A. O. Smith Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1116 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We know you will clearly understand that we are including you in the profit-
sharing pool and inviting you to the annual outing on a temporary and provi-
sional basis and in the light of what we feel are the larger circumstances which
should prevail.
Whether or not a bonus can be paid to you in our next profitable quarter
will depend on unresolved circumstances that may affect our relationship.
So we say to you again , we hope that you will be inclined to sympathetically
endeavor to understand our problems as we are trying to understand yours.
Very truly yours,
CMB/a
Encl.
(signed ) C. M. BISHOP , President
A. 0. SMITH CORPORATION , AIR FRAME COMPONENT DIVISION and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA , C. I. 0., PETITIONER
A. 0. SMITH CORPORATION , AIR FRAME COMPONENT DIVISION and
DISTRICT No. 6, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, A. F.
of L., PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 3-RC-1087 and 3-RC-1090. Feb-
ruary 5,1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Hymen Dishner, 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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, 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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Both Petitioners seek a unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's plant. The Employer agrees that such
a unit is appropriate but, contrary to the Petitioners, would exclude
from the unit all salaried plant clericals,' contending that their inter-
ests, employee benefits, and working conditions differ from those of
1 There are also some hourly paid plant clericals , who all parties agree should be included
in the unit.
102 NLRB No. 96.
A. O. SMITH CORPORATION 1117
the other employees in the proposed unit, all of whom are hourly
paid.
The salaried plant clericals are paid on the same basis and have the
same classifications and salary range as the office clericals, whom all
parties would exclude. These salaried employees are not docked for
time off, are not paid shift premiums, and receive their pay biweekly,
whereas hourly rated employees are paid shift premiums, are docked
for time off, have a different vacation plan, and receive their pay
weekly. All employees at the plant are eligible to participate in
pension and insurance plans.
The disputed plant clericals consist of timekeepers, expediters, jun-
ior clerks, senior clerks, clerk-typists, and stenographers. The time-
keepers are supervised by the chief accountant in the accounting de-
partment, but work full time in the plant area where they compute
the time tickets of the production and maintenance employees, which
are forwarded to the accounting department to be used in making
up the payroll. They work the same hours as do the production and
maintenance employees.
The expediters are assigned to the production control department
where they are supervised by the head of that department. They have
the task of maintaining the flow of materials through the plant. In
order to do this, they must know the location of materials at all times
and see that they arrive in the various departments as needed. In
addition, they keep production records. While they work both in
the office and in the plant, the nature of their duties requires consid-
erable contact with the production and maintenance employees.
The junior clerks, senior clerks, clerk-typists, and stenographers
who work in the plant are supervised by the heads of the various
production and maintenance departments to which they are assigned.
They spend full time working in the plant, performing the usual
clerical duties in the departments to which they are assigned. While
the Employer's personnel manager stated that he expects interchange
between these employees and the office clericals, there is no evidence
in the record that any interchange has occurred.
The fact that the plant clericals are salaried and the other differ-
ences cited above between their remuneration and that of the hourly
rated employees do not preclude their inclusion in the unit.' We
consider more significant the fact that all of these employees spend
a substantial part of their time in plant areas and are in frequent
contact with the production and maintenance workers. We find there-
fore that their interests are sufficiently allied to those of the production
and maintenance employees to be included in the proposed unit 9
2 Watson-Flagg Machine Co., 83 NLRB 734; see Southern Alkali Corporation , 84 NLRB
120.
s National Cash Register , 95 NLRB 27; Watson-Flagg Machine Co., supra.
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find the following unit of employees at the Em-
ployer's Rochester, New York, plant appropriate for purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, including plant cleri-
cals, but excluding office clericals, all employees in the bargaining
unit represented by the Technical Engineers Association,4 guards,
professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Employer contends, contrary to the Petitioners, that an
election should not be directed at this time because its plant is not yet
in production and it does not presently employ a substantial and rep-
resentative complement of employees. This issue was before us in a
previous case 5 involving the same parties and plant, and we there
found, on the basis of the record then before us, that an election at
that time would be premature, and accordingly dismissed the peti-
tions. At the time of the hearing 6 in that case , the Employer had
220 production and maintenance employees, and stated that it planned
to add 1,000 more such employees at the rate of approximately 130
per month until the first quarter of 1953, when it expected to reach
its full complement and enter production. It also expected the ar-
rival and installation of necessary equipment and completion of plant
rehabilitation by the end of the first quarter of 1953. At the hearing
in the instant case,7 it developed that most of the Employer's expec-
tations had changed substantially since the hearing in the former case,
including postponement of the expected dates for completion of plant
rehabilitation, arrival of machinery, and commencement of produc-
tion, and reduction in the expected size of the full plant complement.
The Employer gives a number of reasons why it had been forced to
change its plans, including (1) changes in specifications of the prod-
uct by the Boeing Aircraft plant, for which it will produce under
contract; (2) the addition of new products to be manufactured at its
plant; (3) a stretch-out in the Air Force buildup program; (4) fail-
ure of contractors to deliver machinery and complete plant rehabili-
tation on schedule; and (5) difficulties in recruiting skilled employees
to work in the plant. The Employer admits that these factors as
well as others may well cause further postponement in its expected
schedule of operations.
4 Although disagreeing as to the coverage of the Association ' s contract , the parties agree
to exclude from the proposed unit all employees in the Association ' s contract unit. In
view of the meagerness of the record on this point , and as it is a matter which can readily
be settled by the parties themselves , or after bearing on challenges to ballots cast in the
election directed herein . we shall not attempt at this time to resolve the dispute among
the parties as to whether all technical clerical clerks and the entire tool design depart-
ment are covered by the Association 's contract . ( Certain supplementary information fur-
nished to the hearing officer after the close of the hearing by agreement of the parties
does not enable us to resolve these questions )
5 A. 0. Smith Corporation, Air Frame Component Division, 100 NLRB 1376.
6 June 10, 1952
1 The date of the hearing was December 2, 1952.
WHEATLAND ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. 1119
It appears from the record that at the time of the hearing the Em-,
ployer had 365 production and maintenance employees currently
employed. It now expects to add only 300 more such employees to
its present complement, of which 150 would be employed by June 1953.
when it expects that plant rehabilitation will be completed, all ma
chinery will be installed, and production will commence. It made
no prediction as to when the remaining 150 employees would be added.
In addition, it appears that, of over 20 job classifications which will
definitely be filled, there are currently employees in all but 2 of the
classifications.e At present, although the Employer is not producing
finished products for shipment, it is producing parts and components
for test purposes and for stockpiling.
We find, therefore, upon the entire record, that the present group of
employees is a substantial and representative segment of the em-
ployees to be employed by June 1953, when the Employer expects to
commence production .9 In any event, in view of the speculative
nature of the Employer's future expansion, we find that no further
delay in granting to the employees an opportunity to choose a bar-
gaining representative is warranted, and we will direct an immediate
election io
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 This is in contrast with the situation found to exist in the prior case involving this
plant , where the Board found that the Employer expected to add a substantial number of
new classifications and skills.
9 General Motors Corporation, 82, NLRB 876.
10 General Motors Corporation, 94 NLRB 217 . The Employer argues that because it is
not yet in production , an election is not proper at this time . We do not agree that this
is a controlling factor . See Ford Motor Company, 96 NLRB 10,75, ; West Coast Loading
Company, 101 NLRB 295.
WITEATLAND ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE , INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL No. 646, AFL. Case No. 17-CA-
468. February 6, 1953
Decision and Order
On June 18,1952, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued his Inter-
mediate Report in this case, finding that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent and the General Coun-
102 NLRB No; 109.