Wiedemann Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1616 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD
by others. Nor is it clear what proportion of his time is spent in the
die department. Under these circumstances, we have insufficient
basis for determining the unit placement of the die storage employee.
We shall, therefore, permit him to vote subject to challenge in the
election hereinafter directed.
We find that the following employees at the Employer's plant lo-
cated in Endicott, New York, may, if they so desire, constitute a
separate unit for the purposes of collective' bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All employees in the die department, including the tool crib at-
tendants but excluding the sweeper, all other employees and all
supervisors as defined in the Act.
We shall not, however, make a final unit determination at this time.
If a majority of the employees vote for Petitioner in the election di-
rected herein, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director con-
ducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of represent-
atives to the Petitioner for the unit described above, which the Board,
in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining. If, on the other hand, a majority of the em-
ployees in the voting group vote for the Boilermakers, the Board finds
that they may continue to be represented as part of the existing unit,
and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of
election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
e As stated above, the die storage employee will be permitted to vote subjectto challenge.
Wiedemann Machine Company and United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America (U. E.), Petitioner. Case No.
4-RC-3398. October 15, 1957
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 Joseph C. Kelly, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Murdock and Rodgers] .
I The hearing officer referred to the Board a motion made by the Intervenor at the
hearing to dismiss the instant petition on the ground that it was prematurely filed..
For reasons stated hereinafter in paragraph numbered 3, below, this motion is hereby
denied.
118 NLRB No. 225.
WIEDEMANN MACHINE COMPANY 1617
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 organizations involved herein claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.'
3. The Intervenor contends that the petition in this case should
be dismissed because it was prematurely filed with respect to an exist-
ing contract between the Intervenor and the Employer. The record
shows that the Employer and the Intervenor executed a contract on
December 20, 1955, effective from November 1, 1955, to October 31,
1957, and from year to year thereafter absent 60 days' written notice
by either party of a desire to terminate or modify the contract. The
Petitioner, by telegram dated May 23, 1957, requested recognition by
the Employer as exclusive bargaining representative for its produc-
tion and maintenance employees. By letter dated May 29, 1957,
counsel for the Employer informed the Petitioner that its demand
for recognition had been refused. Thereafter; on June 3, 1957, the
Petitioner filed its petition in the case at 'bar. As the petition was
filed within 3 months of the Mill B date of the existing contract,3
and as such date has, in any event, been reached, we find that the
contract is no bar. Accordingly, we find that a question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer, a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture of turret punch presses and in heat treat work and job
shop work at its plant located at 4272 Wissahickon Avenue, Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania.
The parties are in basic agreement as to the appropriateness of a
unit composed of the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees. However, the Employer would exclude, while the Petitioner
and the Intervenor would include, 1 production control employee, 7
quality control employees, and 3 outside servicemen.
There are, 16 employees currently classified as production control
employees. The Petitioner and Intervenor agree to the exclusion of
15 of these employees as office clerical employees, but would include 1,
2District Lodge No. 1, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Intervenor , was permitted to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of its
Contractual interest.
, Herne Curtain Corp ., 111 NLRB 1253 . The Intervenor contends that in applying
this 3 -month rule , the Board should adopt a policy of dismissing petitions filed, as
here , within 3 months of the Mill B date, where a demand for recognition was made
more than 3 months before the Mill B date . The Intervenor contends that such a
policy is necessary to prevent disruption of normal bargaining relations by premature
demands for recognition . We find no merit in this contention.
450,553-58-vol. 118-103
1618 DECISIONS OF,NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Henry Manton.4 The 'record shows that those production control
employees who are excluded by agreement are all salaried person-
nel who spend the major portion of their time working in an office
building which is separate from the production area of the plant. In
contrast, Manton is paid an hourly wage rate and spends most of his
time in the production area of the plant, where his primary function
is the performance of clerical work to, expedite the processing of
orders. In view of the foregoing, we find that Manton is a plant
clerical employee whose interests and working conditions are more
closely allied to those of the production and maintenance employees
than to those of the other production control employees. Accord-
ingly, we shall include him in the unit.
. The seven quality control employees were formerly classified as
inspectors and are included in the contract unit. These employees
are hourly paid and work entirely in production areas of the plant.
Their primary duty is to check finished products against specifica-
tions shown on drawings and blueprints and to reject those which do
not meet the required standards. The Employer contends that the
duties of these employees have changed since the change in their job
titles and that they should be excluded from the unit because of a
conflict of interest between them and other employees. The Employer
alleges that such conflict exists because it is their function to reject
unsatisfactory work, and that excessive rejection slips to an indi-
vidual employee may result in disciplinary action ranging from a
denial of a merit wage increase to actual discharge. However, the
record shows that the duties of the quality control employees are
basically the same now as when they were classified as inspectors,
although a few additional duties have been added to their functions
and they must now check products to closer tolerances than pre-
viously. Contrary to the contention of the Employer, we find that
the fact that inspectors may affect the status of employees in the
manner outlined above does not warrant excluding them from the
unit. We shall, therefore, in accordance with our usual policy,
include them.'
The four outside servicemen, whom the Employer would exclude,
are regular production employees who are sent out on service calls
as. requested by the Employer's,customers, but who spend the major
portion of their time in production works These four employees are
in. the current contract unit. The Employer. states that it plans to
set up a new classification of service salesmen who,will devote full
4 The question as to whether biaiifon is 'covered by the current contract has been sub-
mitted to arbitration. - Prior to his transfer to his present position , Manton was
engaged in production work 'and was clearlycovered'by the contract.
6Palmer Manufacturing Corporation, 103 NLRB 336 , 338; Gerber Plastic, Company,
113 NLRB 462, 464.
6One of these employees is classified as an electrician , one as an "assembler B," and
two as "assembler A's."
FRANK.S. OWENS CO. 1619
time to outside sales and service work. However , it is clear that the
four employees here in dispute are presently primarily production
employees , and that such outside service work as they now perform
does not militate against their inclusion in the unit . The fact that
one or more of them, as suggested in the record , may be transferred to
the new classification of service salesman at some future date is not
here material, as it is the nature of the work that these employees
are actually performing at this time which is controlling as to their
unit placement . We shall, therefore, include them in the unit .7
Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the Em-
ployer's plant located at 4272 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees , including Henry
Manton, . quality control employees , stockroom employees, truck-
drivers and apprentice boys, but excluding all production con-
trol employees other than Manton, office clerical employees ; drafts-
men, foremen , supervisors and all other supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7 After issuance of the Decision and Direction of Election herein, the parties agreed
to exclude outside servicemen.
Frank S. Owens Co., Mid -States Marine Oil Co., Owens-Illinois
Oil Co., Owens-Iowa Oil Co., Owens-Wells Oil Co., Owens-
Indiana Oil Co., and Owens -Missouri Oil Co.' and Chauffeurs,
Teamsters and Helpers , Local No. 26, AFL-CIO , Petitioner.
Case No. 13-RC-5589. October 15, 1957
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 Virginia M. McEl-
roy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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 Leedom and Members Murdock and
Rodgers].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Frank S. Owens Company, herein called Owens Co., con-
tends that the Board does not have jurisdiction over its. operations.
1 The caption in this proceeding is hereby amended to conform with our finding below
that the various Owens enterprises constitute a single employer.
118 NLRB No. 227.