American Optical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 276 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
American Optical Corporation and International
Union of Operating Engineers , Local 877, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner . Case 1-RC-12472
June 19, 1973
DECISION ON REVIEW
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On February 16, 1972, the Regional Director for
Region 1 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in which he found appropriate a unit of powerhouse
employees at the Employer's Southbridge, Massachu-
setts, operations, including a technician and exclud-
ing three maintenance mechanics who work in the
powerhouse. Thereafter, in accordance with Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner
filed a timely request for review of the Regional
Director's Decision on the grounds that, in resolving
the above unit placement issues , he made findings of
fact which are clearly erroneous and departed from
officially reported precedent. The Employer filed op-
position to the Petitioner's request for review.'
By telegraphic order dated March 26, 1973, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the
Petitioner's request for review as it related to the unit
placement of the three maintenance mechanics in
question, denied it as to the technician, and stayed the
election pending decision on review. Thereafter, the
Employer filed a brief on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, As amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority 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, including
the Employer's brief on review, and makes the follow-
ing findings:
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of optical products and equipment.
In its Southbridge operations the Employer has a total
complement of approximately 4,500 employees in a
complex of 50 buildings. The powerhouse, located in
a separate building, is the central source of water,
steam, compressed air, and electricity used in the
plant complex. Permanently assigned to work in the
powerhouse, under the direction of the chief engineer,
1 The Employer also filed a request for review of the Regional Director's
finding that a separate unit of powerhouse employees was appropriate, apart
from other production and maintenance employees . By telegraphic order
dated March 26, 1973, the Employer 's request for review was denied as
raising no substantial issues warranting review
is a complement of 12 employees: 4 engineers , 4 fire-
men, a technician, and the 3 maintenance mechanics
whose unit placement is here in issue.
As found by the Regional Director, the Employer
has a large number of maintenance mechanics who
are assigned to work at various locations throughout
the plant complex and are treated as a separate group
for seniority purposes. However, the three mainte-
nance mechanics assigned to work in the powerhouse
share the same immediate supervision as other power-
house employees. Contrary to the Regional Director's
finding that those assigned to the powerhouse fre-
quently work interchangeably with the other mainte-
nance mechanics at the plant complex, our review of
the record reveals that the three permanently assigned
to the powerhouse do not perform mechanical main-
tenance functions elsewhere in the complex and that
other maintenance mechanics spend but a minimal
amount of time performing duties in the powerhouse,
principally in emergency situations and in connection
with new installations of equipment. Further, al-
though there is no regular progression from the pow-
erhouse maintenance mechanic assignment to the
jobs of fireman and engineer, mechanics so assigned,
because of their powerhouse experience, upon obtain-
ing the required state licenses, have in fact advanced
to such jobs.
Upon the facts of this case, we are satisfied that the
interests of the three maintenance mechanics in dis-
pute are so closely allied with those of other power-
house employees as to require their inclusion in the
departmental powerhouse unit found appropriate by
the Regional Director .2
The unit, as modified to include these employees, is
described as follows:
All powerhouse engineers and firemen employed
by the Employer at its 14 Mechanic Street,
Southbridge, Massachusetts facility, including
maintenance mechanics and the technician as-
signed to the powerhouse, but excluding all other
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Regional
Director for the purpose of conducting an election
pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as
modified herein, except that the payroll period for
determining eligibility shall be that immediately pre-
ceding the issuance date of this Decision. [Excelsior
footnote omitted from publication.]
2 California Institute of Technology, 192 NLRB 582, Parke Davis & Co., 173
NLRB 313.
204 NLRB No. 56