Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 709 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of BROWN & SHARPE MFG. Co. and LOCAL 119, INTERNA-
TIONAL FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS & DRAFTS-
MEN'S UNION, A. F. OF L.
Case No. 1-R-9798
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
DIRECTION
August 26,1946
On June 6, 1946, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion herein 1 establishing two separate appropriate units at the Com-
pany's plant, i. e., Unit (1), consisting of all draftsmen, draftsmen's
aides and apprentices, estimators, planners, and mechanical engineers;
and Unit (2) consisting of all time-study men. On June 18, 1946,
the Company petitioned the Board to reopen "the case as to time-study
men or in the alternative for rehearing on the merits as to such
employees." On June 24, 1946, the Board granted the Company's
petition and issued an Order directing that a "further hearing be held
for the purpose of taking evidence respecting the function and status
of the employees in Unit (2)," the time-study men. The Board fur-
ther ordered that the scheduled election in both units be held but
that the ballots in Unit (2) be impounded pending the Board's final
determination as to the status of time-study employees. On June 28,
1946, the Board certified the Union as exclusive representative of the
employees in Unit (1).
The further hearing with respect to time-study men was held at
Providence, Rhode Island, on July 5, 1946, before Robert E. Greene,
Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are, with one exception,2 hereby,
' Matter of Brown d Sharpe Mfg Co., 68 N. L. R. B. 487.
2 The Trial Examiner rejected as Inadmissible a copy of the minutes of a grievance pro-
ceeding which the Company offered In order to show the role played by time-study men in
these proceedings . We find that the evidence contained in the offered exhibit is com-
petent and relevant to the Issues here Involved . Accordingly , we reverse the Trial Ex-
aminer's ruling and order that the rejected exhibit be Incorporated In and made part of
the record as Company Exhibit 12.
70 N. L. R. B., No. 55
r
709
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affirmed. Oral argument, in which both parties participated, was
held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on August 12, 1946.
Upon the entire record of the case, the Board makes the following :
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
The Company's collective bargaining contract with the Union rep-
resenting production employees prescribes hourly rates of pay for
such employees. However, under the incentive wage plan in effect
these hourly rates of pay are translated into piece-work rates by means
of time studies. Thus, if after a time study, the standard time for
any particular operation is fixed at one-half hour, the employee re-
ceives one-half of his hourly rate for each such unit of work per-
formed. The operator is thus enabled, by expending greater effort,
to earn more than his hourly rate prescribed in the contract. On the
other hand, if the operator consumes more than the standard time
allotted for an hour's operations he is given the hourly rate provided
for in the agreement.
The function of determining the time standards for each operation
is the primary responsibilty of the time-study men. By means of
a stop-watch and the application of specialized knowledge and ex-
perience gained both at the plant and at technical schools, the time-
study men time each operation and initially fix the time standard for
the job. The time study is not a_nrere routine operation but requires
the use of judgment, particularly in respect to the making of cor-
rective allowances.3
If the operator is dissatisfied with the results of the time study, he
has the right under the collective bargaining contract to make the
study a subject of a grievance proceeding. When this occurs, a sec-
ond time study is usually made in the presence of a union official and
a department foreman or subforeilan. Thereafter a labor-manage-
ment meeting is held, under the chairmanship of a representative of
the Company, to consider the grievance. At this meeting, the time-
study man who made the study concerning which disagreement exists
carries the burden of explaining and justifying his findings. How-
ever, his appearance before the meeting is as an expert witness; he
does not participate in negotiations leading to settlement of the dis-
pute.
In addition to making time studies, time-study men estimate the
probable cost of manufacturing new products, suggest methods of
3 The most important exercise of individual judgment is in the granting of an effort
rating to the machine operator whose work is the subject of the time study. These rat-
ings aie often necessary in order to compensate for it temporary "slow-down" engaged
in by the operator in order to affect the result of the study The other allowances made
by the time-study man adhere closely to formulae standards that apply throughout the
Company's plant.
BROWN & SHARPE MFG. CO. 711
increasing productive efficiency and sign all allowance cards previ-
ously approved by a department foreman.'
The Company contends that the time-study men are "managerial"
and "confidential" employees within the Board's definitions of those
terms in the Ford case.' Further, the Company argues that the defini-
tions in the Ford case are too restricted, and that any proper definition
of the terms "managerial" and "confidential" would include these
time-study men. Accordingly, the Company urges that the time-study
inen be excluded from any bargaining unit.
In the Ford case, we defined "managerial employees" as "executive
employees who are in a position to formulate, determine and effectu-
ate management policies." We further limited the term "confidential
employees" to "those employees who assist and act in a confidential
capacity to persons who exercise `managerial' functions in the field of
labor relations." Although the time-study men are highly important
technical employees in whom the Company places considerable trust
and confidence and upon whose judgment it relies, we are of the
opinion, and we find, that they are not "managerial" or "confidential"
employees within the above definitions, to which we adhere. In mak-
ing their time studies, they go no further than to supply the necessary
factual basis for the operation of the Company's incentive plan. With
respect to their participation in grievance proceedings, although the
Company relies for the most part on the evidence given and the argu-
ments made by the time-study men, adjustments at variance with the
findings of the time-study men are negotiated at these meetings by
higher management representatives.
In the final analysis we are, confronted with the question as to
whether these time-study men are "employees" within the meaning of
Section 2 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. We find that they
are.' We also find that a unit of time-study men is appropriate, and
that the statute does not empower us to find, as the Company would
have us do, that they belong in no appropriate bargaining unit what-
soever.'
We shall, therefore, direct the Regional Director to open and count
the ballots in Unit (2) and to issue a Tally of Ballots therein.
*Allowance cards are iecotds of allowances made to operators of machines for adds.
tional time required to perform an operation because of the existence of nonstandard con-
ditions in the work The allowances are actually granted by the foreman The time-study
man's examination of these cards is perfunctory and his approval is, apparently, only a
matter of form
"Matter of Ford Motor Company (Chicago,Branch), 66 N L. R 'B. 1317.
9 Cf Matter of Jones d Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division, 66
N. L. R. B. 386; N. L. R. B. v Hearst Publications, Incorporated, 322 U. S 111, enforcing
39 N. L It. B. 1245.
See the concurring opinion of the Chairman in Mattel of Packard Motor Car Company,
64 N. L. It. B. 1212, 1215.
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION
IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED that the Regional Director for the First
Region open and count the ballots in Unit (2) impounded pursuant
to the Board's Order of June 24, 1946, and issue and serve upon the
parties a Tally of Ballots therein.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting.
The evidence introduced at the reopened hearing further documents
my reasons, stated in my dissent to the original Decision and Direction
of Election, for objecting to the inclusion of the time-study men in any
bargaining unit. The majority admits that the Company places con-
siderable trust and confidence in these employees. On their integrity
in making their studies depends to a°large extent the profitable and
economic operation of the Company's plant. Also the record shows
that time-study men represent management at grievance proceedings
in the important duty of convincing the complaining employees of the
correctness of the time study already adopted by the Company. As I
said in the original decision, all the considerations which have been
urged on this Board for not using the processes of the Act to compel
employers to deal with unions representing their rank and file em-
ployees as representatives of their supervisors, as well, apply with even
greater force to time-study men. The effect of this Decision is to sub-
ject to the discipline of the same parent organization both the employee
who represents management in the conduct of the time study and at
grievance proceedings, as well as the representative of employees. In
my judgment the Decision we are here making further seriously dis-
torts the principles of the Act." ,
° See my dissenting opinion in the Jones J LauphMn case cited in footnote 6, supra.