Sprague Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 533 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

SPRAGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY 533
SPRAGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO &
MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER . Case No. 1-RC-0536.
March 11, 19510
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 Robert E. Greene,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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
employees of the Employer 2
3. The Employer and the Independent contend that their current
contract covering the Employer's employees at its North Adams, Mas-
sachusetts, plants bars this petition. We find no merit in this
contention.
On October 2, 1950, the Employer and Independent executed a con-
tract effective from October 9, 1950, to March 26, 1952, and containing
a 60-day automatic renewal provision. On September 7, 1951, the
contracting parties began negotiations for a wage increase, and, on
November 21, executed a new contract which, among other things,
extended the expiration date of the 1950 contract to March 26, 1953.
The instant petition was filed on November 16, 1951. Apart from
any other considerations, as the new contract was a premature exten-
sion of the original contract, and as the petition was timely filed with
respect to the original contract, we find no bar to a present deter-
mination of representatives.'
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees of the Employer at its
Bennington, Vermont, plant, excluding executives, professional em-
ployees, office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
1 At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition because the unit requested
is inappropriate . The motion , which was referred to the Board by the hearing officer, is
denied for reasons set forth in paragraph numbered 4, below.
2 Local 2, Independent Condenser Workers' Union , herein referred to as the Independent,
was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of its current contract with the
Employer . On February 25, 1952, the International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers , CIO, hereinafter referred to as I . U. E , was permitted to intervene for
,the purpose of appearing on the ballot , on the basis of, its interest showing submitted to
the Board.
8 The Van Idersttine Company, 95 NLRB 966; A . Siegel & Sons, Inc, 94 NLRB 471.
98 NLRB No. 89.
998666-vol. 98-53-35
534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
defined in the Act. The Employer and Independent assert that the
unit is inappropriate because the Bennington plant is merely an accre-
tion to the Employer's plants in North Adams, Massachusetts. The
Petitioner and Employer further disagree as to the unit placement
of factory clerks and certain individuals whom the Employer
designates as "supervisors," discussed below.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of capacitors,
resistors , and ceramic coated wire. It operates three plants at North
Adams, Massachusetts, where all types of these products are manu-
factured; one plant at Bennington, Vermont, which produces only
ceramic coated wire; and one plant at Nashua, New Hampshire, not
involved in this proceeding, which produces resistors and capacitors.4
Since 1937, the Employer and Independent have had collective
bargaining agreements covering the production and maintenance em-
ployees at all three North Adams plants. The terms of the most recent
contracts between these parties described in paragraph numbered 3,
above, appear to have been applied to the Bennington plant, although
the coverage clauses of the contracts refer only to North Adams
employees.
The Employer's North Adams plants are located on Marshall Street,
Beaver Street, and Brown Street, from 11/2 to 2 miles apart. The
ceramic wire coating department, which has been in operation for a
number of years and employs about 74 employees, is situated in the
Brown Street plant where the Employer's main offices are also
located. In 1951, due to the increasing volume of orders for coated
wire, the Employer acquired the plant in Bennington, about 18 miles
distant, to augment its production of this product. Limited opera-
tions began in July and full-scale production began in about September
1951.
There are about 100 employees at the Bennington plant. Of these,
about 28, who had previously worked at North Adams but lived in or
near Bennington, were transferred to the new plant during the initial
period of operation.5 The remainder of the employees was recruited
from the Bennington area.6 The Bennington plant operates on a
3-shift basis and the employees are on the same payroll and subject
to generally the same conditions of employment as those at North
Adams. North Adams supervisors divide their time between the
plants and a supervisor is present at all times, except on the third
shift when no supervising personnel are present from about 1 a. m. to
4 The Employer also has a plant in Milwaukee , Wisconsin , the operations of which are
not disclosed in the record.
6 At the time of their transfer , some of these employees were told by the employment
manager at North Adams that their existing checkoff authority to the Independent was
terminated.
6 Relatively few employees at North Adams live in the Bennington area.
SPRAGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY 535
7 a. in. Some hiring is performed at the Bennington plant by
personnel representatives from North Adams.
Raw materials for the Bennington plant are purchased and received
at North Adams, and the finished products are returned to North
Adams for shipment. North Adams also furnishes services such as
maintenance, engineering, and certain clerical work. Bennington,
however, performs the complete manufacture of the ceramic coated
wire and maintains some of its own production records 7 Over-all
labor policy for all the Employers' plants, including Nashua, New
Hampshire, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is formulated at North Adams.
There is no interchange of employees between Bennington and North
Adams and, since the original assignment of personnel, there has been
virtually no transfer of employees between these plants.
While certain of the factors detailed above and emphasized by the
Employer and Independent, such as the interrelationship of the plants
and identity of conditions of employement, indicate the propriety of
including the Bennington plant in the North Adams unit, they are not
so compelling as to require our holding that no other unit is appro-
priate. Other factors here present also justify a unit confined to the
Bennington plant, as requested by the Petitioner. In the latter con-
nection we note : The conduct at Bennington of a complete manu-
facturing operation, from raw material to finished product; the
geographical separation of the plants; the substantially different areas
of labor supply; the virtual lack of interchange and transfer of
employees; and the absence of any controlling history of collective
bargaining on a broader basis.8 In view of these circumstances, we
believe that a separate unit of the Bennington plant employees may
also be appropriate, depending upon the results of the election here-
inafter directed.9 -
There remains for consideration the unit placement of the following
individuals :
Machine and solution mixing "supervisors": The petitioner con-
tends that these individuals should be excluded as supervisors while
the Employer asserts they are not supervisors within\the definition of
the Act. There are three machine "supervisors" and one solution
mixing "supervisor." One machine "supervisor" works on each shift
and the solution mixing "supervisor" works on the third shift. The
7 Limited spot inspection is performed at North Adams . However , full inspection of
the finished product is conducted at Bennington before shipment to North Adams
s Even assuming that the North Adams contracts covered the Bennington plant, that
plant was in full-scale operation for only about 2 months before the filing of the petitioD,
and a bargaining history of such short duration is, therefore , clearly not controlling.
'Brown Equipment & Manufacturing Co, Inc., 93 NLRB 1278; Sinclair Refinery Cow
pany, 92 NLRB 643. In view of our determination herein, we find it unnecessary to pass
upon the Petitioner 's request to reopen the record to receive in evidence an employee
information booklet issued by the Employer to its Bennington employees and allegedly
showing that the Employer treated the Bennington plant as a separate operation.
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
machine "supervisors" see that the machines are kept running and
that the production orders are handled in accordance with the instruc-
tions left by the foreman. They help the machine operators repair
their machines in case of breakdowns. If a machine does not function
properly and they cannot correct it themselves, they have standing
orders to shut down the machine and to start on another job. The solu-
tion mixing "supervisor" follows a set of detailed instructions left
by the foreman as to the solution to be mixed. These "supervisors"
earn about 5 cents per hour more than the machine operators and do
not attend training sessions established for foremen. They have no
authority to hire, discharge, discipline, promote, transfer, or give time
off to any employee or effectively to recommend such action. On the
foregoing facts and the entire record, we find that the machine and
solution mixing "supervisors" are not supervisors as defined in Section
2 (11) of the Act and shall, accordingly, include them in the voting
group.'°
Factory clerks: The Petitioner contends, contrary to the Employer,
that the two factory clerks should be excluded from the unit. These
employees work in the plant under the supervision of the foreman.
They maintain the production records and collect and distribute
employee time cards. Upon the entire record, we find that these two
individuals are factory clericals and shall include them in the voting
group 11
We shall direct an election in the following voting group :
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at
its Bennington, Vermont, plant, including factory clericals, machine
and solution mixing supervisors, and watchmen,12 but excluding ex-
ecutives, professional employees, office clericals, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees select the Petitioner or the I. U. E.
as their representative, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to be represented in a separate unit, and the Regional Director
conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certifi-
cation of representatives to the Petitioner or I. U. E. for the unit de-
scribed above which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority
select the Independent, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to be included in the production and maintenance unit at the Employ-
er's North Adams plants currently represented by the Independent,
10 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 87 NLRB 40.
11 See Continental Carbon, Inc ., 94 NLRB 1026.
12 The parties agree, and we find, that the three watchmen are not guards within the
meaning of the Act.
SEABOARD MACHINERY CORPORATION 537
and the Regional Director shall issue a certificate of results of election
to such effect.
CHAIRMAN HERzoG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
SEABOARD MACHINERY CORPORATION and INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE
AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER. C ase
No. 15-RC-617. March 11, 1952
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 J. M. Mitchell, 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 Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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
employees of the Employer .2
3. On October 17, 1951, the Boilermakers, Teamsters, and Machin-
ists concluded negotiations with the Employer for initial contracts
covering all of its employees. The parties agreed that the production
and maintenance employees at the Panama City plant could, on the
basis of occupational classifications, be divided appropriately into
three bargaining units, and the Employer consented to recognize
each of the above unions as representative of its respective unit .P
That same day, the Boilermakers and Teamsters signed identical
i The motion to intervene of the International Association of Machinists , Lodge No.
1106, A. F. of L., herein called the Machinists , is granted for reasons stated in paragraph
numbered 3.
2 Intervening in this case on the basis of current contracts with the Employer are the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local No. 991 , herein called the Teamsters , and the International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America, Lodge No. 112 , herein called
the Boilermakers.
2 The 86 employees then employed at the plant consisted of 79 employees in production
and maintenance positions coming within the craft jurisdiction of the Boilermakers, 2
truck drivers , and 5 machinists.
98 NLRB No. 93.