Lindeman Power Equipment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 12, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 647 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of LINDEMAN POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , LODGE No. 1531,
PETITIONER
Case No. 19-R-1845.-Decided November 12, 1946
Messrs. Nat U. Brown, Paul H. Austin, and Charles M. Thorn, all
of Yakima, Wash., for the Employer.
Messrs. C. L. Bentley and I. A. Peck, both of Seattle, Wash., and
Mr. Ed Foster, of Yakima, Wash., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Warren H. Leland, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Yakima,
Washington, on August 13, 1946, before Daniel R. Dimick, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the
Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit
sought was inappropriate. The hearing officer referred this motion
to the Board. For reasons stated in Section IV, infra, the motion is
hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Lindeman Power Equipment Company, a Washington corporation
maintaining its plant at Yakima, Washington, is engaged in the
manufacture of agricultural machinery. During the 9-month period
preceding March 30, 1946, the Employer purchased raw materials,
consisting of steel , iron, brass, and moulding sand, valued at ap-
proximately $200,000, of which about 65 percent was received from
points outside the State of Washington. During the same period, the
Employer sold finished products valued at approximately $885,000,
of which about 85 percent was shipped to points outside the State.
71N L R B,No.99.
647
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employers.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The -Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner seeks to represent all inspectors employed at the
Employer's plant, excluding the foundry inspector and, the super-
visory inspector. The Petitioner wishes to represent these employees
as part of the unit of production and maintenance workers,' or in the
alternative, it desires to represent them in a separate unit. The Em-
ployer does not object to specific inclusions in and exclusions from the
unit. It contends generally that its inspectors do not constitute an
appropriate unit because such employees are representatives of man-
agement, presumably asserting thereby that they are not employees
within the meaning of the Act.
The record reveals that inspectors check the first part produced
by each new machine set-up in the machine shop. They may either
reject or accept these parts. If the part is accepted, operation of the
machine continues; if the part is rejected, production on the machine
ceases until the set-up is changed. After production is started and
accepted, the inspectors make periodic spot checks for imperfections.
If the spot check shows that an imperfect part is being manufactured
by any machine, the inspectors have the authority to stop production
on that machine until a supervisory employee permits continuance of
the job. Assembly inspectors may stop the assembly line at any time
if products do not conform with required standards. During the
performance of their work, inspectors use hand tools such as microm-
eters, calipers, rules and service plates, service gauges, and depth
gauges. They do not possess supervisory authority and are hourly
paid, as are production workers. Supervisory employees are all paid
on a monthly basis.
1 The Petitioner presently represents the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees. A contract executed by the parties on May 1, 1946 , did not include inspectors.
LINDEMAN POWER EQUIPMENT 649
We have frequently considered the status of inspectors similar to
those involved in this proceeding, and have held that they are em-
ployees within the meaning of the Act, and may be included in the
same unit with production and maintenance employees? We per-
ceive no valid reason for departing from our prior determinations.
We shall, however, permit the preference of the inspectors to determine
whether or not they shall be added to the existing production and
maintenance unit, and to that end' shall order a self-determination
election. If, at such election, inspectors select the Petitioner they will
thereby have indicated their desire to be included in the unit of pro-
duction and maintenance employees, and the Petitioner may accord-
ingly bargain for them as a part of such unit.
We shall direct that an election by secret ballot be held among all
inspectors employed by the Employer, excluding the foundry inspec-
tor, the supervisory inspector, and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Lindeman Power Equipment
Company, Yakima, Washington, an election by secret ballot shall be
conducted t,s early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from
the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections
203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 4, among the employees in the voting group described
in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or
on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the
armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at
the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by International Association of Machinists, Lodge No.
1531, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
2 See Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 54 N. L. R. B. 1 1303, Matter of
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 031. and Matter of The Whitcomb
Locomotive Company, 60 N L R. B. 1160.