Rockwell Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 116 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Page Line
587 10 Strike "wanted to" and insert "had" and in the same line strike
"interview " and substitute "interviewed."
593 16 Strike "sixth" and substitute "six."
593 18 Strike "not."
603 25 Strike "beside" and substitute "The side."
604 2 Strike "on."
608 1 Strike "467" and substitute "648."
618 19 Strike "parents of the" and substitute "parent."
637 24 Strike "in" and substitute "at the."
644 23 Strike "substance" and substitute "substantive" and in the same
line strike the period after "case" and substitute a comma.
644 25 Strike the period after "Respondent" and substitute a comma.
648 13 Strike. "has been entered " and substitute "is pending."
650 11 Insert "going" after "was."
651 13 Strike "your" and substitute "the."
651 20 Strike "and."
Volume 7
654 12 Strike "the," the first word in the line.
654 14 Strike "has" and substitute "had "
655 13 Strike "where ," the first word in the line , and substitute "that"
in the same line strike "a" and substitute "such," and strike
"testified" and substitute " testify."
662 21 Insert "which " after the word "made."
664 8 Strike "bar" and substitute "box."
ARCADE MANUFACTURING DIVISION OF ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING
COMPANY and DISTRICT No. 101, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-1897. September 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 Herman J. DeKoven, 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.
96 NLRB No. 8.
ARCADE MANUFACTURING DIVISION 117
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 seeks to merge a single timekeeper into the pro-
'duction and maintenance unit which it currently represents at the
Employer's Freeport, Illinois, plant. The Employer asserts that its
timekeeper is an office clerical employee and, accordingly, should
not be, added to the existing production and maintenance unit from
which he has been excluded in the past.
Since 1937 the Employer, or its predecessor, has recognized the
Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of its production
and maintenance employees consisting of all tool makers, die and
gauge makers, electricians, maintenance mechanics, production ma-
chinists, packers, welders, inspectors, specialists, semiskilled and un-
skilled workers at the Freeport plant, excluding office workers, clerical
employees, foundry employees, cleaning and grinding workers on
foundry work, employees in the polishing and plating department
and all supervisors? The most recent contract covering these em-
ployees became effective on July 1, 1950, for a period of 1 year. At
the time of the hearing, the parties were engaged in the negotiation
of a new agreement which would supplant the 1950 contract. The
,Petitioner does not seek an election and certification in the historical
bargaining unit.
The timekeeper, the only employee in this classification in the plant,
collects and records information concerning the working hours and
the amount of individual piecework production of the plant workers.
He has frequent contact with the production and maintenance employ-
ees while performing his duties. Although the timekeeper is under
the immediate supervision of the cost accountant in the main office,
lie is quartered in a plant office located adjacent to the production area
about 150 to 200 feet from the general office. Unlike the office em-
ployees who are paid on a salary basis, the timekeeper is paid at an
hourly rate in the same manner as the production and maintenance
employees. He also punches a time clock, and works approximately
the same number of hours as the latter.
As it is clear that the timekeeper is a plant clerical employee, we
find, in accordance with the Board's well-established policy, that he
may be represented as a part of the existing bargaining unit if he so
desires 2
1 The foundry workers and the polishing and plating department employees are currently
represented by other labor organizations under separate bargaining agreements.
2 Northwest Engineering Company, 73 NLRB 40; Goodman Manufacturing Company, 93
NLRB 1001; and Foster Wheeler Corporation, 94 NLRB 211. Cf. Waterous Company,
92 NLRB 76.
974176-52-vol. 96-9
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We shall therefore direct that a self-determination election be held
in a voting group composed of the timekeeper in the Employer's
Freeport plant, excluding all other employees and supervisors.3 If
he votes for the Petitioner, he will be taken to have indicated his de-
sire to be included in the production and maintenance unit currently
represented by the Petitioner.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
S Cf. Southwestern Sales Corporation ( Radio Station KVOO ), 92 NLRB 936.
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION, LOCAL 320, AFFILIATED
WITH INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND COMMON
LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL, AND R. L. SLATER, ITS OFFICER
AND AGENT and JAMES FELLOWS and EDWARD F. WILSON. Cases
Nos. 36-CB-42 and 36-CB-43. September 10, 1951
Decision and Order
On May 15, 1951, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and .take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter
the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a
supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner.2
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
violated Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act by causing the Com-
1Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in respect to this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and
Styles];
2 The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner 's characterization of the Company as a
"multistate enterprise ," in connection with his jurisdictional findings . Whether or not the
Company is a multistate enterprise within the meaning of that term as used in prior Board
decisions , we find , in view of the fact that during 1949 the Company performed services
outside the State-of Oregon exceeding $25,000 In value , that it would effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case . See Stanislaus Implement and Hardware
Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618 ; Starrett Bros. and Eken, Inc., 92 NLRB 1757.
96 NLRB N'o. 12.