Willard Storage Battery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1423 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

WILLARD STORAGE BATTERY COMPANY 1423
replace worn or broken parts, service machines, and test and assemble
machinery. It thus appears that the working conditions and interests
of millwrights at the Employer's plant are closely allied with those
of machinists and mechanics and that all these employees may ap-
propriately be joined in the same bargaining unit.4 It is also appar-
ent that millwrights may remain part of the larger residual unit of
production and maintenance employees, including carpenters, pres-
ently represented by the Intervenor.5 The Board has also held that
millwrights may constitute a separate bargaining unit apart from
other plant employees.e
We shall make no final unit determination with respect to mill-
wrights at this time but shall first ascertain the desires of the em-
ployees as expressed in the elections hereinafter directed. We shall
direct that separate elections be held among the employees at the
Employer's New Brighton (Twin Cities), Minnesota, plant, and
within the voting groups described as follows : 7
(1) All machinists and machinists' helpers, including tool and die
shop employees, automotive mechanics, floor machinists, maintenance
mechanics, and machine tool operators, but excluding millwrights,
office employees, professional employees, electricians, sheet metal work-
ers, plumbers, steamfitters, carpenters, painters, guards, and all other
employees and supervisors.
(2) All millwrights, excluding all other employees and supervisors.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
* International Harvester Company, 73 NLRB 971 ; W. B. Willett Company, 85 NLRB 761.
6 Calumet and Hecla Consolidated Copper Company , 86 NLRB 126 ; Heyden Chemical
Corporation , 85 NLRB 1181 . Intervenor Council presently represents carpenters , electri-
cians, sheet metal workeis , plumbers , steamfitters , painters, and millwrights.
6 United States Rubber Company , 91 NLRB No . 213; International Harvester Company
( Louisville Works ), 87 NLRB 317.
7 It does not appear that any question exists concerning the representation of other
employees at the plant.
WILLARD STORAGE BATTERY COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER Case No. 32-RC-
311. June 21, 1951
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 Anthony J. Sabella,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
94 NLRB No. 203.
1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock 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 the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner, which already represents the Employer's pro-
duction and maintenance employees, requests in this proceeding a sep-
arate unit of all office and clerical employees at the Employer's
Memphis, Tennessee, plant, including typist-billing clerks, timekeeper,
production control mail, assistant to plaiming, production, and sched-
uling, and chemists, but excluding watchman-guards, the receiving
and checking clerk,' process engineer, plant manager, office manager,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer opposes
the proposed unit as inappropriate and would exclude the typist-
billing clerks and timekeeper as confidential employees, the produc-
tion control man as a supervisor or as an employee with distinctive
functions, the assistant to planning, production, and scheduling as
.in employee with interests different from the other office employees,
and the chemists as professional or technical employees.
The typist-billing clerks. These employees-Mary Nell Chipley
and Dorothy McNeil-write, clear, and file orders, and keep medical
records.2 Their job includes typing letters for both the office manager,
who is their immediate supervisor, and for the plant manager, who
deals with matters concerning general labor relations and participates
in negotiations on behalf of the Employer. Although letters marked
confidential are delivered to the plant manager unopened, they open
all other nail, some of which may pertain to labor matters. Upon
the basis of the foregoing facts, we find that the typist-billing clerks
spend part of their time serving in a confidential capacity to a manage-
ment official charged with handling the Employer's general labor
relations.3 We shall, therefore, exclude them from the unit'
1 The parties agree that this employee is in the production and maintenance unit.
, Although two persons were employed in this capacity at the time of the hearing, the
Employer states in its brief that only one typist -billing clerk is now employed.
3 Electrol, Incorporated, 93 NLRB 740 ; Minnesota and Ontario Paper Co ., 92 NLRB
711. Cf . Republic Steel Corporation, Canton Plant , Central Alloy District, 91 NLRB 904.
4 Member Styles dissents from the finding that the typist -billing clerks are confidential
employees , as he is of the opinion that their work for the plant manager is only incidental
to their other duties . Accordingly , he would include them in the unit.
WILLARD STORAGE, BATTERY cONTANY '1425
The timekeeper. Veora E. Uhles, who also works in the Employer's
office, keeps time records for payroll purposes, make out pay checks,
maintains seniority and service records, acts as receptionist and tele-
phone operator, and receives and transmits teletype messages. She
does no typing or handling of correspondence except to relieve the
typist-billing clerks or other clerical employees. It is well established
that the duties of this employee, particularly as telephone and tele-
type operator, do not place her in a confidential status .5 Nor does
her relief work for the typist-billing clerks appear to be sufficiently
substantial to constitute her a confidential employee. We shall, there-
fore, include her in the unit.
The production control man and the assistant to planning, produc-
tion, and scheduling. Carl B. Anderson as production control man
prepares the schedule of work to be done so that batteries are on hand
as needed. He orders various materials and supplies and keeps stock
records or stock inventory to assure a sufficient reserve at all times.
Aiding Anderson is Caroline Parker, assistant to planning, produc-
tion, and scheduling, who spends no more time than 1 hour a day typing
for him and correcting all battery orders. She devotes most of her
time to keeping the general accounts payable, correcting bills, and
making out all checks with the exception of those required for payroll
purposes.
Both Anderson and Parker work in the office under the immediate
supervision of the office manager. The Employer contends that An-
derson is a supervisor. Anderson has no authority to hire, discharge,
or discipline any employees. While no contention was specifically
made that he has the power of effective recommendation, the Employer
argues that Anderson's recommendation would be given serious con-
sideration. Although there is testimony that Anderson had reported
to his superior that Parker's predecessor was unsatisfactory, it ap-
pears further that another employee also talked to the office manager
concerning the matter and the latter, agreeing that "something should
be done," spoke to the employee involved who thereafter left her
employment voluntarily. In view of the foregoing, we find that
Anderson has no substantial supervisory functions and is therefore not
a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.6 We also find, con-
trary to Employer's contention, that both Anderson and Parker
have interests similar to the timekeeper who is also an office employee.'
Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit.
O Phillips Chemical Company, 90 NLRB No. 76; Great Lake8 Pipe Line Company,
88 NLRB 1370.
e WCAU, Inc., 93 NLRB 1003 ; Tyre Brother8 G1a88 & Paint Co., 85 NLRB 910; Scott
Motor Company et at., 84 NLRB 129.
4 Automatic Electric Company, 78 NLRB 1057.
953841-52-vol. 94=91
1426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The chemists. Robert. F. Maraman, a university graduate. with a.
degree in chemistry, works in the laboratory engineering department
where he makes chemical analyses, prepares engineering reports, and
conducts inspections as to defects -or. shortcomings in the Employer's
product. In connection with his work, he uses a book of specifications
which contains the standards he must follow regarding the purity and
content of the various materials used by the Employer. When neces-
sary, he runs a series of tests that approach research rather than rou=
tine operation. The other chemist in the laboratory, Bill Saltsman;
has- had 2 years of college training and serves as combination tech-
nician and inspector. His duties include checking on the specific
gravity of batteries, testing separator resistance, and keeping service
data.. He also makes the same types of analyses as Maraman whom he
assists. And in Maraman's absence for an extensive period Saltsman
performed all of his duties. Both are under the supervision of the
process engineer, Scharf, who in turn is under the direct control of
the Employer's Cleveland, Ohio, engineering department. Although
Maraman appears to exercise considerable discretion in the perform-
ance of his duties, Saltsman's work is always subject to modification
and revision by Scharf.
As indicated above, the Employer contends that the chemists are
professional employees, or, alternatively, technical employees. In
the view we take of this proceeding, it is unnecessary to determine
whether or not these employees meet the strict requirements of the
definition of professional employees contained in Section 2 (12) of
the Act. For it is clear from the description of their training and
duties that they are at least highly skilled technical employees whose
separate location, interests, background, and functions are markedly,
different from those of the office clerical employes. Under well-estab-
lished Board policy, technical employees- may not appropriately be
grouped with office and clerical employees where any party objects
to such a grouping." Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the
clerical unit found appropriate herein .9
We find that all office and clerical employees at the Employer's Mem-
phis, Tennessee, plant, including the timekeeper, production control
man, assistant to planning, production, and scheduling, but excluding
the typist-billing clerks, chemists, watchman-guards, the receiving
and checking clerk, process engineer, plant manager, office manager,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
8 Minnesota and Ontario Paper Co., supra; The Ohio Steel Foundry Company , 92 NLRB
683; International Harvester Company, West Pullman Works, 90 NLRB No. 240.-
Minnesota and Ontario Paper Co ., supra; Chicago Railway Equipment Company,
85 NLRB 586.
.;i:::
JULIAN B. SLEVIN COMPANY, INC. 1427
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
JULIAN B. SLEVIN COMPANY , INC. and SLEVIN EMPLOYEES ' INDEPEND-
ENT ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER . Case No. 4-RC-1105. June 21,
1951
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 E. Don Wilson, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the ruling 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 [Members Houston, 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 organizations involved claim 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.
The Intervenors contend that the petition herein should be dismissed
on the ground that an existing contract between the Employer and
the Intervenors bars a present determination of representatives. The
contract in question was executed on August 14, 1950, to expire April
18, 1951, and contained the following provision: "Either party hereto
desiring changes herein or termination at the expiration date of this
agreement shall give notice in writing to the other party of such desire
at least sixty (60) days before any such date. Otherwise this agree-
ment shall remain in full force and effect from year to year."
It is the Intervenors' position that no proper notice was given pur-
suant to the above-quoted clause, and that the contract therefore auto-
matically renewed itself on February 18, 1951, prior to the filing of
the instant petition. The record discloses the following facts pertinent
to this issue.
1International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers , A. F. L., and
Its Local 286 , were permitted to intervene on the basis of a contract - with the Ensployer
covering the employees in the proposed bargaining unit. - -
94 NLRB No. 205.