Minneapolis Honeywell Regulator Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 314 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of MINNEAPOLIS HONEYWELL REGULATOR COMPANY and
UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 1145, CIO
In the Matter Of MINNEAPOLIS HONEYWELL REGULATOR COMPANY and
THE MINNEAPOLIS FEDERATION OF HONEYWELL ENGINEERS
Cases Nos . 18-R-1347 and 18-R-1409, respectively.Decided
March 6, 1946
Mr. S. M. Site, of Minneapolis, Minn., for the Company.
Mr. Douglas Hall, of Minneapolis, Minn., for the U. E.
Mr. J. Steward McClendon, of Minneapolis, Minn., for the
Federation.
Mr. Philip Licari, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon separate petitions duly filed by United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America, Local 1145, CIO, and The Minne-
apolis Federation of Honeywell Engineers, herein respectively called
UE and Federation, each alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Minneapolis Honeywell Regulator Company, Minneapolis, Minne-
sota, the National Labor Relations Board consolidated the cases and
provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Stephen
M. Reynolds, Trial Examiner.' The hearing was held at Minne-
apolis, Minnesota, on July 31, August 2, and December 20, 1945, and
January 2 and 3, 1946. The Company, the UE, and the Federation
appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full oppor-
i On November 19, 1945, subsequent to the filing of the petition by the Federation,
the Board ordered that both eases be consolidated and that the record on the hearing
held on the original petition filed by the UE be reopened to adduce further evidence
with respect to the claims of both petitioners.
66 N. L. R. B., No. 35.
314
MINNEAPOLIS HONEYWELL REGULATOR COMPANY 315
tunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues . The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed . All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs
with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case , the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Minneapolis Honeywell Regulator Company, a Delaware corpo-
ration , is engaged at its various plants in the manufacture , sale, and
distribution of automatic control devices. Its Minneapolis, Minne-
sota , plant is the only one involved in this proceeding. Annually,
the Company purchases for this plant raw materials valued at
approximately $3,000 ,000, of which 75 percent is shipped from
points outside the State of Minnesota . During the same period, the
Company produces at this plant finished goods valued in excess of
$1,000 ,000, of which 75 percent is shipped outside the State of
Minnesota.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local
1145, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a
labor organization , admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
The Minneapolis Federation of Honeywell Engineers , unaffiliated,
is a labor organization , admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On July 2 , 1945 , the UE advised the Company that it represented
a majority of certain of the Company 's employees at its Minneapolis,
Minnesota , plant and wished to be recognized as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of such employees . On or about October 4,
1945 , the Federation notified the Company of its claim to represen-
tation of certain of its employees at the Company 's Minneapolis
plant. The Company refused to recognize either the UE or the
Federation until certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
316 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
. Statements of a Field Examiner for the Board, introduced into
evidence at the hearing, indicate that the UE and the Federation
each represents a substantial number of employees in the unit it
alleges to be appropriate .2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Federation seeks a unit of all engineers and technical
employees in the Engineering Division and Methods Department a
of the Company's Minneapolis, Minnesota, operations, including
sales engineers working throughout the Minneapolis-St. Paul area,
time-study engineers, chemists, patent' engineers, material specifica-
tion engineers, physicists, metallurgists, mathematicians, draftsmen,
technical writers, and the senior clerks of the factory contact group,
but excluding sales engineers working outside the St. Paul-Minne-
apolis area, fixture mechanics, model shop, clerical, production,
maintenance, and supervisory employees. The UE, on the other
hand, desires a unit of all engineers and technical employees limited
to the Company's Test Department of the Engineering Division, in-
cluding fixture mechanics, but excluding supervisory employees.
The Company takes no position with respect to the appropriateness
of the unit sought by the Federation, but it opposes the creation
of the unit claimed by the UE on the ground that it is inappropriate
for collective bargaining purposes. In the event the Board finds
either unit appropriate, the Company would exclude all sales
engineers.
The Company operates an engineering division which is divided
into two main departments, namely, Design and Development, and
Test. The record shows that the operations of this Division and
of the Methods Department are under the over-all supervision of
one of the Company's vice presidents, who is responsible for all
matters of general policy, including wages, standards of employment,
and working conditions. The evidence indicates that there is close
similarity of qualifications, rates of pay, and general working con-
ditions among all the foregoing engineering and technical employees.
2 The Field Examiner reported that the UE submitted 21 authorization cards and
that the unit it alleged to be appropriate is composed of approximately 28 employees.
He further reported that the Federation submitted 132 application for membership cards,
and that there are about 224 employees in the unit it alleged to be appropriate.
$ Although the methods Department was transferred administratively from the Engi-
neering to the Production Division , its functions are no different than they were as
part of the Engineering Department, and the bulk of the employees in it are graduate
engineers and technicians,
MINNEAPOLIS HONEYWELL REGULATOR COMPANY 317
It further appears that there are frequent interchanges of engineer-
ing and technical employees among the afore-mentioned depart-
ments. Thus, the functions and interests of all engineers and
technical employees in its various departments are closely related.
The UE's request for a unit of engineers and technical employees
limited to the Test Department rests primarily on the fact that its
organization has been extended only to these employees. Although,
in the past, the Board has found appropriate units composed of de-
partmental or other homogeneous groups of employees pending more
complete organization on a broader basis, it will not customarily
predicate a unit finding on the extent of one union's organization
where, as here, organization of the employees by a rival union has
been effected on the basis of a broader and more inclusive bargain-
ing unit. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the unit sought by
the UE is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.4
We shall, therefore, dismiss the UE's petition.
As stated above, the Company would exclude, whereas the Feder-
ation would include, the following category of employees :
Sales engineers: The Company has approximately 40 sales offices
located throughout the United States. In these offices, there are
sales engineers who are engaged in selling the Company's products
and in acting as consultants to prospective buyers. Because of their
location, these sales engineers have comparatively little association
with the Company's other engineers and technical employees. We
are of the opinion that they have no substantial interests in common
with the other technical and engineering employees sought herein.
We shall, therefore, exclude sales engineers from the unit.
We find that all engineers and technical employees in the En-
gineering Division and the Methods Department of the Company's
Minneapolis, Minnesota, plant, including material specification en-
gineers," time-study engineers, chemists, patent engineers, physicists,
metallurgists, mathematicians, draftsmen, technical writers, and the
senior clerk of the factory contact group, but excluding all sales
engineers , fixture mechanics, and model shop, clerical, production,
and maintenance employees, and all supervisory employees with au-
thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4 See Matter of Florida Power 4 Light Company, 63 N. L. R B. 484; and Matter of
Union Switch and Signal Company, 63 N L. R. B. 974.
"Including Juel Enstad and C. E. Holdridge who, although classified as "miscellaneous"
employees , are shown by the record to be technical employees . Excluding, however,
H. P. Halverson , Vernon Church , Han Lawson who, although classified as technicians,
itre in fact routine unskilled workers.
3 18 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction. ,
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor 'Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Minneapolis
Honeywell Regulator Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, an election
by secret ballot shall be conducted as 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,Eight-
eenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of
said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the,unit found
appropriate 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 in-
cluding employees in the armed forces of the United States who
present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those em-
ployees 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 The Min-
neapolis Federation of Honeywell Engineers, for the purposes of
collective bargaining."
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the cases, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
0 At the hearing, the TIE did not indicate whether or not it wished to appear on the
ballot If the Board found appropriate a unit other than the one comprised of the em-
ployees In the Test Department.
Should the UE desire to participate itt the election directed herein, It should notify
the Regional Director In writing within five (5 ) days from date of this Decision and
Direction.
MINNEAPOLIS HONEYWELL REGULATOR COMPANY 319
orders that the petition for investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives of employees of Minneapolis Honeywell Regulator Com-
pany, Minneapolis, Minnesota, filed by United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America, Local 1145, C. I. 0., in Case No.
18-R-1347, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.