Raybestos Manhattan, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 97 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

MANHEIM DIV. OF RAYBESTOS MANHATTAN, INC. 97
Manheim Division of Raybestos Manhattan , Inc. and
United Textile Workers of America , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case 4-RC-9772
March 2, 1973
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On June 13, 1972, the Regional Director for
Region 4 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found
appropriate a unit comprised of 15 salaried nonex-
empt classifications engaged in work which is closely
allied with the Employer's production process, as
requested by the Petitioner.' Thereafter, in accord-
ance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Employer filed a timely request for
review on the ground that, in finding a unit limited to
those salaried nonexempt employees sought by the
Petitioner, the Regional Director made findings of
fact which were erroneous and departed from
officially reported precedent.
On July 17, 1972, the Board, by telegraphic order,
granted the request for 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
case with respect to the issues under review and
makes the following findings: 2
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of
clutch plates, brake linings, and various teflon
products at its Manheim, Pennsylvania, plant. In its
request for review, the Employer asserted that the
petitioned-for employees do not constitute a func-
tionally distinct and homogeneous group of employ-
ees with separate interests that outweigh the commu-
nity of interest they share with all other salaried
nonexempt employees at its plant.
The record discloses that the Employer maintains
three separate payrolls for its Manheim employees.
Thus, its executives, managerial employees, and
some supervisors are carried on its salaried exempt
payroll, while another payroll consists of 1,000 to
1,100 production and maintenance employees in a
bargaining unit which has been represented by the
Petitioner for approximately 30 years. The remaining
150 to 160 employees at the plant are carried on a
third payroll for salaried nonexempt employees. This
payroll includes 70 different classifications perform-
ing several divergent functions. The same wage
schedule and fringe benefit program is applicable to
all salaried nonexempt employees. The unit estab-
lished by the Regional Director includes approxi-
mately 37 salaried nonexempt employees.
In a prior proceeding, Case 4-RC-7836, the
Regional Director concluded that the employees now
sought by the Petitioner constituted an appropriate
voting group for purposes of determining if they
desired to be represented as a part of the existing
production and maintenance unit. At that time, the
Regional Director concluded that a voting group
limited to these classifications was appropriate
because they performed work closely allied with the
production process and spent substantial portions of
their time in production areas working on production
tasks and problems. Moreover, the Regional Director
found that the remaining salaried nonexempt em-
ployees which the Employer sought to include were
apparently office clerical employees who generally
did not have the same immediate supervision, work
in the same buildings or work areas, exercise similar
skills, or have substantial contact or interchange with
the employees in the voting group established by
him.
In the instant proceeding, which involves the same
group of employees, the Regional Director found
there were no significantly changed circumstances
since the prior case except that both the Employer
and the Petitioner now opposed a self-determination
election. In this circumstance, the Regional Director
concluded that the employees sought by the Petition-
er could be represented separately because their
interests resulting from their different supervision,
wage schedules, fringe benefits, and location were
sufficiently distinct from the production employees
to warrant the establishment of a separate unit.
We agree with the Regional Director's principal
conclusion that those salaried nonexempt employees
who work in production areas engaged in tasks
closely allied with the production process need not
be grouped together with the Employer's other
salaried nonexempt employees engaged primarily in
office clerical functions. However, the record before
us demonstrates that the work location and functions
of other salaried nonexempt employees classified as
production schedule clerks and production expedi-
tors are sufficient to warrant their inclusion together
I The specific salaried nonexempt categories included by the Regional the category of draftsmen includes the following classifications- senior
Director were all research and development technicians, quality control draftsman, draftsman, and junior draftsman
technicians, specification technicians, engineering technicians, draftsmen, 2 The Board initially concluded that the record was inadequate to resolve
instrument technicians, liaison men and tool designers There are a number the issues raised on review and remanded the case to the Regional Director
of separate classifications in several of the included categories For example, for the purpose of reopening the record to receive further evidence
202 NLRB No. 19
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the employees sought by the Petitioner. Accord-
ingly, these employees are included in the unit.3
Notwithstanding the additional evidence received on
remand, the record remains inadequate to warrant a
conclusion at this time with respect to the unit
placement of five additional classifications, to wit:
expediter-purchasing, senior warehouse control clerk,
central planner raw material control, central control,
and raw material control clerk. Accordingly, we shall
permit the employees in the foregoing five classifica-
tions to vote subject to challenge and their unit
placement shall await the resolution of those chal-
lenges. As the record now discloses that the only
3 The specific production schedule clerk classifications on the salaried
nonexempt payroll are supervisor , production scheduling , production
schedule clerk , and junior schedule clerk The record is inconclusive as to
whether the supervisor , production scheduling, is a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act Accordingly , any individuals in this classification who
appear at the polls shall be voted subject to challenge
4 In the event the Petitioner does not wish to proceed to an election in
the unit as modified herein , it shall so notify the Regional Director by
written notice within 7 days of the date of issuance of this Decision on
Review Moreover, as the unit found appropriate is broader than that
originally requested by the Petitioner , the Regional Director shall determine
whether its showing of interest is sufficient before proceeding with the
election
incumbent in the included classification of tool
designer is a managerial employee and that the
specifically excluded classifications of industrial
engineering clerks and engineering assistant no
longer exist, the unit description is modified to delete
reference to these three classifications.
Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the
Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an
election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of
Election, as modified herein,4 except that the payroll
period for determining eligibility shall be that
immediately preceding the date of issuance.5
5 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236: N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U S
759 Accordingly, It is hereby directed that an election eligibility list,
containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed
by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 4 within 7 days of
the date of this Decision on Review. The Regional Director shall make the
list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this
list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary
circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for
setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed