Geo. W. Spratt Optical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 397 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

GEO. W. SPRATT OPTICAL CO. 397
GEO. W. SPRATT OPTICAL CO. and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OPTICAL
TECHNICIANS UNION, INDEPENDENT , PETITIONER . Case No. 21-KC-
9826. March 6, 195.E
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 Max Steinfeld, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
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 organization involved claims to represent certain
employees 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. The Petitioner seeks a craft unit of all optical technicians em-
ployed in the surface and bench rooms of the Employer, excluding
supervisors and all other employees. Under the term "optical tech-
nicians" the Petitioner would include individuals in classifications of
assembler, edger, layout and inspection, final inspector, cylinder
grinder, blocking and takeoff, polisher, and sphere grinder. The
Employer urges that a separate craft unit would be inappropriate
because its operations are integrated, and the unit sought by the Peti-
tioner is not sufficiently identifiable and homogeneous. The Em-
ployer claims that only a production and maintenance unit including,
in addition to those sought by the Petitioner, employees in the classi-
fications of maintenance men, shipping employees, packers, order and
followup clerks, washup and assembly, prescription control clerks,
stock issue clerks, and stock control clerks, is appropriate. The Em-
ployer agrees to the exclusion from any unit of employees engaged
in purchasing, billing, and invoicing functions.
The surface room and bench room, each with a foreman, are under
the general supervision of the plant superintendent. The bench room
is located in a portion of a large room separated from the stock area
by filing cabinets and from the plant superintendent's office by a
5-foot high partition. The surface department is located in a sep-
arate room. The only employee physically located with the em-
ployees sought herein, but whom the Petitioner would exclude, is
103 NLRB No. 30.
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the washup girl. There is no interchange between optical technicians
in the surface and bench rooms and other employees of the Employer.
It appears that each production operation must fall into a given
sequence with respect to other operations 1 and that the priority of
orders and time in which the work in the surface and bench rooms is
performed are affected by determinations made by employees engaged
in prescription control and order desk, by routing, scheduling, and
shop followup.
The Employer regards the work of optical technicians as a highly
skilled trade and does not deny the possession of special skills by
employees in the classification sought by the Petitioner. Many of
the employees in the classifications sought by the Petitioner have from
5 to 17 years experience. Although the Employer presently has no
formal apprentice program in effect, it has in the past carried on
such a program under an approved Veterans Administration train-
ing plan. Since its abandonment of the veterans training program,
whenever the Employer is unable to obtain skilled employees it hires
unskilled or partially trained individuals at a rate commensurate
with their experience and makes a quarterly review of that rate on
the basis of ability and skill only. The Employer indicated its ex-
perience has been that from 4 to 5 years are required for an employee
to become a thoroughly skilled surface or bench employee. It is clear
that, taken together, the surface room and bench room employees
sought by the Petitioner form an historically recognized craft group 2
who are not so integrated with other employees as to warrant denial
of separate representation.' Accordingly, in the absence of any claim
to represent these employees in a larger unit, we find that this group
constitutes a separate unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
The Petitioner, in opposition to the Employer, contends that one
Cloke, the foreman of the bench room, is a supervisor and should be
excluded from the unit. Cloke is the only optical technician in the
bench room who, like the foreman of the surface room, admittedly a
supervisor, is paid on a monthly salary basis. Cloke has 20 years
experience as an optical technician and spends over 90 percent of his
working time performing the more difficult or special operations.
Although he has no authority to effect changes with respect to em-
1 The sequence of prescription shop production operations follows a given order depending
upon the type of operation required . After receipt of prescription , selection of stock, prep-
aration of billing, and setup of production schedules, the work goes to the surface and
bench rooms where the production process is continued by any or all of the following
operations : Surface layout ; blockup ; sphere grinding ; cylinder grinding ; polishing ;
knockoff ; bench inspection and layout ; cutting ; edging ; assembling ; washup ; and final
inspection.
1 Riggs Optical Company, Consolidated , 67 NLRB 565.
E Cf. National Tube Company, 76 NLRB 1199.
a
COHN GOLDWATER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 399
ployment tenure or compensation, he directs the other bench employees
in their work and reports to the plant superintendent only those per-
sonnel problems and operational matters which he is unable to settle
himself. In addition Cloke has full charge of the bench room while
the plant superintendent is absent. This occurs daily while the
plant superintendent is on his lunch period as well as for other
absences such as the vacation period each year. In view of the fore-
going, including the regularity with which he takes full charge of the
bench room, we find that Cloke is a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act .4
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All optical technicians employed in the surface and bench rooms of
the Employer, at its prescription shop at Los Angeles, California,
including edgers, assemblers, layout and inspection, final inspector,
cylinder grinder, blocking and takeoff, polisher, and sphere grinder,
but excluding all other employees 5 and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
e East Tennessee Packing Company, 89, NLRB 535.
Excluded is the washup girl who, although she works in the surface room, performs
the unskilled duty of washing and drying with a towel the finished product, which work
is in no way part of the training for a skilled optical technician.
COHN GOLDWATER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1 and Los ANGELES JOINT
BOARD, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETI-
TIONER. Case No.21-RC-2801. March 6, 1953
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 Irving Helbling , hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2
1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
Z The Intervenor , United Garment Workers of America, Local 125, AFL, argued at the
hearing and in its brief that it was denied due process of law because the hearing officer
would not divulge the Petitioner's showing of interest . As the validity and sufficiency of
the showing of interest is a matter for administrative determination not litigable by the
parties, we find that this contention is without merit. N. L. R . B. v. J. I. Case Co., 201 F.
2d 597 ( C. A. 9). Moreover , we are satisfied that the Petitioner has made an adequate
showing in this proceeding.
103 NLRB No. 37.