Kearfott Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 12, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 716 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

7 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive of the Union, make fraudulent, threatening, or coercive statements to either Utah Werley
or J D. Whatley.
On the entire record, the evidence considered as a whole, and from his observation of the
witnesses, the undersigned credits the testimony of Cecil Werley and Jesse Moore and finds
that their account of the Kelley Cafe meeting and the statements made by Lamm thereat
represents the accurate version thereof.
The undersigned does not credit the testimony of Utah Werley and J. D. Whatley with
respect to the statements made by Lamm at the Kelley Cafe meeting.
The undersigned therefore finds that neither Utah Werley, J. D. Whatley, nor any of the
employees of the Respondents were induced to join the Union by reason of threats , fraud, or
coercion
The undersigned finds that the Union at all times material herein represented an uncoerced
majority of the Respondents ' employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
KEARFOTT COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, (UAW-CIO), Peti-
tioner. Case No. 2-RC-5866. August 12, 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 Aaron
Weissman, 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 [Members Houston, Styles, 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
representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit confined to employees in the
Employer's plant 1, excluding all engineering division em-
ployees employed in plant 1 other than inspectors, salaried,
professional, and office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors. The Petitioner contends that the employees in
plant 1 whom it seeks to represent in a separate unit have
interests apart from those in the Employer's four other
plants because plant 1 is devoted to production work, whereas
the other plants are devoted to engineering and research work.
The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one
106 NLRB No. 120.
KEARFOTT COMPANY, INC. 717
embracing not only the above employees whom the petitioner
seeks to represent, but all hourly rated production, main-
tenance, inspection , service, and engineering employees at
all five plants, excluding office clerical, professional, and
salaried engineering division technical employees, guards,
watchmen, and supervisors. In the alternative, the Petitioner
will accept any unit the Board finds appropriate and indicated
its willingness to go to an election in a unit which conforms
to that proposed by the Employer, if the Board should find that
to be the appropriate unit.
There has been no history of collective bargaining for the
Employer's employees at any of its five plants. In 1952, a
consent election was held for all hourly rated production,
maintenance , inspection, service, and engineering department
employees in the three plants then operated by the Employer,
as a single unit.' The Petitioner in that case was the same
labor organization as in the present case.
The Employer is engaged in the design, development, and
production of airborne instruments. Its operations, which
began in January 1951, are located in 5 plants in Paterson,
West Paterson, and Clifton, New Jersey. The 5 plants are
located within a circular radius of 2 miles. The plants are
designated as plants 1, 2, 4, and 5 and division 290. Originally,
all of the Employer's operations were housed in plant 1.
Because of rapidly expanding business the Employer had to
rent additional space where available. Plant 4 went into
operation sometime in the late fall of 1952. Plant 5 was opened
the beginning of May 1953.2 At the time of the hearing in May
1953, the Employer was relocating various of its operating
units because of the acquisition of plant 5.3 Division 290 was
set up to handle the entire development and production of a
classified navy contract. Because it is a no-profit contract, the
Employer segregated this operation and housed it in a separate
building in order to enable the Employer to accurately account
the costs.4
The Employer' s operations are divided into two main divi-
sions, the production and the engineering divisions. Both
divisions are divided into various departments and the latter
in turn are divided into sections . Each division is headed by
an executive vice president, both of whom are responsible to
the Employer's president and executive committee. The
executive committee and the board of directors determine the
overall operational policies for the entire Company.
I A majority of votes were cast for no union.
2 Most of the engineering departments will be located in plant 5 but some will also be located
in plants 1, 2, and 4 and division 290.
9 The Employer intends to again consolidate all of its operations in one building as soon as
feasible. Under the present setup, it is necessary to have station wagons and trucks going
constantly between the plants.
4There are 13 hourly rated employees in division 290.
7 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although most of the Employer's large-scale production
operations are carried on in plant 1, many sections of the
engineering division located in the other plants also do
production work. These sections in the engineering division are
production units involved in short-run orders. Small-size
production orders for newly developed products are placed
in the engineering division because the production of these
products requires skilled engineering supervision . When the
product has been developed to the extent of large-scale
production , the order generally is placed with one of the Em-
ployer's subcontractors . Most of the sections in the engineering
division , except the experimental machine shop , manufacture
parts and products which are shipped directly to customers
and also to plant 1.
The record shows that there is a functional integration of
the Employer ' s different operations . Approximately 20 to 25
percent of the products manufactured in plant 2 go to plant 1
for assembly . About 95 percent of the bearings made in the
ball bearing section located in plant 2 are used in production
operations in plant 1 . The remaining 5 percent are used in the
laboratories in the engineering division . This necessitates
close integration of the ball bearing section with the various
production units, because failure of the bearing section to
deliver the bearings can hold up production . About 20 percent
of the time of the pilot plant, located in plant 2 , is applied to
making motor generators for use in production assembly in
plant 1.6 About 8 to 10 percent of the time of the winding
section in the pilot plant is devoted to making wound components
to be used in the assembly of gyros in plant 1. The record also
shows that certain sections in the production departments in
plant 1, make parts to be used by sections in the engineering
division . Thus, in the 4 or 5 months preceding the hearing in
this case , the toolroom and machine shop in plant 1 devoted
about 30 percent of their time to making parts for engineering
sections . During the same period , employees in plant 1 de-
voted about 10 percent of their time to making wound com-
ponents for engineering sections.
There is also integration of work between the engineering
and production departments . When employees in either of
these divisions run into trouble with the work, they may call
upon an employee from the other division to help solve the
problem. After an engineering department has produced a
short-run order , production employees are trained by em-
ployees from the engineering division in techniques and
procedures in assembling that particular item, when that item
is going to be produced in large quantities in plant 1. Quite
frequently there is interchange of equipment between engi-
neering and production sections , when the Employer only has
one of a particular type of apparatus , tool, or fixture. Ap-
5 The pilot plant in plant 2 is to be moved to plant 4.
KEARFOTT COMPANY, INC. 719
proximately 25 percent of engineering or production equip-
ment is constantly in a state of moving from one division to
another for use for a special purpose.
There is transfer of personnel as well as equipment
between the Employer's 2 divisions. The maintenance depart-
ment, whose headquarters are in plant 1, services all of the
Employer's plants except division 290. A plant engineer is in
charge of the maintenance department and has overall super-
vision of all maintenance employees whether working in the
engineering or production divisions. There are 2 maintenance
foremen, 1 stationed in plant 1 and the other in plant 5. The
latter is directly responsible to the plant engineer in plant 1.
Some of the maintenance employees are assigned to specific
locations in the various plants. Others circulate among the
different plants as the need for their services arises. The
inspection department,, whose headquarters are in plant 1, is
a part of the engineering division. It assigns inspectors to all
of the Employer's plants except division 290. It has super-
vision over all inspectors, whether they work in engineering
or production sections . Like the maintenance employees,
some inspectors are permanently assigned to a particular
location, while others circulate among the different plants.
There are also permanent transfers of employees from the
production to the engineering division, and from engineering
to production.
The record discloses that some of the employees in the
engineering division whom the Petitioner would exclude from
the unit do the same type of work as other employees working
in plant 1, whom the Petitioner would include. The skills re-
quired for these jobs, and the machinery and equipment used
by these employees, are substantially the same.6
In addition to the functional integration of the Employer's
different operations shown above, the record also shows that
there is a centralized management and administrative policy
for all of the Employer's plants. The Employer's purchasing
department does the purchasing for the entire Company, re-
gardless of division or department. A central accounting
department does the accounting for all departments in both
the engineering and production divisions. There is one payroll
department which reports to the Employer's comptroller, and
makes up the payroll for the entire Company. The personnel
department does the hiring of hourly rated employees in all
plants. Uniform personnel and industrial relations policies
are applied to all hourly rated employees, regardless of the
department in which they work. Moreover, all employees have
the same general working conditions, receiving the same
rates of pay for comparable job classifications, and enjoy the
6 There are wound component units in plants 1 and 2. There are also machine shops, in-
strument assembly units, and heat treating units in both the engineering and production
divisions.
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
same employer benefits such as vacations, paid holidays,
temporary disability benefits, group life insurance, call-inpay,
shift differentials, and separation pay.
In view of the foregoing, particularly the integration and
similarity of operations of all plants, the centralized control
of labor relations and administration, and the uniformity of
working conditions of all hourly rated employees in the Em-
ployer's five plants, we find that a unit consisting of production
and maintenance employees at all of the Employer's five plants
is alone appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.?
The only basis for establishing a separate unit of employees
at plant 1 appears to be the extent of the Petitioner' s organi-
zation.8 Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act precludes a finding on that
basis alone.9 We therefore reject the Petitioner's initial unit
request. As the Petitioner has indicated a willingness to repre-
sent the employees in all five of the Employer's plants, and has
made an adequate showing of interest in such a unit, we shall
direct an election in the more comprehensive unit.
The Petitioner asserts that if the Board finds appropriate a
unit of all five of the Employer's plants, then the employees
of Kearfott Manufacturing Corporation, hereinafter called KMC,
should also be included in the unit. KMC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Employer, is located in Newark, New Jersey.
Although it is a production subcontractor of the Employer, it
is treated the same by the Employer as any of the other of
its subcontractors. The record shows no integration of functions
or personnel between the Employer and KMC. KMC has
separate personnel, accounting, and industrial relations depart-
ments. The Employer has no jurisdiction over industrial
relations at KMC. The Petitioner was certified by the Board as
collective -bargaining representative for KMC's employees
after a consent election. A local of the Petitioner has had a
collective-bargaining contract with KMC since about 1949. On
these facts we see no justification for including the employees
of KMC in a unit with the Employer's employees. 10
There remains for consideration the supervisory status of
group leaders. There are 21 group leaders who instruct new
employees and make routine work assignments to employees
in their groups. Each leader has from 6 to 12 employees in
?Cf. Hawthorne-Melody Farms Dairy of Wisconsin. Inc., 99 NLRB 212; The Reliance
Electric & Engineering Company, 98 NLRB 488; ScenicCitrus Coopeative, Inc., 98 NLRB 350;
The Muller Company, Ltd., 98 NLRB 737; Andrews Company, 98 NLRB 11; Snively Groves,
Inc., 98 NLRB 1146; Groveton Papers Company, Inc., 96 NLRB 1369; Phillips-Jones Corpo-
ration, 96 NLRB 153; Riegel Paper Corporation, 96 NLRB 779
$It is clear from the record that the employees in plant 1 are not a readily identifiable and
homogeneous group apart from the Employer's other employees.
9Hampton Roads Broadcasting Corporation (WGH), 98 NLRB 1090; Kress Dairy, Inc., 98
NLRB 369.
10Cf. Producers Rice Mill, Inc., and Producers Dryer, Inc., 106 NLRB 119; Jefferson
Co., Inc., and Service Corporation of America, 105 NLRB X202; Kenosha Liquor Company, 104
NLRB 189; Vita Food Products, Incorporated, 103 NLRB 495.
SPERRY GYROSCOPE COMPANY 721
his group. They do not have authority to hire, discharge,
transfer, lay off, discipline, or change the status of any em-
ployees in their groups. Nor do they have authority effectively
to recommend such action. The foremen make independent
investigations of all reports made by group leaders. The group
leaders are hourly rated employees and are represented by
the employee grievance committee, which represents all
hourly rated employees in the Employer's plants. There are
3 group leaders who work on the night shift without super-
vision by foremen the major portion of the time. These leaders
follow a program which the foremen have outlined. They do
not have any more authority over the employees in their
groups than do the group leaders on the d4y shift. We find
that the group leaders do not have power, responsibly to direct
the employees under them or to make effective recommenda-
tions regarding personnel matters. We find that they are not
supervisors and shall include them in the unit.
We find that all hourly rated production, maintenance,
inspection, service, and engineering employees at the Em-
ployer's Paterson, West Paterson, and Clifton, New Jersey,
plants," including group leaders and watchmen-porters, 12 but
excluding office clerical employees, technical employees,
professional employees, confidential employees, watchmen,
guards, and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
"The parties agree that all salaried employees should be excluded from the unit. The five
plants are: Plant 1, 1150 McBride Avenue, West Paterson; plant 2, 191-195 E. Railway Ave-
nue, Paterson; division 290, 561 McBride Avenue, West Paterson; plant 4, 460 Totowa Avenue,
Paterson; and plant 5, 1378 Main Avenue, Clifton, New Jersey.
12 Watchmen-porters spend a major part of their time on porter duties and not on duties
with respect to guarding the Employer's property. We find that they are not guards and should,
therefore, be included in the unit.
SPERRY GYROSCOPE COMPANY and ENGINEERS ASSOCI-
ATION, ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS OF AMERICA, Peti-
tioner. Cases Nos. 2-RC-5524, 2-RC-5525, and 2-RC-5526.
August 12, 1953
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Leonard J. Lurie, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rul-
ings 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
106 NLRB No. 122.