B. H. Hadley, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 1622 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
persons connected with the Interstate Co. Glass House Restaurants , Indiana Toll
Road , Employer , any formal document or letter stating that the mail ballots were
being sent out and stating the date on which the mail ballots were returnable in our
office."
Attorney Chapman was questioned concerning certain meetings and conversations
that he had in the Thirteenth Regional Office with representatives of the National
Labor Relations Board in an effort to establish that the Respondent or its attorney
(Mr. Chapman ) had received oral notice of the date on which ballots were to be
mailed to the prospective voters and the terminal dates thereof . While it is quite
clear to this Trial Examiner that Chapman may have had good reason to suspect or
suspicion an approximate date on which the ballots were to be mailed to the pro-
spective mail ballot employees , it is crystal clear that he was never told any definitive
date on which the ballots were to be mailed or the terminal date thereof.
The Oregon Washington Telephone case , supra , is quite clear in establishing the
rule that "Employers and Unions alike will be prohibited from making election
speeches on company time to mass assemblies of employees within the period set
forth in the notice, i.e., from the time and date on which the 'mail in ' ballots are
scheduled to be dispatched by the Regional Office until the terminal time and date
prescribed or their return ." Violations of this rule by either employers or unions
will cause an election to be set aside whenever valid objections are filed . However,
the Oregon Washington case also directs the Regional Director to give the parties
written notice at least 24 hours before the time and date on which the ballots will be
dispatched by the Regional Office . The admission by the representative of the
Regional Director and the General Counsel at the hearing was to the effect that no
written notice was ever furnished to Respondent . Certainly there was no affirmative
proof in the record that the Respondent received written notice pursuant to the
requirement set forth in the Oregon Washington case. Following the Board's lan-
guage precisely,12 I now find that the Respondent did not violate the preelection cam-
paign rules in a manner which would cause the Board to set aside the results of the
election and I shall so recommend to the Board.
Upon the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7 ) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of,
the Act.
3 The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint.
4. The Petitioner 's objections 17, 18 , and 26 , as numbered in the Regional Di-
rector's report on objections, are without merit and should be overruled.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
11 "However , as no written notice was given the parties informing as to the time and
date when the ballots would be mailed by the Regional Office, we do not find that the
new rule was violated."
B: H.'Hadley, Inc.' and International Association of Machinists,
District Lodge No. 120 , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 21-RC-
6690. March 29, 1961
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 Floyd E. Folven, hearing
officer. The hearing officer 's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
130 NLRB No. 166.
B. H. HADLEY, INC. 1623
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 seeks a unit of machinists employed at the Em-
ployer's Pomona, California, plant, or in the alternative, any other
unit that the Board may find appropriate. The Petitioner amended
its petition at the conclusion of the hearing to include in the unit of
machinists the following job classifications: toolroom machinists, tool
and fixture makers, tool and cutter grinders, hone operators, precision
production grinders, Hardinge machine operators, turret lathe oper-
ators A and B, engine lathe operators A and B, milling machine oper-
ators, and maintenance machinist mechanics. The Employer con-
tends that the sole appropriate unit consists of all its production and
maintenance employees, including the machinists sought by the Peti-
tioner, because, among other things, the machinists, like the bulk of
the employees sought to be excluded, are engaged in production work
and the Employer's entire operation is integrated. There is no his-
tory of collective bargaining covering any of the Employer's em-
ployees.
.
The Employer is engaged in the design, development, manufacture,
and testing of complex and precise fluid-handling devices and con-
trols. The Employer's plant is composed of four buildings : a main
building, an assembly and testing building, a hydraulic and pneumatic
testing building, and another building referred to as the "country
club building," all approximately 10 to 15 feet apart, except for the
country club building which is approximately 200 feet from the other
buildings. The main building is composed of a shop area and an office
area. In the office area of the main building there are office clerical
personnel and executives. The shop area of the main building con-
tains a machine shop, a toolroom, a burring department, a plating de-
partment, and inspection and maintenance personnel. The shop area
contains standard machine tools such as turret lathes, engine lathes,
milling machines, and burring and boring equipment. The classifica-
tions of employees who operate machines in the shop area are turret
lathe operators A and B, engine lathe operators A and B, drill press
operators A and B, toolroom machinists A and B, burrers, precision
grinders, milling machine operators A and B, and Hardinge machine
operators. There are six employees in the plating department. They
occupy job classifications of metal bonder, induction brazer, and plater.
1624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
These six employees, do not spend, a substantial amount of their work-
ing, time in. operating, machines.
The assembly and testing building contains a development shop;
inspectors,, testers, and administrative personnel. There are approxi-
mately 20 to 25 employees in this building with job classifications such
as assemblers, production testers, test and development. technicians,
storeroom attendants, dispatchers, and inspectors. Two, development
technicians operate four to six machines and receive substantially the
same rate of pay as the machinists in the main building. Their work
is a combination of toolroom• precision work and precision assembly
work. The same work that they' perform is frequently performed by
a combination of toolroom machinists and one, of the higher skilled
assemblers in the assembly department. The types of machines in the
assembly and testing building are milling machines, lathes, :drill
presses, arbor presses, bench grinders, and miscellaneous hand tools.
There are approximately 15 assemblers who assemble precision parts,
using small hand tools such as arbor presses, drill presses, and bench.
tools,, to complete a high-precision finished product. This work re-
quires a high degree .of manual dexterity. However, without stating
what the differences are, the vice president and general manager of
the Employer testified at the hearing that the skills required by as-
semblers were different from those involved in machine-shop type
work. The inspectors observe the application of lubricants, the proper
treatment of parts "as assembled" into units, and the testing of the
finished product or element of the product as it is performed by pro-
duction testers. They also conduct a survey and inspection of me-
chanical dimensions on parts and maintain records to determine
whether the product has been properly inspected and tested. The
rate of pay for inspectors varies from the same level as the highest
grade machinist to rates of pay considerably lower than machinists.
There are approximately 10 employees in the hydraulic and pneu-
matic testing building.. They occupy job classifications' of test engi-
neers A and B. Their duties. are to install, the Employer's product
and conduct tests to determine whether the product operates in ac-
cordance with specification requirements..
The country club building contains the tool engineering department
and quality control personnel. The record contains no further infor-
mation with respect to the employees who work in this building.
In addition. to the above-mentioned employees, there are also three
to four janitors; two truckdrivers.; a laborer; a maintenance electri-
cian; a maintenance carpenter; a maintenance machinist mechanic
under machine-shop supervision who operates various machine tools,
makes parts, and repairs machines; an identification clerk who han-
dles parts and identifies them in the shop area; a finished' stores clerk
who receives parts and materials, dispenses them, and maintains rec-
B. H. HADLEY, INC. 1625
ords'; an inspection clerk; a production and control-clerk; and a ship-
ping and receiving clerk.2
The machine shop and the,toolroom have common supervision. The
employees in the other departments are 'under separate supervision.
The machinists sought by the Petitioner are engaged in production
work and work side by side with employees other than those sought.
As far as appears, all employees at the Employer's plant enjoy similar
working conditions.'
Although there is. no apprenticeship, program for machinists,' the
'Employer requires from 3 to 5 years' experience as a prerequisite to
hiring of toolroom machinists, precision grinders, turret lathe op-
erators, engine lathe operators, milling machine operators, and tool
and cutter grinders 3 Drill press operators are required to have 2
years' experience and,burrers to have 1 to 2 years' experience. The
`only other evidence in the record as to experience. requirements was
in regard to assemblers. They are required to have 1 to 2 years' ex-
perience. The normal progression,of employees in the,unit sought by
the Petitioner is from operators of various machines to the, highest
classification of toolroom machinists. Transfers between the machine
shop or the toolroom and other departments are infrequent 4 So far
as appears, there is no interchange of employees doing machinist
work, whether in the machine shop, toolroom, or other areas of the
Employer's plant, with other job classifications.
As indicated above, the Employer contends that the unit of machin-
ists sought is inappropriate because its operations are integrated. We
find no merit in this contention. The integrated nature of the Em-
ployer's operations does not preclude establishment of a craft unit 5
Although the Employer does not maintain an apprenticeship program,
it requires extensive experience as a prerequisite to hiring of machin-
ists. These machinists are craftsmen who regularly exercise their
craft skills and comprise a traditional craft grouping.'
The right of separate representation for members of a craft ' is not
to be denied merely because the craft employees work in close associa-
3 The parties stipulated that the production control clerk should be excluded from any
unit found appropriate as an office clerical , and that the identification clerk, the finished
stores clerk, the inspection clerk, and the shipping and receiving clerk were plant clericals.
As these job classifications do not fall within the unit hereinafter determined to be
appropriate, they are excluded from the unit. The parties further stipulated that the
general superintendent, the night superintendent of the machine shop and toolroom, and
all foremen are supervisors . They are excluded from the unit.
3 The personnel manager of the Employer testified that the Employer desires machinists
with as much experience as possible . When questioned as to the desired experience of
tool and fixture makers, Hardinge machine operators , and tool and cutter grinders, he
testified that the Employer preferred 25 or more years' experience.
4 The personnel manager and the vice president and general manager of the Employer
testified that there have been "some" transfers of employees between the machine shop
or the toolroom and the assembly and testing departments , but neither of them could
remember a specific instance of such a transfer when questioned on cross -examination.
5 Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 'Uranium Division, 129 NLRB 312, footnote 3.
0 E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ( Houston, Texas, Plant), 126 NLRB 885; 888.
1626• DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion with other employees,7 or because all employees enjoy similar
working conditions," or because the craftsmen use their-skills directly
,on parts of the final product.'
Accordingly, we find that the machinists at the Employer's plant,
being a homogeneous craft group , may constitute an appropriate craft
unit.'°
However, we do not agree with the Petitioner's contention that a.
proper unit is one limited to the machinists working in the machine
shop and toolroom area , since the record shows that employees per-
forming the work-of machinists are employed in other areas of the
Employer's plant. Burrers and drill press operators have the same
normal progression of advancement as the machinists sought by the
Petitioner; and, experience, similar to that required of the machinists
sought, is required before burrers and drill press operators are hired
by the Employer. Although they are under different supervision from
that of the machinists in the machine shop and toolroom area, the
development technicians who operate machines in the assembly and
testing building perform substantially the same type of work as the
machinists petitioned for. The mere fact that craft employees have
common supervision with employees outside their craft does not pre-
vent craftsmen from being represented in a unit of their own craft.
Worzella Publishing Company, supra. Since the burrers, drill press
operators, and the development technicians who operate machines are
all machinists performing work similar to that of the machinists peti-
tioned for, we will include them in the unit. Accordingly, we find that
the following employees of the Employer, regardless of the building
or department in which they may be employed, may constitute a unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All machinists, including toolroom machinists A and B, tool and
fixture makers, tool and cutter grinders, hone operators, precision pro-
duction grinders, Hardinge machine operators, turret lathe operators
A and B, engine lathe operators A and B, milling machine operators
A and B, maintenance machine mechanics, drill press operators A and
B, burrers, and development technicians who operate machines, but
7 Worzella Publishing Company, 121 NLRB 78, 79; Griffin Wheel Company, 119 NLRB
336, 337 ; Boeing Airplane Company, 86 NLRB 368, 375.
General Electric Company, 125 NLRB 718, 721; Griffin Wheel Company, supra.
e General Electric Company, 86 NLRB 327, 330.
?a The Employer also contends that separation of any particular group of employees into
a bargaining unit of its own would tend to create a highly demoralized condition. We
find no merit in this contention. Campbell Soup Company, 109 NLRB 475, footnote 1.
There is no evidence that the functions of the machinists at the Employer 's plant are so
integrated with those of the other plant employees as would destroy the homogeneity of
the craft group. The Employer further contends that the Petitioner is estopped from
seeking a machinists ' unit as it has previously filed petitions for a unit of production
and maintenance employees . We reject this contention . The propriety of a craft unit was
not in issue in those proceedings ; no bargaining representative was selected as a result
thereof; and, as stated above, there has been no history of collective bargaining.
ARCHIE'S MOTOR FREIGHT, INC. 1'627
excluding all other production and maintenance employees, office cler-
icals, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act 11
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.
CHAIRMAN MCC1LLOCH took no .part in,the consideration of..the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
n '
Charles F. • Grooms is,a working leadman with respect to the grinders in the machine
shop. He does .not have . authority to recommend hiring or discharging . His sole function
as leadman is to transmit his foreman 's instructions as to job assignments to the
grinders . We find that he is not a supervisor and, we will include 'him in the unit of
machinists.
Archie's Motor Freight , Inc.' and Truck Drivers and Helpers
Local Union No . 592, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs and Warehousemen of America 2
Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-3277. March 29, 1961
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 Thomas J. Walsh, 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 [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning].
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 represen-
tation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all road drivers employed at the
Employer's Richmond, Virginia, terminal, excluding local drivers
and all other employees. The Employer contends that the appropri-
ate unit should consist of all. employees of the Employer, including
its employees who operate out of McKeesport, Pennsylvania, and
Franklin, Virginia. Of those employees at Richmond, the Employer
would include in. the unit the bookkeeper and the service mechanics 3
' The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
' The Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing.
' The record indicates that the Employer employs no "local drivers" at any of its
terminals . We have therefore deleted. any 'reference to them from the unit description.
130 NLRB No. 162.