The Englander Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 14, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 164 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
•combustion,control division is functionally related to the metallurgical
-department as a whole which includes other technical employees, eve
find no basis for permitting the Petitioner to add the combustion
control employees to its existing unit 12
As we have found that the combustion control employees neither
may constitute a separate unit nor be included in the Petitioner's
existing unit, we shall dismiss-the petition.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
-dismissed.
12 See Monsanto Chemical Company , 89 NLRB 1478.
'THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. and UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 5-RC-1073. July 14, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of th6 National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis Aronin, 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 Murdock and Peterson.]
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.'
' The Respondent contends that the Petitioner-an International Union-is not entitled
to maintain this proceeding unless all of its Local Unions, and particularly those whose
officers were present at the hearing , are found to be in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g),
and (h ) of the Act. We find no merit in this contention , as we are satisfied upon the
record that the International , which has achieved compliance , is the real party in interest
in this proceeding , and is therefore entitled to maintain the proceeding in its own behalf
without regard to the compliance status of its locals . Cf. Tin Processing Corp., 80
NLRB 1369 , 1371. We shall , accordingly , deny the Employer 's motion to dismiss the
petition.
100 NLRB No. 33.
THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. 165
4. The Petitioner requests a unit of all production and maintenance
,employees of the Employer engaged in the manufacture of bedding
:at its Baltimore. Maryland, plant , with the usual exclusions . Although
not specifically opposing the scope of the unit requested , the Employer
urges in its brief that on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the
remaining production and maintenance employees , who are engaged
in the nianufature of plastics , should also be included in the unit.
We agree with the Employer on this question.
The Employer's plant is a small integrated operation with a pro-
duction and maintenance staff consisting of approximately 90 persons.
Of this number about 70 do work in connection with the manufacture
of bedding,2 and about 20 do work in connection with the manufacture
of plastic products .3 Although there is no substantial interchange
of employees in the 2operations , employees of one are frequently
detailed to the other to help with handling of materials . Both opera-
tions are serviced by the same administrative staff and by the same
receiving and shipping office. On eplant manager has the supervision
over both operations . All the employees work in the same building
in close proximity with one another ,4 and all enjoy substantially the
same working conditions and the same employee benefits .5 Both
groups of employees use common facilities . There is no prior col-
lective bargaining history at this plant. In these circumstances, and
in accord with the Board's general policy of placing employees with
similar interests in the same unite we believe that the appropriate unit
should be plant wide in scope.
There remains for consideration the question of the inclusion of
three employees in the bedding department classified as "group lead-
ers" whom the Petitioner would exclude as supervisory. The record
shows that these employees spend approximately 7 of the 8 hours of the
working day in ordinary production and maintenance work, and that
their "supervisory" duties extend only to the assignment of work tasks
to various employees and to the reporting to higher supervisors of
any deficiencies in work performance . They do not possess any power
2 The "bedding" operations are spread throughout several "departments" of varying size.
3 The plastics department is a new department begun in January 1952. The Employer
expects to increase the number of workers therein to a maximum of 60 as soon as it finds
qualified workers. No contention is here made that the anticipated expansion is a reason
for deferring the election.
4 The fact that the plastics department is separated from the bedding department by a
wall is not too significant . The same kind of physical barrier exists as between other
subdepartments of the bedding department.
2 Although the record shows that three different methods of wage calculation are used
by the Employers viz, salary , hourly, and piecework , that which is applicable in most cases
is the hourly method of calculation . The piecework method is used only in the case of
some of the bedding department employees, and the salary method is used only in the
case of some of the plastics department employees
0 Cf A J Sims Products Corp , 83 NLRB 99, 100-101 ; Sod Baum and Julie Baum, etc ,
91 NLRB 708.
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to discipline employees , or effectively to recommend any action which
might affect the employees ' status. In fact, their duties are sub-
stantially similar to those of employees likewise classified in another of
the Employer's plants , where we included them in the unit .7 Under
all the circumstances , we find that these group leaders are not super -
visors within the usual definition . We shall, therefore , include them
in the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer's Baltimore, Maryland, plant, including group leaders,.
but excluding office clerical employees , guards , professional employees,
and 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.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
7 Englander Company, Inc., 65 NLRB 672, 675 (Chicago, Illinois , plant).
MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION ( DoE RV N PLANT ) and OIL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION , CIO, PETITIONER . Case No.
9 RC-1521. July 14,1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph A. Butler,
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 Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
1 Pursuant to the request of the parties, the record in Mathieson Chemical Corporation,
Case No. 9-RC-1440, is hereby incorporated into, and made a part of , the record herein.
Both Case No. 9-RC-1440 and the instant case , No. 9-RC-1521 , involve employees at the
Employer 's Doe Run, Kentucky , plant. The cases were separately processed . On March
81, 1952, in Case No . 9-RC-1440, the Board Issued a Decision and Direction of Election
respecting employees of the powerhouse department at the plant and on May 1, 1952,
certified International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 320 , AFL, (herein called
the Firemen and Oilers ) as their exclusive bargaining representative . The powerhouse
department employees included boiler -firemen , water tenders , water treaters , oilers, relief
operators , and powerhouse department maintenance employees . None of the parties to
the instant proceeding presently seeks to include in their several proposed units any of the
powerhouse department employees included in the unit now represented by the Firemen
and Oilers.
100 NLRB No. 32.