Luminous Processes, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 18, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 405 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of Lu_YrINOUS PROCESSES, INC., EMPLOYER and PLAY-
THINGS, JEWELRY & NOVELTY WORKERS, C. I. 0., PETITIONER
Case No. 13-R-3643.-Decided October 18, 1946
IlIr. R. E. Turner, of Ottawa, Ill., for the Employer.
Messrs. Walter Ignatowicz and Henry J. Henry, of Chicago, Ill., for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Elmer P. Freischlag, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon an amended petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations
Board, on June 18, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among em-
ployees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine
whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the par-
ties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 86 eligible
voters, that 83 of these eligible voters cast ballots, of which 66 were
for the Petitioner, 10 were against, and 7 were challenged.
Thereafter, hearing in the case was held at Ottawa, Illinois, before
Sidney Grossman, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS or FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Luminous Processes, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is engaged at its
Ottawa, Illinois, plant in the coating with luminous substances of
dials and hands of meters and clocks. During the year 1945, the Em-
ployer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $100,000, of which
approximately 80 percent represented shipments to this plant from
points outside the State of Illinois. During the same period, the
71 N. L. R. B., No. 59. 1
405
406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer-sold finished products amounting in value, to over $100,000,
about 25 percent of which represented shipments to points outside the
State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations; claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
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 Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Ottawa, Illinois, plant of the Employer, including in-
spectors, but excluding technical employees, office employees, and
supervisors. The sole disagreement between the parties relates to the
inspectors. At the hearing, the Employer sought to exclude these
employees from the unit; In its brief, it argued, in the alternative, that
a separate election should be conducted among the inspectors to de-
termine if they desire to be included in the, unit- of production, and
maintenance employees.
There are seven employees in the disputed classification. In general,
these inspectors spend approximately 70 percent of their time in per-
forming inspection duties and the remainder in packing finished prod-
ucts for shipment. In addition, five of these employees rotate, on a
monthly basis, in weighing and issuing to production employees lumi-
nous substances used in the production process. The inspectors work
in close proximity with the production employees, receive comparable
rates of pay, enjoy a similar vacation policy, and are under the same
supervision as the production employees. Furthermore, during emer-
gencies in the past, production employee's have temporarily served in
the capacity of inspectors.
The inspection duties of the employees in issue consist mainly of
checking the quality of the Employer's finished products. In this
LUMINOUS PROCESSES, INC. 407
connection, it appears that the inspectors do not work with testing
instruments or according to fixed norms or specifications, but rely in-
stead on their own judgment in determining whether the articles will
meet the customers' requirements. As to work found defective, the
inspectors may either reject the articles or return them to the operators
for correction and in the event of repeated deficiencies, may report
the matter to the supervisor who takes whatever action she deems nec-
essary. However, the inspectors have no authority to hire, discharge
or effectively recommend a change in the status of employees whose
work they inspect.
The Employer opposes the inclusion of the inspectors, in effect, on
the grounds that : (1) such inclusion would interfere with the faithful
performance of their duties, inasmuch as there would be a tendency
to pass inferior work and to handle less efficiently the distribution of
luminous and other materials which constitute the controlling factors
in the Employer's costs; (2) in the event of grievances relating to
rejections, the Employer would be at a disadvantage, inasmuch as it
would have to rely on its inspectors who exercise virtually sole and
final judgment as to the quality of work produced; and (3) the inspec-
tors, in rejecting faulty work, may affect the earnings and status of
production employees and, therefore, they should be excluded from
the unit as supervisory or managerial employees. We find no merit
in these contentions. With respect to grounds (1) and (2), it is clear
that improper inspection work and inattention to duties by the in-
spectors would necessarily redound to their own disadvantage by
affecting their positions with the Employer. Moreover, we have fre-
quently held that there is no incompatibility between the faithful per-
formance of duty and the enjoyment of benefits under the Act., As
to the contention that the inspectors are supervisory or managerial
employees, we are of the opinion that the inspectors' authority to reject
and, in certain instances, to report on defective work is insufficient to
constitute supervisory or managerial authority within the Board's
customary definition of these terms.'
Accordingly, inasmuch as the evidence fails to establish that the in-
spectors are managerial, confidential, or supervisory employees, and
it appears from the record that a community of interest in the condi-
tions of employment exists between the inspectors and the produc-
tion and maintenance employees, we shall, consistently with prior
1 See Matter of Harvester War Depot, Inc., 63 N. L. R. B. 249, and Matter of New York
World-Telegram Corporation , 58 N. L. R. B 1149.
Matter of The Schaible Foundry tend B•ra88 Works Company, 69 N. L. R. B. 527 ; Matter
of Schuler Axle Company , Inc., 64 N. L. R. B . 740; and Matter of General Cigar Co.,
Inc., 64 N . L. R. B. 300.
408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unanimous decisions of the Board, reject the unit contentions of the
Employer and include the inspectors in the unit hereinafter found
appropriate.3
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Ottawa, Illinois, plant, including inspectors, but excluding
technical employees, office employees, supervisors and all other super-
visory employees with authority to hire, pronnote, discharge, discipline,
or-otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held prior to the hearing show that the
Petitioner received a majority of the valid votes cast. Inasmuch as
the number of challenged ballots and our present determination with o
respect to the disputed category of employees in no way affect the
results of the election, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective
bargaining representative of the employees in the unit found appro-
priate.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Playthings, Jewelry R Novelty Workers,
C. I. 0., has been designated and selected by a majority of all produc-
tion and maintenance employees of Luminous Processes, Inc., at its
Ottawa, Illinois, plant, including inspectors, but excluding technical
employees, office employees, supervisors, and all other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec-
ommend such action, as their representative for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the
said organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees
for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., dissenting in part :
Since the duties of the seven inspectors whose ballots are in question
demand the exercise of individual judgment and discretion rather than
the routine application of previously prepared standards, and since
a Matter of Cameron Machine Company,' 67 N. Ti R. B.'1066 ; 'Matter of"TVZer Fixture
Corporation, Southwest Div., 67 N . L. R. B. 945; Matter of The Whitney Blake Company,
66 N. L . R. B. 491; Matter of United States Gypsum Company, 65 N. L R. B. 575; and
Matter of The Babcock d Wilcox Co , 65 N. L. R B 83.
LUMINOUS PROCESSES, INC. 409
the determinations thus concluded directly affect the remuneration
of the production workers involved in this election, I would sustain
the objections of the Employer. In the objective execution of their
duties these inspectors are performing an important final step in the
management technique and hence I do not discern the community of
interest which I consider desirable in collective bargaining groups.