Watson-Flagg Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1949

83 N.L.R.B. 734 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of WATSON-FLAGG MACHINE Co., EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICIILTuRAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), LOCAL No. 191,
PETITIONER
Case No. 2-RC-881.-Decided May 19,1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Daniel J.
Sullivan, a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju=
d icial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of'the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Gray].
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 organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c)• and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
:4. The Petitioner seeks to include' divisional clerks,'M' ' its already
established unit, of employees at -the. Employer' s Paterson , New Jer-
sey, gear-manufacturing plant, or, in the alternative, should the Board
find that these employees cannot properly be included in the existing
unit, the Petitioner seeks a separate unit of divisional clerks. The
Employer urges that divisional clerks should neither be added to the
existing bargaining unit nor set up as a separate unit for bargaining
purposes.
On March 6, 1943, the Board certified the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all employees at the Employer's Pater-
son, New Jersey, gear-manufacturing plant, including employees in
83 N. L . R. B., No. 111.
734
WATSON-FLAGG MACHINE CO. 735'
the storeroom, but excluding expediters, office employees, clerical em-
ployees, watchmen, guards, draftsmen, employees in the planning and.
scheduling department, technical and professional employees, sales'
and medical employees, nurses, administrative, executive, and super-
visory employees.' On August 18, 1943, following a consent election,
the bargaining unit was expanded to include shop time clerks, stores
clerks, expediters, and shop departmental clerks?- Since 1943, the
Employer and the Petitioner have entered into collective bargaining
agreements on behalf of these employees.
In 1945, the Employer discontinued the job categories of shop
time clerk and expediter, both of which were expressly covered within
the established bargaining unit, and set up a load control department,
and a new job category designated as "divisional clerk." The sub-
stantial result of this change was to combine the functions of shop'
time clerk and expediter in the functions of divisional clerk, and to
add certain other duties, mainly clerical, to the new job category. It
seems clear that divisional clerks constitute a new job category of
employment and that the proper unit placement of divisional clerks.
is the issue properly presented in the instant petition.3
The essential function of the divisional clerks is to assure the smooth
inflow of work orders, materials, plans, and specifications to production
workers, according to schedules already prepared by the planning
department, and the smooth outflow of finished products, in order
that the Employer's manufacturing business may proceed without un-
necessary interruptions. To attain this end, a production worker,
on the completion of one operation, asks the divisional clerk in his
department, for the next scheduled job assigned to him by the planning
department. The divisional clerk, consulting the schedules described
above, gives the worker the information, and makes appropriate nota-,
tions on records in his possession as to the time the worker started
the specific operation and the number of units to be produced. The
production worker then commences operations. At numerous junc-
tures during the course of the job, the divisional clerk inquires as to'
the worker's progress and makes notes concerning the time consumed
and the amount of work produced.' The divisional clerk does not
prepare any charts or tables from the information thus gathered,
"Matter of Watson-Flagg Machine Co ., 46 N. L . R. B. 1349; 47 N. L . R. B. 1426.
2 Matter of Watson-Flagg Machine Co , Case No . 2-R-4135.
8 As we are empowered under Section 9 (b) of the Act to determine "the unit appropriate
for the purpose of collective baraining ," we find no merit in the Employer 's contention
that only in an unfair labor practice proceeding, founded on a charge that the Employer
is refusing to bargain for divisional clerks, may we examine the terms of the contractural'
bargaining unit to determine whether of not employees in the disputed category are in
fact encompassed in a contract . See Matter of Booth Kelly Lumber Company , 54 N. L.'
R. B. 406.
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
but simply submits the notations to his supervisor. To provide
against idle machines and mechanical break-downs, and to expedite
"hot" orders entitled to priority and already so marked by the planning
department, divisional clerks may shift job assignments. Thus, divi-
sional clerks may occasionally reassign work originally scheduled by
the planning department for another employee. Divisional clerks
direct the movement of materials from the yard to various depart-
ments, and from one department to another. They notify the Em-
ployer's inspectors when to inspect finished products. Divisional
clerks have no disciplinary or other power to enforce assignments
or directions which they may give other employees. All such em-
ployees are under the supervision of their respective foremen.4 Divi-
sional clerks have the same working hours as production workers.
They also punch the same time clocks and use the same facilities, and
mingle constantly with production employees in the course of their
duties.
Under all these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Em-
ployer's divisional clerks have sufficient community of interest with
production workers to be included in the existing production unit if
they so desire.5
Of the four divisional clerks, three are hourly paid and one is paid
a weekly salary. The Petitioner contends that the salaried divisional
clerk should not be included in the same unit, alleging that the sal-
aried divisional clerk exercises supervisory powers which the hourly
paid employees do not have. The record clearly indicates that the
duties of all divisional clerks are generally the same and that they
are not supervisory. Mode of payment alone is not a sufficient ground
for exclusion from a unite We shall therefore include the salaried
divisional clerk in the same unit with the hourly paid divisional clerks.
4 Under these circumstances , we find no merit in the Employer 's contention that the
divisional clerks are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act in that
they allegedly have authority "responsibly to direct" other employees . The record clearly
discloses that divisional clerks merely act as a conduit through which planning representa-
tives relay sequences to production operators and the use of discretion by divisional
clerks is confined narrowly within routine matters for the effective coordination and
execution of the orders transmitted to them . Matter of Kennecott Copper Corporation,
Utah Copper Division, 81 N. L. It. B. 957 ; Matter of A . H. Abell Company, Publisher,
The Sun Papers : The Sun, The Sunday Hun, the Evening Sun, 81 N. L. R. B. 82; Matter
of The Ohio Power Company, 80 N. L It. B. 1334.
5 We find no merit in the Employer 's contention that we should not include divisional
clerks in the' existing unit because the present job category of divisional clerks stems
directly from the former job category of senior job time clerks , who were excluded from
voting in the 1943 Consent Election , described above, and were not subsequently bargained
for by the parties . The two job categories are not identical . Moreover, an earlier
exclusion of a category from a bargaining unit does not alone preclude a later inclusion
of such employees in the unit if other requisites for such inclusion are met. Matter of
Chrysler Corporation , New Castle Division, 55 N. L . R. B. 1215.
e Matter of Jones d Laughlin Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh Works, 57 N. L. It. B. 357.
WATSON-FLAGG MACHINE CO. 737
We shall exclude office clerical employees and supervisors in the load
control department from such unit.
We shall therefore direct an election among divisional clerks em-
ployed in the load control department at the Employer's Paterson,
New Jersey, gear-manufacturing plant, including the salaried divi-
sional clerk, but excluding office clerical employees and supervisors.
If a majority df the employees voting cast their ballots for the Peti-
tioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be a part
of the over-all production unit and the Petitioner may bargain for
such employees as a part of the existing unit.
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 30 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 Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended,
among the employees in the voting group described in paragraph
numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, includ-
ing employees who did not work during said pay-roll 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 rein-
statement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented,
for purposes of collective bargaining, by International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica (UAW-CIO), Local No. 191.