Owens-Illinois, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 939 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

LIBBEY GLASS DIVISION 939
Libbey Glass Division, Owens-Illinois, Inc. and Ameri-
can Flint Glass Workers' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 15-RC-5327
June 24, 1974
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 1
BY MEMBERS JENKINS , KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On February 28, 1974, the Regional Director for
Region 15 issued a Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding in which he dismissed the
petition filed herein finding the Employer's opera-
tions are expanding and the present unit complement
is not a substantial and representative one. In
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request
for review of the Regional Director's Decision on the
ground, inter alia, that a representative employee
complement exists and the Regional Director ig-
nored record evidence that as of March 4, 1974, 4
days after the date of his Decision, the percentage of
the projected hourly work force employed and the
number of job classifications filled would have
sufficiently increased to warrant the direction of an
election. The Employer filed an opposition to
Petitioner's request for review.
The Board, by telegraphic order dated March 25,
1974, granted the request for review. Thereafter, the
Employer filed a brief on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
proceeding with respect to the issues under review,
including the Employer's brief on review, and makes
the following findings:
The Petitioner sought to represent a unit of all
production and maintenance employees, including
all shipping employees, quality control employees,
and storekeepers at the Employer's Shreveport,
Louisiana, facility. The Employer, while agreeing as
to the appropriateness of a production and mainte-
nance unit, maintains that the representation petition
is premature and was properly dismissed because the
Employer's present work force does not constitute a
substantial and representative segment of the ulti-
mate employee complement. In addition, the Em-
ployer would seek to exclude the quality control
personnel and the storekeepers from the unit should
an immediate election be directed. Petitioner urges,
inter alia, that the Employer's complement was
representative on March 4, 1974, and that the failure
to direct an election herein prejudicially affects the
rights of the employees to determine whether or not
they shall be represented. We find merit in Petition-
er's contentions.
The Employer, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in
the manufacture of glass and tableware at its various
plants. The plant involved here, located at Shreve-
port, Louisiana, was purchased by the Employer in
early 1973. Since that date the Employer has been in
the process of designing and reconstructing the
facilities for the manufacture of glass tableware and
is currently increasing both the work force and
production on a scheduled, gradual basis. Actual
production of glassware at the plant commenced on
January 7, 1974, and the instant petition was filed 11
days later. The plant operates three shifts per day, 7
days a week. On February 11, 1974, the date of the
hearing, there was one furnace in operation pulling
3,000 tons of glass a day with two forming machines
drawing from the furnace, and a lehr, or cooling
oven, in operation. The employee complement
consisted of 138 hourly employees filling 25 job
classifications . Glassware produced at the Shreveport
plant has been shipped to the Employer's Toledo
plant for distribution.
The record discloses that the Employer has funds
allocated for expansion of the production capability
of the Shreveport plant and its projections for the
period to February 1975 include the addition of two
more furnaces and seven machines to produce
glassware. It anticipates that its employee comple-
ment as of that date will be 583 production and
maintenance employees, including warehouse and
shipping employees, in 51 job classifications. There is
also testimony concerning additional expansion
beyond February 1975; however, apparently no
definite plans or time targets have been established.
In dismissing the petition, the Regional Director
found that only 24 percent of the projected February
1975 work force was currently employed and that
only about 49 percent of the job classifications were
filled. He further noted that neither the shipping nor
decorating departments were yet in operation and
that the target date for decorating activities was May
1, 1974. The Regional Director further found that the
first of three presses was to be installed by March 4
and that stemware production was scheduled to
begin by May 21, 1974.
Our review of the record evidence convinces us
that the Employer's plant is currently operational,
albeit additional personnel in new job classifications
Southern Conference of Teamsters , a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Independ-
ent, was permitted to intervene based on its showing of interest.
211 NLRB No. 144
940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and more machinery are anticipated and that as of
approximately, the date of the Regional Director's
Decision , and clearly by the date of this Decision, a
representative and substantial complement of em-
ployees exists . Supporting this conclusion is the
record evidence that as of the hearing date a second
lehr, or cooling oven , and a decorating machine were
virtually completed and required only wiring to be
done . General Manager Falter testified that such
work would be completed by March 1 , 1974. The
decorating department operations involve seven
additional job classifications . Employer's Exhibit 1
listing the anticipated job classifications and person-
nel and machines to be obtained also reflects that on
March 4 , 1974, another four job classifications would
be filled apart from those required in the decorating
department . Also by March 4 eight additional
forming machine operators and eight more selectors
were to be hired . Another eight selectors were to be
hired on May 15. By May 21, 1974 , a date preceding
this Decision , three additional machines were pro-
grammed to be installed . The Employer admits that,
except for the job classification of warehandler, the
same job classifications required for operation of its
glass-forming machines will be utilized with respect
to its stemware machine which was expected to be
installed in early May 1974 . Thus, we can conclude,
on the basis of the record evidence , that additional
employees have since been employed and more job
classifications have been filled in accordance with
the Employer's projected plans.
The Regional Director, in dismissing the petition,
relied , in part, on the fact that a shipping department
was not yet in existence . Although a shipping
department as such did not exist , the record discloses
that finished goods have been shipped since the plant
has opened and the traditional functions of shipping
employees have been performed by existing person-
nel at the plant . Furthermore , although the Employer
has included certain warehouse and shipping job
classifications in its projected total of 51 considered
by the Regional Director , the testimony of General
Manager Falter reveals that the development of a
distribution center at the Shreveport plant utilizing
such job classifications as "warehouse gatherers" and
"warehouse loader" would not occur "until such time
as we make at least a full complement of items that
we sell ." It is our belief that the somewhat remote
aspect of the existence of these warehouse or
shipping job classifications supports Petitioner's
contention that a substantial and representative
complement presently exists.
Although Petitioner asserts that the Employer has
expanded its job classifications by including two
separate classifications for utility men, and having
classifications of "selector" and "decorating selec-
tor" instead of a single classification for each task,
we find no basis in the record that such classifica-
tions were designed to inflate the total number of job
classifications . The Employer is privileged in creating
whatever job classifications it feels are necessary to
perform its operations in the plant ; however, the
Board considers the distinctiveness of the skills
involved in the various job classifications in deter-
mining whether or not a petition is prematurely filed.
It is apparent from the record that similar skills are
involved in performing the tasks assigned to several
different job classifications of the Employer . In fact,
supporting this conclusion is Employer's testimony
that it intends to have generic -type job descriptions
at the Shreveport plant based upon pay categories
and skills rather than separate individual job descrip-
tions.
In the circumstances of this case , we are satisfied
that, approximately as of the date of the Regional
Director's Decision , a representative complement of
employees was employed , and additional job classifi-
cations were filled . The percentage of employees and
job classifications in the plant has increased even
further since the hearing date as new machines have
been put into operation . Moreover, inasmuch as the
anticipated date for operation of a decorating
department has since passed and shipping functions
are being performed by plant employees, we find that
there presently exists a substantial and representative
complement of the anticipated work force at the
plant for the purpose of directing an immediate
election. Accordingly, the petition was not prema-
turely filed and an election will be directed herein.
Frolic Footwear, Inc., 180 NLRB 188; American Type
Founders Co. Inc., 173 NLRB 707.
Remaining for consideration is the placement of
the quality control personnel and storeroom employ-
ees. The Petitioner would include these employees in
the unit, whereas the Employer would exclude them
contending they do not share a community of
interest with the production and maintenance em-
ployees . The record discloses the Employer antici-
pates having approximately 10 quality control
employees by January 1975. Their duties include the
inspection of the visual and physical quality of the
products and maintenance of production accounting
figures. In performing these functions , they will
spend 60 percent of their time on the production
floor and the remainder off the floor in a lab or
office . They will be salaried ; however, their salaries
will be comparable to those of hourly employees in
the unit . As a salaried group, the quality control
employees will have different fringe benefits than the
hourly employees and they will be required, at a
minimum, to have a high school education because
of the math involved in the paperwork they perform.
LIBBEY GLASS DIVISION 941
Although there are some distinctions in the terms of
employment of the quality control employees as
compared to other employees sought by Petitioner, it
is clear these employees have substantial contact
with production and maintenance employees in
performing their inspection functions , and their
duties are an integral part of the Employer's overall
glass manufacturing process . Accordingly , we shall
include the quality control employees in the unit.
Modine Manufacturing Company, 180 NLRB 472,
473. See also Brown & Root-Northrop, 174 NLRB
1005, 1007.
The Employer presently has a storekeeper and
anticipates hiring an assistant storekeeper. These
employees are to be located in the stores area, which
is a unit inside the plant where they will receive and
disperse items maintained in store inventory. In
performing that function , they will have contact with
employees in the plant who seek to procure items
from the stores . Like those in the quality control
classification , the storekeepers are salaried rather
than hourly and therefore receive the benefits
available to other salaried employees . In view of their
location in the plant area and their contact with
production and maintenance employees in perform-
ing their storekeeping duties , which are in the nature
of plant clerical duties, it is concluded the storekeep-
ers share a community of interest with other unit
employees , and we shall include them in the unit.
Pineville Kraft Corporation, 173 NLRB 863, 864.
We therefore find that a question affecting com-
merce exists concerning the representation of certain
employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act,
and that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by the Employer at its Shreveport,
Louisiana, plant , including all shipping employ-
ees, quality control employees , and storekeepers,
but excluding all office clerical employees , profes-
sional employees , guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]