The P. A. Geir Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 103 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of THE P. A. GEIER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT 54, PETITIONER
Case No. 8-R -517.Decided June 13, 1947
Messrs. James A. Farrell and Phillip H. Geier, of Cleveland, Ohio,
for the Employer.
Messrs. Howard Tausch and Nick Charo, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Benj. E. Cook, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Cleve-
land, Ohio, on March 28, 1947, before John A. Hull, Jr., 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 the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TITE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The P. A. Geier Company, an Ohio corporation, maintains its plant
and office at Cleveland, Ohio, where it is engaged in the manufacture of
Royal vacuum cleaners. During the calendar year 1946, the Em-
ployer's purchases of raw materials amounted to more than $500,000
in value, approximately 25 percent of which was shipped to points
outside the State of Ohio. During the same period, the Employer's
finished products were valued at more than $1,000,000, approximately
50 percent of which was shipped to points outside the State of Ohio.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization , claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
74 N. L . R. B., No. 25. 103
104 DECISIONS OF NATTONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE QUESTION CONCERN ING REPRFSENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, withui the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT: TUE OF.TFRVIIN A11ON OF I:EPTI ESE' TATIVES
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of factory clerks and trlne-
keepers,i tool designers, production clerks, expediters, assistant pur-
chasing agent, time-study and production control employees. The
Employer opposes the proposed unit on the ground that the factory
clerks and timekeepers are more appropriately included in the unit of
production and maintenance employees currently represented by the
Petitioner, and that the remaining employees sought by the Petitioner
should be included in a unit of general office and clerical employees.
The tool designers, production clerks, expediters, assistant pur-
chasing agent, time-study and production control employees are
located in the so-called "factory" office which, although a part of the
general office, is referred to as such, because the functions of employees
working therein are more closely identified with the plant operations
than with other phases of Employer's general office work. Other
clerical personnel, whom the Petitioner does not seek to represent, also
work in the factory office. All factory office employes are salaried,
receive sick and other benefits not accorded production and maui-
tenance employees, are carried on the general office pay roll, and are
accountable to the general office manager. In view of the foregoing,
we are of the opinion that the employees in the factory office sought
hei;ein by the Petitioner are more appropriately included in a unit of
all general office and clerical employees thaii in a unit such as the
Petitioner seeks to establish.
On the other hand, the timekeepers and factory clerks spend all of
their time in the plant and are accountable to the foreman of their
respective departments. These employees are carried on the factory
pay roll, are hourly paid, punch the factory time clocks, are not paid
for sick leave, as are the general office employees, and have the same
vacation plan as the production and maintenance employees. It is
our opinion that the timekeepers and factory clerks have interests more
'The factory clerks and timekeepers more specifically consist of apptoximately 10
employees in the classification of timekeepers , timekeeper -learners, receiving clerk and
supply clerk -timekeeper
THE P. A. GEIER COMPANY 105
closely related to those of production and maintenance employees than
those of the general office employees, and they are, therefore, more
appropriately included in a unit, composed of the former. However,
inasmuch as these employees have not been included in the production
and maintenance unit now represented by the Petitioner, we shall
direct that an election be held among them to determine their desires
in the matter. Accordingly, we shall luake no unit finding pending
the outcome of the election. If these eiuployees select the Petitioner
as their bargaining representative, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to be included in the existing unit of production and main-
tenance employees and the Pet it loner may bargain for them as part of
such unit.'
Supply clerk-timekeeper and receivinq clerk: The Employer argues
that these employees exercise supervisory authority and should be ex-
cluded from any unit or voting group. The Petitioner, on the other
hand, contends that they do not possess supervisory authority and, ac-
cordingly, should be included. The duties performed by the supply
clerk-timekeeper and the receiving clerk reflect substantially the same
indicna of supervision. These employees are hourly paid, and although
they receive a higher rate of pay than other employees in their respec-
tive departments, they are not, carried out the supervisory pay roll.,
The record fails to establish that they possess supervisory authority
within the Board's cnstontar definition thereof. We shall, therefore,
include the supply clerk-timekeeper and receiving clerk in the voting
;Troup hereinafter set forth.
We shall direct an election by secret ballot among all timekeepers
and factory clerks, including timekeeper-learners, receiving depart-
ment clerks and supply clerk-t innekeeper, but excluding all supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recom-
mend such action.
As stated above, there will be no final determination of the appro-
priate bargaining unit pending the results of the election.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with The P. A. Geier Company, Cleve-
land, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as
possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Di-
3 See Matter of Revere Copper & Bass , Incorporated ( New Bedford Division), 74
N L R B 88
3 Foreman , assistant foreman , and supervisors are listed on this pay roll all are salaried
employees
106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rection, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Eighth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National
Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations--Series 4,
among the employees in the voting group described in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately pre-
ceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of
the United States who present themselves in person at the, polls, but
excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the
election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
International Association of Machinists, District 54, for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.