Keller Cresent Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1998

326 N.L.R.B. 1158 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1158
Keller Crescent Co., Inc. and Local 505-M, Graphic
Communications International Union, AFL–
CIO, Petitioner. Case 14–RC–11965
September 29, 1998
ORDER DENYING REVIEW
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel,
which has considered the Employer’s request for review
of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election (pertinent parts of which are attached as an ap-
pendix). The request for review is denied as it raises no
substantial issues warranting review.1
APPENDIX
REGIONAL DIRECTOR’S DECISION AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance
employees including three quality assurance monitors em-
ployed by the Employer at its St. Louis, Missouri facility.
There are approximately 46 employees in the petitioned-for
unit. The Employer, contrary to the Petitioner, contends that
the quality assurance monitors should be excluded from the unit
because they lack a sufficient community of interest with the
production and maintenance employees.
The Employer, at its St. Louis facility, manufactures various
types of packing containers, including folding cartons, food
packaging, and pharmaceutical and nutritional packaging. The
manufacturing process involves feeding raw paper into presses
that print the information needed by the customer, including the
title, strength, and item code on the cartons, and then the car-
tons are varnished and die cut. Other machines glue and fold
sections of folding cartons. Production employees include
pressmen and second pressmen who operate presses, pre-
production plate room employees, and ink room employees.
Production and maintenance employees have a different de-
partment code than do the quality assurance monitors who are
in the quality control department. All the Employer’s depart-
ments are housed in one large facility.
Production and maintenance employees work three shifts.
These shifts are continuous and do not overlap. The three qual-
ity assurance monitors also work three shifts, with one monitor
on each shift. The production and maintenance employees
report to the production shift supervisor; there are three shift
supervisors, one for each shift. The shift supervisors, in turn,
report to Plant Manager Ted McQueary, who reports to the vice
president/general manager. The quality assurance monitor on
the first shift reports to Ken Branson, the quality control super-
visor. The quality assurance monitors on the second and third
shifts report to one of the production shift supervisors. Quality
Control Supervisor Branson reports to the vice president of
quality. Both the vice president/general manager and the vice
president of quality report to the president and CEO of the Em-
ployer. There are no educational requirements for the position
of quality assurance monitor. Quality assurance monitors do
not receive any formal technical training, though they do re-
ceive some on-the-job training. At least one quality assurance
monitor has also taken a statistics class.

1 The only issue raised in the request for review was whether the Re-
gional Director erred in finding appropriate the petitioned-for produc-
tion and maintenance unit, including three quality assurance monitors.
In denying review of the Regional Director’s decision, the Board notes
that the cases relied on by the Employer, Arkansas Grain Corp., 163
NLRB 625 (1967); and Beatrice Foods, 222 NLRB 883 (1976), are
distinguishable. In Arkansas Grain, the excluded laboratory techni-
cians were separately supervised, worked in a separate building, had
only occasional contact with production employees, did not interchange
with the production employees, and were paid differently from unit
employees. In Beatrice Foods, the Board sustained challenges to the
ballots of two quality control employees who were separately super-
vised, worked in a separate location, and had no regular contact with
production and maintenance employees.

The three quality assurance monitors are primarily responsi-
ble for testing the product to ensure that the finished product
meets the customer’s preestablished specifications and quality.
Quality assurance monitors spend 95 percent of their time on
the production floor at various quality assurance stations where
they test the product and run product samples. Quality assur-
ance monitors are responsible for making two audits of all the
production equipment per shift. During these audits, the quality
assurance monitors perform quality checks and document these
checks. Quality assurance monitors take product samples off
the machines and evaluate the quality of the product by looking
at various characteristics including color, print clarity, adhe-
sion, and the slickness and durability of the ink. The equipment
used by the quality assurance monitors in performing the tests
include computers which check the color of the print; a rub
tester which checks the ink to determine if the ink will rub off
when the product is shipped; a bar code scanner which verifies
that the proper code is on the product; and a heat sealer tester
which tests the adhesion of the glue on folded cartons.
If the quality assurance monitor determines that the product
does not meet the customer’s specifications, the quality assur-
ance monitor notifies either the quality control supervisor or the
production shift supervisor. The quality assurance monitor
cannot stop production, nor does the quality assurance monitor
discipline production employees for defects in the product. The
production shift supervisor or the quality assurance monitor
decides if the product should be quarantined for further evalua-
tion on whether the product should be salvaged or destroyed.
In the absence of a shift supervisor, the quality assurance moni-
tors can quarantine a product based on preestablished standard
operating procedures for quality control, but they have no au-
thority to decide whether the product is kept or thrown out.
The production shift supervisors do confer with the quality
assurance monitors on whether the product should be de-
stroyed.
The remaining 5 percent of the quality assurance monitor’s
time is spent documenting that the product meets the cus-
tomer’s specifications. The standard check sheets on the prod-
uct quality are generally kept in the quality control supervisor’s
office. While the quality assurance monitors fill out most of
these forms, some of them are filled out by the production em-
ployees including the pressmen. Any documentation that is
filled out by the production employees is checked by the qual-
ity assurance monitor to ensure that the form was filled out
correctly. The quality assurance monitors file samples, or batch
records, of each production run, which includes the first and
326 NLRB No. 108
KELLER CRESCENT CO. 1159
last piece of the product run, and these batch records are filed in
a quality control lab which is near the production area.
Quality assurance monitors have contact with the production
employees on a daily basis. The quality assurance monitors
work alongside the production employees on the work floor.
Production employees frequently confer with the quality assur-
ance monitors regarding whether a product is within the cus-
tomer’s specifications and whether a particular problem, such
as broken lettering, should be brought to the attention of man-
agement. Production employees also use some of the same
equipment used by the quality assurance monitors, including
the bar code scanner which has been used by the pressmen to
check the codes on the product they are running. Production
and maintenance employees and the quality assurance monitors
receive the same benefits including health benefits, vacation,
and profit sharing. The quality assurance monitors, like the
production employees, must receive approval for vacation days
or days off from the plant manager. Quality assurance monitors
receive their reviews from the plant manager or the production
shift supervisor.
Quality assurance monitors, like the production employees,
are hourly employees and they punch the same timeclock. The
quality assurance monitors work the same hours and have the
same number of breaks and the same 20-minute lunch period as
the production employees, though not all the employees take
their breaks and lunch at the same time. Quality assurance
monitors eat their lunch in the same cafeteria, share lockers
with, and wear the same brown uniform as production employ-
ees. The record does not specify the wages of the quality as-
surance monitors or those of the production employees. The
record reflects that the quality assurance monitor’s wages are
similar to some of the production classifications, higher than
some classifications, and lower than others. Quality assurance
monitors also transfer into production jobs, and production
employees can transfer into quality assurance positions, though
the record fails to reflect the frequency of these transfers. At
least one of the three quality assurance monitors was a produc-
tion employee prior to taking the position of quality assurance
monitor. The quality assurance monitors also perform produc-
tion work on an as needed basis when the Employer is short-
handed or when the production employees need to be relieved
for breaks, lunches, or other reasons. Again the record fails to
reflect the frequency with which quality assurance monitors
perform production work.
Despite the fact that at least one of the quality assurance
monitors reports to a different supervisor than the production
employees, and despite the fact that the quality assurance moni-
tors are in a separate department than the production employ-
ees, the testing and sampling work of the quality assurance
monitors is functionally integrated into the Employer’s produc-
tion operations. The Board has found that the role of quality
control is a vital part of the production process. Hogan Mfg.,
305 NLRB 806, 807 (1991). The quality assurance monitors
spend 95 percent of their time on the production floor and 5
percent of their time in the quality assurance lab filing paper-
work and samples. Quality assurance monitors have regular,
daily contact with the production employees when they are
performing tests on the production floor. Production employ-
ees also confer with the quality assurance monitors about the
quality of a product. As hourly employees, the quality assur-
ance monitors share similar terms and conditions of employ-
ment with employees in the production department, including
the same work rules and identical fringe benefits. I find, there-
fore, that the quality assurance monitors share a community of
interest with the employees in the production and maintenance
unit and are appropriately included in the unit. Virginia Mfg.
Co., 311 NLRB 992 (1993); Blue Grass Industries, 287 NLRB
274 (1987); Lindberg Heat Treating Co., 245 NLRB 1133
(1979); and Exxon Co., U.S.A., 225 NLRB 10 (1976).