Mercury Marine Division

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 1120 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

l I20 DEClSlONS
Mercury
CIO, 30-UC-
Rcmgion
abl~ve-entitled
the
cec
quc:st
sioi~
Proc;ess I1 111
:lot
lloard.
t1.i~
concerning
t~rbitration
staterients
Iloard
foi
emp1o:iees
agreerrents
I!;,
icle
~u i ld in~s - ~ o u n d r ~
~e~aiiDepartments, loo;
dik
1."'
p r~ceed ing .~
to 1's.
79K/17790; 17-50-78
NL.RB
OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Marine Division of Brunswick Corporation
and District No. 10, International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-
Petitioner. Case 158
March 5, 1981
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On July 9, 1980, the Regional Director for
30 issued his Decision and Order in the
proceeding, in which he dismissed
petition seeking to add by way of clarification
three employees in the new job classification "Pro-
s Coordinator I" to the Petitioner's bargaining
unit. Thereafter, the Petitioner timely filed a re-
for review of the Regional Director's Deci-
on the grounds that in denying its clarification
request he made erroneous findings of fact and
corclusions of law, particularly his conclusion that
the three employees in the Process Coordinator I
classification do not have a sufficient community of
interest with the employees in the unit represented
by the Petitioner to warrant their inclusion in the
unit. Rather, he found such employees share a
closer community of interest with employees in the
Coordinator and classifications who
are in the unit.
On September 23, 1980, the Board by telegraphic
order granted the request for review. Thereafter
the Petitioner and the Employer filed briefs with
the
Subsequent to the filing of the petition, the par-
ties stipulated and agreed that in lieu of a hearing
in matter the case should be decided based
upon the transcript of an arbitration proceeding
the same facts, the exhibits received in
that hearing, the briefs of both parties to
the arbitrator's award, and any additional position
the parties would submit in this matter.
The has duly considered the submitted briefs
by the parties, as well as the transcript, exhibits,
and position statements in the arbitration proceed-
ing.
Upon the entire record, including the parties'
briefs and statements on review, the Board makes
the lowing findings:

The Petitioner requests the inclusion of the three

in the new job classification "Process
Coordmator I" in the unit it represents as accre-
tions thereto. The record shows that the Employer
has entered into a series of collective-bargaining
with the Petitioner, the most recent of
which has effective dates from June 19, 1978, to
June 1980, and provides in relevant part:
Ar 1 , Recognition
I . I (Lodge 1947, Fond du Lac)
254 No. 146
The Company recognizes the Union as the sole
and exclusive collective bargaining agent for all
production and maintenance employees, including
all classifications in the Production Departments,
the Production Tool Room, the Machine Shop, the
Testing Department, the Maintenance Department,
and Grounds, Oil Facility, the
Facilitv. Die Cast Facility, Customer Service and
Inspectors, Final Inspec-
tors, and Salvage Inspectors in the Inspection De-
partment, Time Recording Clerks, Lead persons,
Mechanic Specialists, Cycle Counters, Distribution
Facility, Shipping and Receiving Department, In-
vestment Castings Facility, and all other production
and maintenance departments which may be added
to the collective bargaining unit in the future cov-
ered by this Agreement, (but excluding all execu-
tives, office and clerical employees, laboratory em-
ployees, professional employees, sales representa-
tives, product development and testing personnel,
layout inspectors, paint inspectors, final line inspec-
tors, watchpersons, guards and supervisory employ-
ees as defined in the the Labor-Management Rela-
tions Act.)
The dispute involves the die-casting operation.
Prior to October 1978, the setting up and operation
of the die-casting machines was performed by bar-
gaining unit employees classified as die-cast ma-
chine operators and setup persons. Beginning in
October 1978, an electronically programmed
system, called Unimate, was installed on a total of
five machines. Each Unimate system operates
either one or two machines. It sprays the auto-
matically, ladles molten metal in the chamber auto-
matically, engages the injection ram, ejects the
casting after the proper curing time, and deposits
the finished casting in a basket which is then
hauled away by bargaining unit personnel.
When the system was installed, the Petitioner's
first grievance was filed alleging that operation of
the system by a foreman was in violation of the
collective-bargaining contract in that this was bar-
gaining unit work. Subsequently, the Employer
created a new position designated officially as
"Process Coordinator This action by the Em-
ployer gave rise to the second grievance again al-
leging that unit work was being performed by per-
sonnel outside the bargaining unit in violation of
the contract.
Both grievances were subsequently the subject of
an arbitration A hearing was held on
November 8, 1979, and the grievances were denied
by an award dated April 4, 1980. The arbitrator
viewed the issue as one "involving possible viola-
tion of the collective bargaining agreement by the
Hereinafter referred as PC

FMCS No. Grievances and 17-17-79,

BRUNSWICK I121
1,"
w o n
1's
1's
product^,^
they
thcir
1's us4-
record
handlers,
sl:rvicing
are
whereas
I1 111 are.4
11's 111's
I'C I's,
1's
le 2(11)
supervisors.The
csnly
1's
and
1's
1's
o1)eration
' Here1n:lfter I1 111.
Hrnkind. on Individual. Greenpark
Willoughby Healrh Relari~d Faciliry. (1977);
Fwik Inr.. o j Resrauranr,
1260. I262
parts6
C ~ m p n y , ~
exper t i~e .~
1's
Petitioner.I0
9(b)
ir
11'5
'
bargain~ng issue 1's
suflicient w ~ t h
warranl
(1975).
O N ~ Z Funem1 Corp.. (1980).
l o Shiphuildrng und Manitowac 191
(1971): Secur~ry Sysrems. 188 (1971).
MERCURY MARINE DIVISION OF CORPORATION
Employer in assigning bargaining unit work to the
Process Coordinator and placed the burden of
proving this allegation by a preponderance of the
evidence the Union. In finding that the Em-
ployer had not violated the collective-bargaining
agreement between the parties, he found that the
Union had not met that burden of proof.
In its petition to the Board, the Petitioner seeks
to clarify the unit by including the three employees
described i s PC on the basis that they share a
community of interest with the unit employees. We
agree.
Record facts show that the three employees
known as PC who operated the Unimate system
were originally part of the bargaining unit, two
die-cast machine operators, and one die-cast setup
employee. They still work in the same area as the
unit employees, they share the same responsibility
for quant ty and quality of and occa-
sionally assist each other when trouble devel-
ops in respective machines. This is to be ex-
pected, since they operate the same machines as
the die-cast operators, the difference being that the
PC an electronic method and the other em-
ployees operate their machines manually.
The further shows that the metal haulers,
material setup men, die repair personnel,
maintenance crew janitors, and other support per-
sonnel, both manual and automatic ma-
chines, all part of the same bargaining unit pur-
suant to the terms of the contract, and share the
same overall supervision.
We also note that the PC I classification is a new
one, and not utilized at other plants of the Employ-
er, the classifications of Process Coordina-
tor and The record also shows that PC
and PC have never constituted a part of
the bargaining unit, are not assigned machines as
are the and do in fact operate as technical
employe-s with supervisory authority.
The Regional Director found, and we agree, that
the PC do not possess sufficient authority
within t meaning of Section of the Act so
as to be classified as record
shows one instance of a verbal warning by
one of the PC since the category was estab-
lished no written warning or other exercise of
supervisory authority. Moreover PC have never
While he PC received 2 weeks' training, i t did not relate to the
technical o f the Unimate system.
called PC and PC
Sol d /b /a Care Center, formerly
known as 231 NLRB 753
Tower d /b /a Tower rhe Americas 221 NLRB
(1975).
handled a plant grievance or "blue-tagged" a
basket of finished cast
Nor are we persuaded by the reasoning of the
arbitrator.' As the Board stated in Union Electric
a unit classification petition is an appro-
priate proceeding for resolving ambiguities con-
cerning the unit placement of individuals who, for
example, come within a newly established classifi-
cation of disputed unit placement. In any event, the
Board has held that issues involving appropriate-
ness of unit and criteria are particularly within the
Board's
In view of all of the foregoing facts, we con-
clude that the three Process Coordinator consti-
tute a proper accretion to the bargaining unit rep-
resented by the
We find that the following constitutes a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees,
including all classifications in the Production
Departments, the Production Tool Room, the
Machine Shop, the Testing Department, the
Maintenance Department, Buildings and
Grounds, Oil Facility, the Foundry Facility,
Die Cast Facility, including Process Coordina-
tor I's, Customer Service and Repair Depart-
ments, Floor Inspectors, Final Inspectors, and
Salvage Inspectors in the Inspection Depart-
ment, Time Recording Clerks, Lead persons,
Mechanic Specialists, Cycle Counters, Distri-
bution Facility, Shipping and Receiving De-
partment, Investment Castings Facility, and all
other production and maintenance departments
which may be added to the collective bargain-
ing unit in the future covered by an agree-
ment, but excluding all executives, office and
clerical employees, laboratory employees, pro-
fessional employees, sales representatives,
product development and testing personnel,
layout inspectors, paint inspectors, final line in-
spectors, watchpersons, guards and supervi-
sory employees as defined in the Labor-Man-
agement Relations Act.
"Blue-tagging" a procedure wherein an entire load of product
parrs is rejected by a supervisor as inferior and lacking in quality. PC
and PC Ill's exercise such authority.
There, the issue was whether unit work was being performed by per-
sonnel outside the unit. Here, the is whether the PC
share a community o f interest other production and main-
tenance employees so as to their inclusion in the bargaining unit.
217 NLRB 666
Home 250 NLRB 730
Manirowac Inc. rhe Company, Inc.,
NLRB 786 Burns Inc., NLRB 222
I122
1 7
employ-
1's
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, at the Employer's
in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, be, and it It is hereby ordered that the unit of production Plant
and maintenance employees represented by District hereby is, clarified by including therein its
who are No. 10, International Association of Machinists and ees classified as Process Coordinator
employed by the Employer at that location.