Mercury Marine DivisionDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 5, 1981254 N.L.R.B. 1120 (N.L.R.B. 1981) Copy Citation 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. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation