The Visking Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 18, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 1006 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of THE VISITING CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and LODGE
325, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 32-RC-211.Decided July 18, 19 0
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Andrew P. Carter, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members 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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of i:he Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (r) of the .2
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unlit composed of all mainte-
nance mechanics and their helpers employed at the Employer's North
1 The Employer contends that the petition must be dismissed because the Petitioner's
constitution does hot expressly admit to membership the type of employees involved herein.
As we have frequently refused to inquire into a labor organization's constitution in the
absence of proof that it will not accord effective representation, we find this contention
without merit. United States 0-ypsnm Company, . 80 NLRB 779 ; Baldwin Locomotive
Works, 76 NLRB 922.
8 For the reasons stated in Advance Pattern Company, 80 NLRB 29, we find no merit in
the Employer's contention that no question concerning representation exists because it did
not expressly decline to recognize the Petitioner as the bargaining representative of its
employees. The Employer also questioned the Board's power to entertain the petition on
the grounds that the Petitioner's initial claim for recognition (lid not specifically assert
exclusive majority status and that the petition is not supported by an adequate showing of
interest. Because the petition as filed satisfies our administrative requirements, and as
the showng of interest in a representation proceeding is not subject to collateral attack
(See 0. D. Jennings & Co., 68 NLRB 516), we find that this contention is also without
merit. In any event, we are administratively advised that the Petitioner has made a
sufficient showing of interest among the employees involved.
90 NLRB No. 165.
1006
THE VISXING CORPORATION 1007
Little Rock, Arkansas, plant, excluding all other employees. Alter-
natively, it stated that it would represent these employees together
with the laborers attached to the same department, or any group-
ing of these employees which the Board might find appropriate.
Relying primarily upon the integrated character of its entire opera-
tions, the Employer contends that any unit which does not embrace
both the production and maintenance employees is inappropriate.
It also, argues that in any event, the watchmen and the laborers
must be joined with the mechanics as they are under the same
supervision.
The Employer, a Virginia corporation, is composed of three divi-
sions within the United States and a subsidiary in Canada. The
only division involved in this proceeding, the North Little Rock
plant, was constructed in 1947 to develop and produce a nonwoven
fabric of all cellulose construction. For the production of cloths
and filters, the plant is geared to a continuous process operation,
requiring introduction of raw materials and chemicals at various
.stages and resulting in an uninterrupted flow of the completed product.
Although the plant still conducts extensive developmental research,
during the 12-month period preceding the hearing it produced finished
articles, such as wiping cloths, filters, and cheese cloth, valued in excess
of $1,000,000.
All the employees sought by the Petitioner are included in the
works engineering department, which embraces all the plant's mainte-
nance employees.' The only other employees found in this depart-
ment are the laborers and watchmen, discussed below, and a group
of draftsmen and engineers, whose unit placement was not put in
issue at the hearing'
Within the works engineering department, the mechanics and
helpers are grouped into 3 subdivisions, 1 under the textile fore-
man, another under the maintenance foreman, and the third under
the powerhouse foreman. Six mechanics and 1 helper work under
the textile foreman. They clean, adjust, and repair the picker and
carding machines that separate and sort the fibers used in the produc-
tion process. They have a small room, separated from the operating
line area, where they perform most of their -duties, although they
occasionally work on machines on the operating line. Sixteen me-
chanics and one helper work under the maintenance foreman. They
3 The remaining departments are the operating , sales, office , chemical , and purchasing
departments.
The only information contained in the record respecting the draftsmen and engineers
is an uncontradicted statement by the Employer ' s plant manager that they are professional
employees.
1008- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
periodically clean, oil, grease, and repair machines on the operating
line and make emergency repairs on all machines in the plant. They
also develop new machines and modify existing ones. Approxi-
mately 7 of these mechanics, classified as mechanics first class, work
as electricians, carpenters, painters, and pipe fitters, and were em-
ployed because of these special skills. All of these employees use
the powerhouse as a workroom, but they make some emergency
repairs and do routine cleaning, oiling, and greasing on machines
in the production areas. Seven mechanics, four of whom are classified
as watch engineers, work under the powerhouse foreman. They are
responsible for the maintenance and repair of the process and utility
lines and equipment, and also check and adjust the flow of steam, water,
and brine used in production. They have their headquarters in the
powerhouse, but work part of the time throughout the plant wherever
adjustments or repairs of process equipment and lines are needed.
Nine mechanics from the works engineering department, three from
each of the subdivisions, are assigned to the three operating shifts, so
that emergency repairs may be made at any time during the 24-hour
operations. Although an operating foreman may suggest to the shift
mechanics the need for repairs or adjustments, the quality of the work
performed by them is the responsibility of the works engineering
department foremen. All other maintenance employees work on a
single-shift basis.
The laborers in the works engineering department load and unload
raw materials, aid in the cleaning of process lines and trenches, and
move production equipment and raw fibre to the picker machines.
They work under the direct supervision of the maintenance foreman
of that department.
The watchmen in the work engineering department make routine
rounds of the plant, punch time clocks at designated times, and correct
any conditions that require attention. They also cut and pack waste
material, but the record shows that their duties primarily are those
traditionally performed by watchmen.
The Employer resists the establishment of any unit limited to main-
tenance employees because of the frequent association of these em-
ployees with operating personnel during their work and because of
tlae degree of integration in the plant operations. It is true, as the
Employer asserts, that a number of the maintenance mechanics here
involved do a considerable amount of work on the production machin-
ery at regular intervals to insure uninterrupted production and that
they often work side by side with the machine operators. The record
also shows, however, that these maintenance mechanics, charged with
the duty of servicing, maintaining, and repairing the plant machinery
THE VISKING CORPORATION 1009
and equipment, perform a distinctive function. In addition to their
work on the production machinery, a substantial-portion of their time
is devoted to the development of new machinery, a task clearly unre-
lated to the production process. They are. separately supervised and
are paid a higher rate than production employees (the top rate for line
operators is $1.29, while the top rate for mechanics is $1.56 per hour).
During the 20-month period preceding the hearing, there were no
transfers out of the works engineering department to the operating
department and only two from the latter to the former. Finally,
although the Employer has no apprenticeship program, mechanics
progress within their classification, helper to second-class mechanic to
first-class mechanic. On the record as a whole, therefore, we do not
believe that the work of the maintenance employees is so integrated
with the Employer's production process as to require denial of the
request of the maintenance employees for representation apart from
the production employees.
During the hearing, the Petitioner amended its petition to exclude
the six laborers from its proposed unit. As the laborers devote the
major portion of their time to assisting the maintenance mechanics
and are under common supervision with them in the same department,
we shall. include them in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.5
Because the works engineering department watchmen are charged
primarily with the duty of punching time clocks on regular tours of
guard duty, we find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that they
are guards as defined in the Act and we shall therefore exclude them
from the unit. r
In conclusion, we believe that the maintenance mechanics, helpers,
and laborers in the works engineering department constitute a homo-
geneous, readily identifiable, and functionally distinctive depart-
mental group such as we have frequently held may constitute a sepa-
rate bargaining unit, particularly where, as here, there has been no
history of bargaining on a broader basis.' Accordingly, we find that
all maintenance mechanics first class, maintenance mechanics second
class, group leaders,8 helpers, and laborers in the' Employer's North
Little Rock, Arkansas, plant, but excluding all other employees, office
and clerical employees, watchmen, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
5In.ternational Harvester Company, Melrose Park Plant, 87 NLRB 1101.
6 Cherry-Burrell Corporation, 88 NLRB 945.
7 E. I. DuPont de Nemnurs & Co., 88 NLRB 941 ; Borden's Soy Processing Company,
88 NLRB 1208; St. Regis Paper Co., 84 NLRB 454.
s The record shows, and the parties agree, that group leaders, classified as mechanics
first class, neither possess nor exercise any supervisory authority.
903847-51-vol. 90-65
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
thirty days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case
was heard, and subject to Section 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed
during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during
said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, 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, and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by
Lodge 325, International Association of Machinists.