Remington Arms Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 10, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 693 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In,the Matter Of REMINGTON' ARMS COMPANY , INC. and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION # 354
Case No. R-5165.-Decided May 10, 1943.
Mr. C. M. Spargo, of Bridgeport, Conn., and Mr. H. 0. Blumenthol,
of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Company.
,Mr. L. A. Smith, of Denver, Colo., and Mr. L. F. Anderson, of Salt
Lake City, Utah, for the IBEW.
Messrs. George 117. Haycock, Ralph H. Peters and Varro C. Jones,
all of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the CIO.
Mr. Glenn L. Moller, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon'petition duly filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local Union # 354, herein called the IBEW, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Remington Arms Company, Inc., Salt Lake City,
Utah, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board
provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Willard
Y. Morris, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Salt Lake City,
Utah, on April 9, 1943. The Company, the IBEW, and United Steel-'
workers of America, CIO, herein called the CIO, appe^red, partici-
pated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses;,, and to introduce evidence bearing on'the
issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. On April 1G, 1943,
the IBEW and the CIO filed briefs which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
49 N. L. k B., No. 102.
693
694' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Remington. Arms Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation, has its
principal office and headquarters in Bridgeport, Connecticut. One
of the various divisions of its business is the manufacture of small
arms and ammunition at a plant located in the State of Utah. This
plant, known as the Utah Ordnance Plant, is owned by the United
States Government, as are the raw materials and finished products
used and produced there. The Company employs at the Utah Ord-
nance Plant, the only operation of the Company herein involved, more
than 5,000 employees. During the past year the Company-used at the
Utah Ordnance Plant raw materials valued at over $1,000,000, at least
50 percent of which was shipped to said plant from points outside the
State of Utah. During the same period the finished products of said
plant exceeded $5.000,000 in value, all of which either have been or
will be shipped to points outside- the State of Utah. All raw ma-
terials are shipped to the plant and all finished products are shipped
from the plant by the United States Government.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS' INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
#354, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is- a labor
organization admitting to membership employees 'of the Company.`
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On January 26, 1943, the IBEW requested that the Company recog-
nize it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's
employees in the Electrical Department at the Utah Ordnance Plant.
The Company refused this request, contending that the unit sought
by the IBEW was inappropriate.
A statement of the Trial Examiner at the hearing indicates that
the IBEW represents a substantial number of employees in the unit
hereinafter found appropriate.' -
1 The Trial Examiner reported that the IBEW submitted authorization cards, all bear-
ing apparently genuine signatures of persons whose names appeared on the Company's pay
roll of March 31 , 1943, and representing approximately 65 percent of the employees in
the appropriate unit. The parties stipulated that the Company , pursuant to authoriza-
tions signed by employees, is checking off to the CIO the dues of a 'substantial number
of employees , a few of whom are within the appropriate unit. -
REMINGTON ARMS ^ COMPANY, INC. 695
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section '9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TI3E APPROPRIATE 'UNIT
The IBEW contends that all employees in the Electrical Depart-
ment who work under the supervision of the chief electrical supervisor,
including foremen and group leaders, but excluding the chief electrical
supervisor and the expediter, constitute an appropriate unit.
The Company and the CIO contend that only an industrial unit
composed of all the production and maintenance employees at the plant
is appropriate and the Company also contends that if the Board should
find appropriate the craft unit here sought, the foremen should be
excluded from the appropriate unit.
The Electrical Department is under the supervision of an electrical
supervisor. Immediately below him are five foremen ; three of these
foremen are in charge of three general maintenance shifts ; one is in
charge of telephone, radio and fire alarm operations; and the fifth
is in charge of construction work. The workmen in these sections,
all skilled electricians, are often shifted about from one section to
another and from one type of work to another. The plant is made
up of many buildings scattered over a large area,` and the electricians
maintain the numerous and varied' items of electrical equipment
scattered throughout the plant.
The IBEW has confined its organization to the Electrical Depart-
ment and there is no history of collective bargaining at the plant
which indicates any impropriety in the unit herein sought. The
Electrical Department has clearly defined, separate functions and, as
indicated above, the employees in that department are all members of
the same craft.2 We are therefore of the opinion that the depart-
mental unit herein sought is appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
The IBEW seeks to include in the appropriate unit the five foremen
and the group leaders. The-foremen are paid salaries whereas the
other employees are paid on an hourly basis. The foremen do no
actual production work, but spend all their time in supervision.
Their recommendations concerning wage increases for their subordi-
nates are generally followed. It is their duty to discipline or discharge
their subordinates when the situation requires such action and, they
are responsible for interpreting Company policy to their subordinates.
Since the foremen have substantial supervisory authority, we shall
exclude them from the unit.
2 The • record indicates that all the electricians in the Company 's employ are in the
Electrical Department.
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Group leaders, whom the IBEW also seeks to include in the unit,
spend from 25 to 30 percent of their time in supervision and assem-
tiling materials for use by the other electrical workers. The balance
of their time is devoted to actual production work. They have no
disciplinary authority nor power to discharge or to recommend such
action. We shall include them in the unit.
The expediter, whom the IBEW seeks to exclude, is not an elec-
trician and is engaged in duties which are chiefly clerical in nature.
His chief function is to assure an adequate supply of necessary mate-
rials for the Electrical Department. We shall exclude him from the
appropriate unit.
We find that all employees in the Electrical Department at the
Company's, Utah Ordnance Plant, excluding the chief electrical super-
visor, the foremen, and the expediter, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the,limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
Although the CIO participated in the hearing it indicated that it
did not wish to appear on the ballot in the event an election is ordered.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Remington Arms
Company, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, an election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during
REMINGTO ARMS COMPANY, INC. I ; 697
said pay-roll period because they were ill,or on,vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but ex-
cluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause , to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union #354,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of
collective bargaining,
0