Vincent Horwitz Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 9, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 496 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vincent Horwitz Company , Inc. and United
Mechanics Union , Local 150F, F.L.M. Joint
Board , Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner, and Boot and Shoe Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Cases 6-RC-4764 and
6-RC-4798
June 9, 1969
DECISION ON REVIEW, ORDER, AND
DIRECTION
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
On November 19, 1968, the Regional Director for
Region 6 issued his Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which
he found that the maintenance employees requested
by Petitioner Mechanics Union might constitute a
separate appropriate unit, if they so desire.
Thereafter, in accordance with National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the
Employer and Petitioner Boot and Shoe Workers
filed timely requests for review in which they
contended, inter alia, that the Regional Director
erred in finding that a separate maintenance unit
may be appropriate. Petitioner Mechanics Union
filed opposition.
By telegraphic Order dated December 19, 1968,
the National Labor Relations Board granted review
with respect to the issue of the appropriateness of
the maintenance unit. Thereafter, Mechanics Union
filed a timely brief on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case , including the briefs of the parties, with respect
to the issue under review, and makes the following
findings:
Petitioner Mechanics Union seeks to represent the
maintenance employees of the Employer, while
Petitioner Boot and Shoe Workers seeks an overall
production and maintenance unit. There is no
bargaining history. In their requests for review, the
Employer and Petitioner Boot and Shoe Workers
contend that only a combined unit of production
and maintenance employees is appropriate. We find
merit in this contention.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of
shoes in Altoona, Pennsylvania. The Employer's
vice president and plant manager is in charge of the
plant. To him report the production manager, the
general superintendent, and the foremen of the
various production departments. All of the
Employer's production employees, who number
about 250, report to the production foremen.
In contrast, the Employer' s maintenance
employees, who number four, are neither in a
separate department nor even separately supervised.
With respect to machinery maintenance, which
occupies the bulk of their time, the maintenance
employees receive work assignments from the
production foremen.' With respect to plant and
general maintenance , which occupies the remainder
of their time , they receive assignments from the
plant manager , who also makes decisions with
respect to the time off, vacations, pay raises, and
other conditions of employment for the maintenance
employees.
Of the machine maintenance work done at the
plant, the Employer' s maintenance men perform
only a fraction, the great majority being done by
other personnel. Thus, production employees
perform about half the maintenance work on their
own machines. Production foremen also do
maintenance work. In addition, the repair of
machines which are leased, other machines that are
under warranty, and still other machines, is
performed by representatives of the machinery
manufacturers or by outside repair companies. A
representative of one machinery lessor is stationed
full time at the plant, and the representatives of
other machinery manufacturers are on call. These
outside repairmen normally perform the more
complicated maintenance of the Employer's
machinery, particularly its newer equipment.
The maintenance employees spend almost all of
their time performing less skilled, routine, and
repetitive duties. Thus, they replace electric switches
and motors and adjust and make minor repairs on
machinery. They also maintain a stock of new parts
for the machinery, and install all new parts on all
the machinery in the plant. Their plant and general
maintenance assignments consist largely of
handyman type duties such as replacing window
glass , lightbulbs, and worn faucet washers, and
performing minor carpentry and painting.'
The Employer has no requirement that applicants
for jobs as maintenance employees possess
specialized education, training, or experience. Thus,
and although the Employer admittedly prefers such
experience, one of the four maintenance employees
had no prior training or experience. The Employer
has no apprenticeship or on-the-job training
program for maintenance employees.
One maintenance employee reports to the fitting room foreman almost
exclusively and spends almost all his time maintaining fitting room
machinery under the direction of the latter
The record indicates that maintenance employee Williams at times
makes major repairs of plant machinery and at times uses machinery
which may involve the exercise of considerable degrees of skill. However,
the record fads to indicate that the skills involved achieve craft dimensions.
Moreover, Williams performs such duties only when he has time free from
the maintenance employees ' primary function - to perform the routine
machinery maintenance and minor repairs in the day -to-day operations of
the plant. In addition , the record affirmatively indicates that the other
maintenance employees exercise skills inferior to those exercised by
Williams.
176 NLRB No. 61
VINCENT HORWITZ CO. 497
The maintenance employees spend virtually all
their time in production areas, where their work
contacts are primarily with production employees.
Although the maintenance employees have an area
where they store parts for the production machinery,
and where they perform some maintenance work,
they spend little time working at that location
which, in any event, is also utilized by production
employees working with the grinder and buffing
machine located there.
With the following minor exceptions, the
production and maintenance employees share the
same conditions of employment without regard- to
their function. First, many - but not all - of the
production employees are on piecework, while the
maintenance employees are not . Only one of the
maintenance employees has a wage in excess of that
of some of the more experienced production
employees. Second, at times the maintenance
employees work when most of the production
employees have gone home.
Upon these facts and the record as whole, we
find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the
maintenance employees lack both the distinctive
function and the diverse community of interest
necessary for the establishment of a separate
maintenance unit under American Cyanamid.' Thus
the maintenance employees share their maintenance
function with production employees, production
supervisors, and representatives of machinery
manufacturers and outside contractors. They are not
in a separate department. They are not separately
supervised but rather share supervision with
production employees. The maintenance employees
spend almost all of their time performing routine
and repetitive work, and little, if any, exercising
craft skills. The Employer neither requires, nor
participates in the development of, such skills.
Finally, the maintenance employees lack a separate
location and other conditions of employment
distinguishing their interests from those of the
production employees, and instead spend most of
their time in production areas where they have
substantial work contacts with production
employees.
As we find that the maintenance employees do
not constitute a separate appropriate unit, we shall
dismiss the Mechanics Union petition. We further
find, in agreement with the alternative conclusion of
the Regional Director, that the overall production
and maintenance unit is appropriate. Accordingly,
we shall amend his Decision to provide for an
election in such unit only.
The appropriate unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Altoona, Pennsylvania plant, including
janitors , plant clerical, and shipping and receiving
employees, but excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, watchmen, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed in Case
6-RC-4764 be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.
DIRECTION
The case is hereby remanded to the Regional
Director for Region 6 for the purpose of conducting
an election in Case 6-RC-4798 pursuant to his
Decision and Direction of Elections, in the unit set
forth above, except that the eligibility date shall be
the payroll period immediately preceding the date
below.
'American Cyanamid Company. 131 NLRB 909
'In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior
Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236. N. L.R B. v. Wyman- Gordon
Company. 394 U S. 759. Accordingly , it is hereby directed that a corrected
election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the
eligible voters , must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director
for Region 6 within 7 days of the date of this Decision on Review , Order,
and Direction . The Regional Director shall make the list available to all
parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be granted
by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances . Failure to
comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever proper objections are filed