Transformer Engineers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 9, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1325 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

TRANSFORMER ENGINEERS 1325
-'All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
,Union or any other labor organization . We will not discriminate in regard to the hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment because of mem-
l ership in or activities on behalf of any such labor organization.
Fox MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By--------- -------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Transformer Engineers and Local 1955, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Case go.
£1 RC-41l3. ,December 9, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis A. Gordan, 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
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 the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's Pasadena, California, plant.
The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit comprises the
production and maintenance employees of the Employer, Pacific
Transformers, herein called Pacific, and William Miller Instruments,
Inc., herein called Miller, as a single multiplant unit. The parties also
raised certain unit composition issues, which are hereinafter dis-
cussed.
The Employer and Pacific are wholly owned subsidiaries of Miller.2
All three companies are under common management and control .3 The
Employer and Pacific are each engaged in the manufacture of trans-
formers for use in electronic equipment and instruments. Miller
I The AFL and CIO having merged, we are amending the identification of the Union's
affiliation.
$ The Employer in 1952 acquired control of Pacific, and early in 1953 the controlling
'interests of the Employer bought out Miller.
a All three companies have board directors in common , as well as the same president,
vice president and treasurer , and secretary.
114 NLRB No. 204.
1326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
manufactures electronic equipment and instruments. Recently the
Employer moved its production facilities to a building on the premises
of Miller in Pasadena. Pacific's plant is located about 12 miles dis-
tant in Los Angeles, California.
There are a number of factors militating in favor of the Employer's
unit position. Thus, in addition to unified management, service func-
tions for all three companies are performed by central executive offices
located adjacent to the Miller plant. These services include planning
and engineering, purchasing and sales, production control, quality con-
trol, accounting, payroll-tabulating, and personnel. One messenger
and one maintenance crew service all three plants. There is only one
central personnel office for all the plants, and all personnel actions
must be finally approved by central personnel. It appears also that
industrial relations policy is centrally formulated. Under such policy
certain fringe benefits, such as holiday pay, vacations, and welfare
programs, are similar at all three plants.
It is evident from the foregoing that a single multiplant unit would
be appropriate. However, there are other factors which warrant the
establishment of an appropriate unit confined to the Employer's plant.
In the first place, none of the three companies has a history of collective
bargaining, and no labor organization is at present seeking to represent
their employees on a multiplant basis.4 In addition, despite the cen-
tralization of control above indicated, there is no interchange of pro-
duction employees between the 3 plants, interplant transfers are rare,
and the production processes of the 3 plants are little integrated. The
small degree of integration is shown by the fact that, although Miller
requires transformers as components for its products, it purchases less
than 5 percent of the transformer output of Pacific or the Employer.
Substantially the same lack of integration exists as between Pacific
and the Employer. While the interests of production employees at
Pacific and the Employer are parallel in many respects, as evidenced
by the similarity of products manufactured and work classifications
employed, there appears to be a minimum of integration in the opera-
tion of the two plants.5 Furthermore, each of the three plants has its
own plant manager, its own design group, its test and inspection unit,
and its shipping department. In the absence of personnel offices at the
plants, the plant managers exercise certain personnel functions sub-
ject to final approval of central personnel. Although wage policy for
* `while these matters, like the Petitioner 's extent of organization , do not have con-
trolling significance in our determination of the appropriate unit, they are, as the Board
often has held, entitled to some weight where other factors also support the request for
the narrower unit.
6 The products of the Employer and Pacific have separate trade names. The Employer,
which has much the larger of the two plants, from time to time sells needed materials to
Pacific, and on occasion performs certain operations , such as resin treating, for Pacific,
because the Employer alone has the facilities therefor.
TRANSFORMER ENGINEERS 1327
each plant is centrally formulated, each plant has a wage committee
which determines individual rates. It therefore appears that each
plant is virtually a complete and distinct production facility, having
its own complement of production employees 6 and substantial auton-
omy in its operations.
Under all the circumstances, we are unable to conclude that the
multiplant unit, as urged by the Employer, is the only appropriate
unit. In view of the operation of the Employer's plant as a separate
and distinct production unit, the absence of interchange of employees
with either of the other two plants involved, and the facts that there
has been no bargaining history at any of the plants and that no labor
organization is now requesting a broader unit, we find that a produc-
tion and maintenance unit limited in scope to the Employer's plant is
appropriate herein.7
The only remaining issues involve the composition of such unit. The
Petitioner requests, over the opposition of the Employer, the inclusion
of leadladies and the exclusion of the truckdrivers, "spec" girl, and
first aid and coffeemaker girl. The Petitioner also asks for the ex-
clusion of the "plant clerical" category, but specifically opposes the
Employer's contention that test and inspection employees and stock-
room employees should be excluded.
The leadladies or "supervisors," as the Employer classifies them, give
routine work assignments and directions, including training instruc-
tions, to the employees in their respective departments. The lead-
ladies are under foremen, each of whom usually has charge of two
departments and is directly responsible to the plant manager. In
addition, the leadladies keep attendance records and individual pro-
duction records, confer with foremen as to production problems and
employee performance, and, at the end of each month, complete quar-
terly merit ratings on employees in their respective departments.
Such ratings are directly instrumental in effecting promotions and
other changes of status. As the foremen give great weight to the
opinions of their leadladies as reflected in merit ratings and informal
conferences, we conclude that the leadladies have authority effectively
to recommend changes in employee status and, upon this basis, find
that they are supervisors as defined in the Act.8 We shall therefore
exclude the leadladies from the unit.'
6 While the maintenance crew does general maintenance jobs at any plant, it is on the
Employer 's payroll, and the other companies are charged for the maintenance jobs done
at their plants.
7 See Schwein Engineering Co., 114 NLRB 173; Rose Marie Reid, 103 NLRB 498.
8 See General Telephone Company of Michigan , 112 NLRB 46, and cases cited therein
at p. 50 , footnote 20.
8 Most of the leadladies have 1 or 2 assistant leadladies under them . The parties agreed
that assistant leadladies were not supervisors. As the record indicates that they exercise
the supervisory functions of leadladies but sporadically, we agree that they are not super-
visors as defined in the Act The assistant leadladies are included in the unit
1328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The truckdriver works under the material handler in charge of the
stockroom.1° As the truckdriver is the only -employee performing
truckdriving duties on the Employer's payroll and his interests are
clearly' related to those of production and maintenance employees, we
shall include him in the unit.
The first aid and coffeemaker girl performs the duties indicated by
her-title within the plant area. As she has interests akin to those of
plant employees, we shall include her in the unit.
The "spec" (specifications) girl and the stockroom employees 11
perform duties of a plant clerical nature. The Employer would in-
clude the former as a plant clerical and exclude the latter as technical
employees. Although the Petitioner would include the stockroom em-
ployees, it requests the exclusion of the general category of plant
clerical employees. However, in view of our customary practice of
including disputed plant clerical employees in production and main-
tenance units," and the Employer's position that plant clerical em-
ployees should be included, we shall include plant clerical employees
generally, as well as the contested plant clerical categories of "spec"
girl and stockroom employees.
The test and inspection employees at the Employer' s plant are
under the centralized quality control department. These employees
are divided into an electric test group and an inspection group.
Although most of the testing is done by moving the product to the
electrical test shop in the plant, much of the work of the test and
inspection employees is done at various points in the production process
in close proximity to production employees. No special course of
technical training or education is necessary for the performance of
test and inspection duties at the Employer's plant. Upon the record,
we find that the test and inspection employees are not technical em-
ployees as the Board defines them. As they have substantial interests
in common with production employees, we shall include the test and
inspection employees in the unit.l3
We find that the following employees constitute an appropriate unit
for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Pasa-
dena, California, plant, including plant clerical employees'14 test and
inspection employees, the truckdriver, the first aid and coffeemaker
girl, and assistant leadladies, but excluding office clerical employees,
30 Although the Employer lists him as a material handler , the record discloses that
this individual is a leadman with the same degree of authority as that possessed by lead-
ladies He is therefore a supervisor and excluded
11 There appears to be but one stockroom employee under the leadman in charge of
the stockroom.
12 Mrs. Tucker's Products , 106 NLRB 533.
>s Aerial Products, Inc., 111 NLRB 385. See also Philco Corporation, 110 NLRB 184.
14 Included under this category are the "spec" girl and stockroom employees.
CASKET MAKERS LOCAL 3128 1329
research and development employees , laboratory employees , techni-,
cians, engineering employees , draftsmen , the janitor -watchman,5,
leadladies and leadmen , and all other guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and BEAN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Election.
ss Although the Employer sought to include janitors in the appropriate unit, there is
no full-time janitor at the Employei 's plant The combination janitor and watchman
employed by the Employer , as a regular part of his duties, punches clocks on watch rounds.
As he appears to exercise guard functions for the Employer , he comes within the Board's
definition of a guard . For this reason , the janitor-watchman is excluded . See General
Shoe Corporation, 113 NLRB 905 , Ame, lean Lawn Mower Co , 108 NLRB 1589 , 1592-93.
Casket Makers Local 3128, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO 1 and Metropolitan New
York and New Jersey Casket Manufacturers Association.
Case No. 2-CC-324. December 12, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 21, 1955, Trial Examiner Arthur Reyman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Charging Party filed with
the Board exceptions to the wording of the recommended order to-
gether with a supporting brief 2
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report in the light of
the exceptions filed to such report. Because no timely exceptions
were filed to the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing,
to the substantive fact findings he made on the record, or to the con-
clusion he based upon such findings that the Respondent Union vio-
lated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, the Board hereby adopts such
rulings, findings, and conclusion pro forma. The Board finds no
merit in the Charging Party's request that the cease and desist pro-
visions of the Order be amended to include wording enjoining the
Respondent not only from "inducing and encouraging" strike action
by any employees for the objective proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4)
(A) of the Act, but also from actually engaging in strike action for
1 The AFL and CIO having merged subsequent to the hearing in this proceeding, we
are amending the identification of the affiliation of the Union accordingly.
2 Exceptions were submitted by the Union after the date they were due under the exten-
sion granted by the Board at the Union's request Such exceptions were accordingly
rejected as untimely
114 NLRB No. 207.