Electrical Reactance Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1256 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter of ELECTRICAL REACTANCE CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. L.,
PETITIONER
Case No. 3-RC-555.Decided January 10, 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 William Naimark, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
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
employees 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. Except for the Petitioner's proposed inclusion of certain em-
ployees, discussed below, whom the Employer would exclude, the par-
ties agree to the composition of a production and maintenance unit.
The Employer produces electrical condensors and ceramic resistors
at its plants in Olean and Franklinville,' New York; Jessup, Penn-
sylvania; and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. This proceeding in-
volves. only the employees of the Olean plant, which has been. in pro-
duction since about September 17, 1950.
Women supervisors: These supervisors, about 30 in number, each
check the work of between 20 and 25 production operators; they in-
struct new employees, set up machines for new operations, and check
the operators' actual production against their production statements.
They do no production work, save occasional preparation of sample
orders. Although hourly paid, they receive a higher .wage rate than
the employees whom they guide.. The record contains uncontradicted
92 NLRB No. 186.
1256
ELECTRICAL REACTANCE CORPORATION 1257
testimony that each of the women supervisors has power effectively
to recommend both the discharge of employees and the hiring of new
workers. They may also recommend transfers . In agreement with
the Employer 's contention , we find that the women supervisors are
supervisors as defined in the Act , and we shall exclude them from the
unit.
Inspectors : The Employer would exclude, as supervisors , its seven
inspectors . Some of the inspectors , called "inspectors of outgoing
material ," inspect outgoing material in the shipping department, ex-
amining all orders before shipment . The others , called "visual in-
spectors," move about the factory checking work as it is completed by
the operators. In addition to their other duties, the inspectors func-
tion as the Employer 's quality control department . Most of them
were hired specifically for the job , having been chosen for their tech-
nical knowledge of radio, radar , and related fields. They are paid
30 to 35 cents per hour more than operators , and are subordinate to
the chief inspector.. Uncontradicted testimony shows that the in-
spectors effectively recommend both the hire and discharge of pro-
duction workers . Because of their power to change the status of
other employees , we find that these inspectors are supervisors, and
we shall exclude them from the unit.
The matron: The Employer contends that the matron is a guard
and should therefore be excluded from the unit . She is stationed in
the ladies ' room, and her sole duty shown in the record is to prevent
other women employees from loitering and from throwing cigarettes
or other litter on the floor . She does no janitorial work. Subordi-
nate to the guard foreman , she has authority to order other employees
to return to work. Without deciding. whether the matron is a guard
as defined in the Act , we are satisfied that her interests are different
from those of production employees . We shall therefore exclude her
from the unit.
Timekeepers , factory clericals , and stock control clerks: The Em-
ployer would exclude all these employees on the ground that their
interests are more closely related to those of office clerical workers
than to those of production employees . The three timekeepers per-
form the usual duties associated with their job title. They keep time
records of the production of individual employees and work on the
production floor, reporting directly to the plant comptroller. Two
of them are now hourly paid, but the Employer intends soon to place
them on salary . The factory clericals keep production records for
the foremen ; like the ' timekeepers , they work on the production floor;
they have their own tables, where they keep pencil records of pro-
duction work as it progresses through the plant. The stock control
929979-51-vol. 92-81
1258 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clerks work in two cages located on opposite sides of the production
floor. They also keep production records, maintain current ledgers
from which the location and state of completion of each order can
rapidly be ascertained, and estimate the time required for its com-
pletion. These control clerks handle no stock, but work only with
order slips.
While it is true that the employees in these three categories do no
production work and do perform a clerical function, the close integra-
tion of their work with that of the production employees, with whom
they work side by side, supports the Petitioner's assertion that their
interests are more closely related to those of the production workers
than of the office clericals. In accordance with established Board
precedent,' therefore, we shall include the timekeepers, the factory
clericals, and the stock control clerks in the unit herein found ap-
propriate.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's. Olean, New York, plant, including timekeepers, factory
clericals, and stock control clerks, but excluding inspectors, the ma-
tron, guards, office and clerical employees, women supervisors, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Employer urges postponement of the election until its ex-
pansion program produces a labor force of 1,500, or at least until
February 1, 1951. The Petitioner requests an immediate election.
The Olean plant began operations on September 17, 1950. On that
day approximately 375 employees were moved from an old plant,
which was closed, to the present location. The Employer then
planned, and it still intends, to hire about 100 additional employees
weekly. Within the first few days of operations, before the petition
herein was filed on September 22, 1950, about 1100 employees were
added. Thereafter, in over 4 weeks, despite strenuous efforts to
expand at this,desired rate, the Employer succeeded in adding a total
of only about 80 new employees to its rolls. During this period, it
advertised steadily on the radio and in newspapers, offering bus trans-
portation from outlying towns to the factory in its efforts to tap new
labor sources. The Employer's representative admitted at the hearing
that it was impossible to maintain the planned expansion schedule.
The record also shows that the composition of the labor force will
not be changed radically even when expansion is complete. Although
' Remington Rand, Inc., 89 NLRB 1638 ( timekeepers ) ; Chrysler Corporation, 76 NLRB
55 (factory clericals ) ; Public Service . Company of Indiana, Inc., 89 NLRB 1253 (stock
control clerks).
ELECTRICAL REACTANCE CORPORATION 1259
about 150 new operators will do production work dissimilar to any
now being done, the Employer did not claim that these new employees,
could not properly be placed in a production and maintenance unit.
It is clear that timely achievement of the Employer's proposed ex
pansion is entirely speculative. Moreover, the employee complement,.
approximately 554 at about the. time of the October hearing, is a
substantial and representative segment of the working force which
will eventually be employed. In these circumstances, we perceive
no persuasive reason for deviating from established practice, and we
shall direct an immediate election?
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
2 Ford Motor Company, 80 NLRB 1094.