The Sheffield Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1101 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

THE SHEFFIELD CORPORATION 1101
The Sheffield Corporation 1 and District 13, International Asso-
ciation of Machinists , AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-
4469. December 7, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing z was held before Mark M. Reynolds, hearing
officer. The hearing officelr'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 Act.
2. The labor organizations 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) andSection2(6) and (7) of theAct4
4. The Petitioner requests an election in a unit of production and
maintenance employees. The parties agree to the composition of the
unit except as discussed herein. There is no bargaining history.
A. The Employer's operations
The Employer is engaged at Dayton , Ohio, in the manufacture of
machine tools , precision instruments , gauges, electrical and electronic
measuring and control devices, automatic segregating and gauging
devices, dies, jigs and fixtures, automatic transfer equipment , contract
machining, and engineering services . The plant is organized into
four operating divisions-autometrology division ( the manufacture
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
z The Employer contends that the notice of hearing was invalid because it failed to
follow precisely the statutory language with respect to the probable existence of a
question concerning representation We find no merit in this contention , however, as the
notice of hearing conformed with the requirements of Section 9(c) of the Act. We also
find no merit in the Employer 's further contention that hearing officer erred in con-
tinuing with the hearing after 4 30 p in , over the Employer 's objection, because one of
its counsel was unable to be present after that time. The Employer was represented by
other counsel, who participated fully in the hearing, and there is no showing that the
Employer was prejudiced thereby.
9 International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, intervened on the basis of its showing of interest The
Employer objects to the intervention on the ground that the hearing officer allegedly re-
fused the Employer 's request that he personally investigate the adequacy of the Inter-
venor 's interest showing The sufficiency of the Intervenor 's showing of interest is an
administrative matter not subject to litigation . C. D. Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB
516. We are administratively satisfied that the Intervenor's showing of interest is
adequate.
4 The Employer contends that the Petitioner should be required to present more than a
30 percent interest showing because the Petitioner has previously lost several Board-
conducted elections among the Employer 's employees . For the reasons given in Barber-
Colman Company, 130 NLRB 478 , footnote 3, we find no merit in this contention.
134 NLRB No. 122.
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of automated segregating and measuring instruments and machine,
controls), gauge and instrument division, machine tool division, and
contract manufacturing division. In addition, there are two special
projects, a manufacturing services division (which includes a main-
tenance and housekeeping department), and purchasing, field sales,
finance, and personnel sections. The main plant, machine tool build-
ing, warehouse, and cafeteria (which contains the pneumatics labora-
tory) occupy a city block, and the autometrology building is located
11/2 blocks away. Included in the production and maintenance unit
by agreement of the parties are approximately 650 employees in the,
4 operating divisions, 2 special projects, and manufacturing services
division who are classified as toolmakers, machinists, electrical tech-
nicians, various machine tool and production machine operators, heat
treaters, blast operators, gauge and instrument and various other types
of assemblers, engravers, etchers, various types of inspectors, checkers,
shipping and receiving clerks, tool and stock clerks, material movers,
steel cutoff operators, janitors, maintenance mechanics, maintenance
electricians, oilers, and truckdrivers. Excluded are office clerical em-
ployees in the administrative departments of the various divisions,
other office clerical employees, sales employees, professional employees,,
guards, and supervisors.
B. The technical categories
The parties disagree as to the technical status of 7 electronic tech-
nicians and 2 electromechanical technicians, and as to the unit place-
ment of those employees and of approximately 108 other employees,„
who they agree are technical employees.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend, contrary to the Peti-
tioner, that the seven electronic technicians and two electromechanical"
technicians are technical employees. The electronic technicians are
assigned to the electrical and electronic manufacturing department-
and the electronic engineering department of the autometrology di-
vision, and to the cavitron department of the machine tool division.
They are required to have a high school education plus at least 2
years' additional academic training in electricity or electronics at an_
engineering college or a special electronics school, or the equivalent in
training and experience. Their work is primarily concerned with-
research and development of electronic instruments, gauges, or mem-
ory circuit recording devices, and requires the exercise of independent
judgment. The electromechanical technicians, who are employed in_
the electrical and electronic manufacturing department of the auto-
metrology division, are engaged in research and development of elec-
trical circuitry of a more complex nature than that engaged in by the
electronic technicians, and which requires a greater understanding
THE SHEFFIELD CORPORATION 1103
of mechanics, more academic training, and more experience. Under
these circumstances, we find that the electronic technicians and the
electromechanical technicians are technical employees.5
We also find, on the basis of the agreement of the parties, that
the following employees are technical employees :
In the autometrology division : design engineers, designers, detailers,
and engineering apprentices in the measuray engineering department;
designers, detailers, and engineering apprentices in the mechanical and
electrical engineering departments; designers and detailers in the elec-
tronic engineering department; and laboratory technicians in the
pneumatic laboratory. In the machine tool division : engineering
group leaders, design engineers, designers, detailers, and engineering
apprentices in the machine tool engineering department, and research
technicians in the cavitron department. In the gauge and instrument
division : engineering group leaders, checkers, design engineers, de-
signers, detailers, and engineering apprentices in the production en-
gineering department, and specification engineer and writers in the
specification engineering department. In the contract manufacturing
division : engineering group leaders, design engineers, and designers
in product engineering. In special products, modulab : designers. In
the 'metrology laboratoryy : special projects engineers.
C. The unit placement of technical employees
The Petitioner and the Employer contend that all technical em-
ployees should be excluded from the production and maintenance unit.
The Intervenor agrees with the other parties as to which categories
are technical employees, but contends that, as they have a community
of interest with the production and maintenance employees, they
should be included in the unit, and it requests that the Board recon-
sider its policy of not permitting such inclusion.
We have carefully considered the Board's practices regarding the
unit placement of technical employees as set forth in the Litton In-
dustries cases " We are not persuaded that the practice thereunder
of automatically excluding all technical employees from production
and maintenance units whenever their unit placement is in issue is a
salutary way of achieving the purposes of the Act. To do so is to
give primacy in unit placement to the parties' disagreement rather
than to the overriding consideration of the community of interests
of such employees with the production and maintenance employees.
In order, therefore, to give effective weight to such community of
interest, we shall no longer utilize an automatic placement formula,
but shall, instead, make a pragmatic judgment in each case, based upon
an analysis of the following factors, among others : desires of the
r
See Litton Industries of Maryland , Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722 , at 724-725.
Litton Industries of Maryland , Incorporated, supra.
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
parties, history of bargaining, similarity of skills and job functions,
common supervision, contact and/or interchange with other employees,
similarity of working conditions, type of industry, organization of
plant, whether the technical employees work in separately situated
and separately controlled areas, and whether any union seeks to repre-
sent technical employees separately.' Of course, where the parties
are in agreement as to the unit placement of technical employees, we
shall, in assessing all the above factors, give considerable weight to
the desires of the parties.
We turn now to the application of these factors to the present case.
The three electronic technicians and two electromechanical technicians
assigned to the electrical and electronic manufacturing department of
the autometrology division work with production and maintenance
employees who are classified as electrical technicians, gauge assemblers,
and instrument assembler in research, development, construction, and
assembly of electrical and electronic control and measuring devices.
All employees in this department are supervised by the departmental
foreman and are located in the production area of the autometrology
building. All are hourly paid and have the same vacation and holiday
benefits.
There are three electronic technicians and two designers and de-
tailers assigned to the electronic engineering department of the auto-
metrology division. They are located in a separate room on the sec-
ond floor of the autometrology building, where they work with an
electronic engineer, who is a professional employee, and are engaged
in designing and detailing electrical devices. However, these elec-
tronic technicians have the same training and duties as those in the
electrical and electronic manufacturing department, and some of their
work is completed in that department. Moreover, the electronic tech-
nicians and the designers and detailers in this department are on the
factory payroll and are hourly paid.
There is one electronic technician and one research technician in the
cavitron department of the machine tool division, who are located in
a separate part of the machine tool building. These employees are
also hourly paid. They work with professional employees, as well
as with sonicut machine operators whom the parties agreed to include
in the production and maintenance unit, and are engaged in the devel-
opment and production of the cavitron, an electronic device used in
cutting superhard materials.
The two specification writers in the specification engineering depart-
ment, gauge and instrument division, work with the specification en-
gineer, a professional employee. They are located in the engineering
shop office of the division, where they determine diameter, angle, and
7 To the extent that Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated, supra, is incon-
sistent herewtih regarding the unit placement of technical employees , it is hereby overruled.
THE SHEFFIELD CORPORATION 1105
taper specifications for the threads of gauges to be manufactured.
Although they are paid a weekly salary plus overtime and are on
the office payroll, one of the two writers was formerly in the thread
gauge manufacturing department, and is now used interchangeably
in both of these departments.
The special projects engineer in the metrology lab of the manu-
facturing services division develops new products and ideas in gaug-
ing applications. This metrology lab is located in a separate room
of the main building, and is a specially designed, environmentally
controlled laboratory which provides services inside and outside the
plant. The special projects engineer is paid a straight salary, but he
works with hourly paid tool and gauge inspectors and gauge block
checkers, whom the parties agreed to include in the unit.
In the light of all the factors noted above and under the circum-
stances of this case, including the fact that no union is seeking to
represent a separate unit of technical employees, we find that the
technical employees discussed above have a sufficiently cite community
of interest with the production and maintenance employees to be
included in the same unit, and we shall therefore include them in the
production and maintenance unit.
All the remaining technical employees pare highly trained employees
who are assigned to separate engineering departments or laboratories
where they work in groups, usually with professional engineers, in the
design and development of new ideas, products, or special projects.
They have separate supervision and are located in different areas
from those of the production and maintenance employees, with whom
they have little or no contact. They are on the engineering payroll,
and are paid a weekly salary plus overtime, whereas practically all
the production and maintenance employees are hourly paid. Under
all the circumstances, including the fact that they work in separately
situated and separately controlled areas, we find that their interests
differ considerably from those of the production and maintenance
employees under the test set forth above, and we shall therefore ex-
clude them from the unit.
D. The unit placement of clerical employees
The parties also disagree on the unit placement of certain clerical
employees. The Petitioner and the Employer contend that the blue-
print machine operator and the engineering clerk in the machine tool
engineering department of the machine tool division should be ex-
cluded, while the Intervenor would include them. This department
designs, develops, and draws blueprints for machine tools and allied
products, and is located in a separate engineering room in the main
plant. The engineering clerk and the blueprint machine operator
630849-62-vol 134-71
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are paid a weekly salary plus overtime, and do filing, typing, and
office machine operating for the technical employees in the department,
whom we have excluded from the unit. As the duties and interests
of the engineering clerk and the blueprint operator are related to those
of technical employees we have excluded, to whom they serve as as-
sistants, we shall likewise exclude them.' For the same reason, we
shall exclude the blueprint machine, operator who is assigned to the
mechanical engineering department, autometrology division.
The Petitioner and the Intervenor would include three follow-up
clerks as plant clerical employees, but the Employer would exclude
them. The three followup clerks are assigned to production depart-
ments. One, Meredith, collects from engineering and research em-
ployees data on a special project of the cavitron department, collects
and types the data, and sees that it is printed. The other two follow-
up clerks in dispute, Jenks and Jette, are clerical assistants to produc-
tion foremen. They are located in the production area, and they do
typing, shipment scheduling, and follow up on the processing of prod-
ucts. All three are on the factory payroll. None possesses any super-
visory authority. Although Jenks and Jette have access to job classi-
fication and rate data and time record information, there is no
indication that any of the three assist and act in a confidential capacity
to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management
policy in the field of labor relations.9 We find that these followup
clerks are plant clerical employees, and, therefore, include them in the
unit. A fourth followup clerk, Coffey, is an assistant to the foreman
of the mechanical manufacturing department, autometrology divi-
sion. Although the parties agreed to exclude him, as his duties and
interests are identical with those of the other followup clerks and of
jthe production and maintenance employees, we shall include him in
the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Dayton, Ohio, plant, including electronic, electrical, and electro-
mechanical technicians, followup clerks, designers and detailers in
the electronic engineering department of the autometrology division,
research technicians in the cavitron department of the machine tool
division, specification engineer and writers in the specification en-
gineering department of the gauge and instrument division, and
special projects engineer in the metrology laboratory of the contract
manufacturing division, probationary employees,10 and laid-off em-
8 The Ryan Aeronautical Co , 132 NLRB 1160.
8 Cf. The B F. Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722, 724.
10 The Employer contends, contrary to the Petitioner and the Intervenor, that proba-
tionary employees should be excluded from the unit. The Board has previously included
GENERAL MOTORS CORP., PACKARD ELECTRIC DIVISION 1107
ployees; but excluding office clerical employees, engineering clerks,
and blueprint machine operators; design engineers, designers, de-
tailers, and engineering apprentices in the measuray engineering de-
partment ; designers, detailers, and engineering apprentices in the
mechanical and electrical engineering departments; laboratory tech-
nicians in the pneumatic laboratory of the autometrology division;
engineering group leaders, design engineers, designers, detailers and
engineering apprentices in the machine tool engineering department
of the machine tool division; engineering group leaders, checkers, de-
sign engineers, designers, detailers and engineering apprentices in
the production engineering department of the gauge and instrument
division; engineering group leaders, design engineers and designers
in product engineering of contract manufacturing division; designer
in special projects, modulab; and sales employees, co-op students,
confidential employees, professional employees," guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.12
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS LEEDOM and FANNING took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
probationary employees of the Employer in the production and maintenance unit (The
Sheffield Corporation, 123 NLRB 1454, 1457) and the record herein shows that the em-
ployment status of probationary employees has not changed . We therefore find, for
the reasons given in that decision , that probationary employees should be included in
the unit and are eligible to vote.
11 We find, on the basis of the entire record , that the following employees are pro-
fessional employees , and, in accord with the agreement of the parties, exclude them
from the unit: electronic engineers in the electronic engineering department, auto-
metrology division , and the cavitron department, machine tool division ; mechanical
engineers in the pneumatic laboratory, autometrology division ; physicists in the cavitron
department, machine tool division ; project engineers in special products , modulab ; and
the engineering group leader in the electrical engineering department, autometrology
division.
12 The Petitioner at the hearing agreed to represent as broad a unit as the Board finds
appropriate. As the unit found appropriate is broader than that originally requested by
the Petitioner, the Regional Director is instructed to conduct the election herein directed
only after he has determined that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest
in the unit found appropriate.
General Motors Corporation , Packard Electric Division and
Donald T. Morris
International Union of Electrical , Radio , and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, Packard Local 717 and Donald T. Morris. Cases
Nos. 8-CA-2024 and 8-CB-418. December 8, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 3, 1960, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
134 NLRB No. 116.