Marcus, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer operates a manufacturing plant in North
Tonawanda, New York, at which it employs approximately 1,700 em-
ployees, of which approximately 1,450 employees, including the plant
clerical employees involved herein, are engaged in work directly con-
nected with the manufacturing operations. The plant comprises some
20 multistoried buildings, all physically connected, containing ap-
proximately 750,000 square feet of floor space. The Employer's pro-
duction and maintenance employees have been represented by the In-
tervenor or its predecessor organization since 1943. The Employer's
plant clerical employees have been at all times excluded from the pro-
duction and maintenance unit. Pursuant to consent-election agree-
ments executed between the Employer and the Intervenor in 1952 2 and
in 1956,3 elections were held for a combined unit of office and plant
clerical employees. The Intervenor lost the election in each instance,
and as a result these employees are not represented by any labor
organization.
The Petitioner seeks to represent the Employer's office and plant
clerical employees in a single unit. In its opening statement on the
record and in its brief, the Petitioner clearly indicates that in seeking
a combined unit of office and plant clerical employees, it wishes the
Board to reexamine and modify its established policy of not including
plant and office clerical employees in a single unit. The Petitioner
contends that such a unit is appropriate in the circumstances existing
1International Union of Electrical , Radio, and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter
referred to as the Intervenor , currently represents the Employer 's production and main-
tenance employees . It was permitted to intervene in this proceeding without objection.
' Case No. 3-RC-1099 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders).
S Case No. 3-RC-1548 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders).
117 NLRB No. 2.
THE RUDOLPH WURLITZER COMPANY 7
at the Employer's plant. It points to the following circumstances as
supporting its position : The duties of all employees in both groups are
basically clerical in nature; both clerical groups contain employees
with similar job classifications, job descriptions, and duties; both
groups are salaried employees, and their salaries are comparable; both
groups receive the same fringe benefits, which benefits do not neces-
sarily apply to production and maintenance employees; and the
Employer has recognized the mutuality of interests of the employees in
both groups by consenting to elections in a combined office clerical
and plant clerical unit on two separate occasions. The Intervenor
agrees with the position urged by the Petitioner, and specifically indi-
cated that it did not wish to add the plant clerical employees to its
existing production and maintenance unit.
The Employer opposes the position taken by the Petitioner and the
Intervenor, and urges the Board to direct separate elections among
office clerical employees and the plant clerical employees.
We have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by
the Petitioner for a change in the Board's policy with respect to units
of office clerical and plant clerical employees. We are not unmindful
of the factors cited by the Petitioner as justification for a combined
office and clerical unit. Such factors exist to a greater or lesser degree
in every case in which the Board is faced with this problem. Never-
theless , it is also generally true, as it is in this case, that factory clerical
employees work in areas separated from the office clerical employees,
where they come in frequent contact with production and maintenance
employees. They work under the same supervision as production and
maintenance employees, and work in accordance with schedules geared
to the production and maintenance shifts rather than to office clerical
hours. On balance, we believe that in making unit determinations
involving factory clerical and office clerical employees, the policies of
the Act will best be effectuated by continued adherence to our policy
of denying combined units of office clerical and plant clerical
employees.'
Accordingly, and in accordance with the alternative unit requests of
the Petitioner and the Intervenor, we find that the following employees
employed at the Employer's North Tonawanda, New York, plant, con-
stitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : 8
4 See Badenhausen Corporation, 113 NLRB 867; The Yale and Towne Manufacturing
Company, 112 NLRB 1268; General Electric Company (River Works), 107 NLRB 70. The
decision in EI er Co , 108 NLRB 1417, cited by the Petitioner as support for its position
that combined office clerical and plant clerical units may be appropriate, is distinguishable
from the situation presented in this proceeding , and from the cases cited above, in that,
therein, the parties were in agreement as to the appropriateness of a combined office cler-
ical and plant clerical unit. Absent such agreement, the Board has declined to establish
such units.
5 Except for timekeepers , whom the Petitioner would include in the office clerical unit,
the parties are in agreement as to the scope of the separate office clerical and plant cleri-
S DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All office clerical employees, excluding professional employees,
managerial and confidential employees, guards, all other employees,'
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
All plant clerical employees including timekeepers, but excluding
professional employees, managerial and confidential employees,
guards, all other employees,' and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
cal units. The timekeepers work from stations on the production floor and time the work
of production employees They work the same shift hours as the employees whose work
they time We find contrary to the Petitioner's contention, that the timekeepers are plant
clerical employees , and accordingly we shall include them in the plant clerical unit. Baden-
heusen Corporation, 113 NLRB 867.
6 The parties agreed that the following employees should be specifically excluded from
any unit or units found appropriate : Employees of the industrial relations department,
chief accountant , assistant chief accountant , budget analysts , cost accountants , artists,
technical illustrators , photographer -printer , designers , engineers , laboratory assistants,
laboratory helpers , draftsmen , model shop employees , chemists, laboratory technicians,
timestudy and methods analysts , methods engineers, tool designers , quality control ana-
lysts , outside expediters , traveling auditors , collectors , cashiers , sales representatives,
field service men, and secretaries to the sales manager, chairman of the board , division
manager, assistant division manager, manager of factory accounting , manager of general
accounting , works manager , director of purchases , and director of engineering.
7 Ibid.
San Juan Mercantile Corporation and Jose A . Cintron Rivera (on
behalf of 17 other employees), Petitioner and International
Longshoremen 's Association , District Council of the Ports of
Puerto Rico , Local 1575
San Juan Mercantile Corporation and ILA, District Council of
the Ports of P. R ., ILA-IND., Petitioner
San Juan Mercantile Corporation and its agent Orlando Bravo
and ILA, District Council of the Ports of P. R ., ILA-IND., Pe-
titioner. Cases Nos. 24-RD-27, 24-RC-9f?, and 24-RC-924. Jan-
uary 4,1957
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Robert J. Cannella, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Decertification Petitioner in Case No. 24-RD-27, an em-
ployee of the Employer, asserts that International Longshoremen's
Association, District Council of the Ports of Puerto Rico, Local 1575,
117 NLRB No. 3.