Risdon Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 579 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

RISDON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 579
Risdon Manufacturing Company, Inc. and United
Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 1-RC-11,693
February 25, 1972
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed on August 1, 1971, under
Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, a hearing in this case was held on September
2 and 10, 1971, at Boston, Massachusetts, and on Sep-
tember 22, 23, 30, and October 1, 1971, at Waterbury,
Connecticut, before Hearing Officer Robert C., Rose-
mere. Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the above-
entitled matter was duly transferred by the Regional
Director for Region 1 to the Board for decision. The
Petitioner and the Employer filed briefs.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing and finds that they are free from
prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
4. The Employer, a Connecticut corporation, is en-
gaged in the production and the assembling of metal
and plastic parts, such as lipstick cases, compacts,
aerosol valves, safety pins, drapery hooks, and various
types of wire and metal stamped products that are sold
to other manufacturers. The main office for the Em-
ployer is in Naugatuck, where its Aerosol Division" and
its Fabricated Metal Products Division, hereinafter
called the MP, are located. The Employer also has
plants located in Danbury, Waterbury, and Thomas-
ton, Connecticut. The Naugatuck plant is about 25
miles from the Danbury plant, 3-% miles from- the Wa-
terbury plant, and 15 miles from the Thomaston plant.
All the plants lie within a radius of approximately 30
miles.
The Employer also filed a Motion To Reopen the Record which will be
discussed infra.
The Petitioner seeks to represent a production and
maintenance unit, including shipping, receiving, and
trucking employees limited to the Employer's plant at
Naugatuck, combining the FMP and the Aerosol Divi-
sions into a single appropriate unit. As an alternative
unit position, the Petitioner is willing to participate in
elections in two separate units of the same employees
of the FMP and the Aerosol Division of the Naugatuck
plant. The Petitioner is unwilling to participate in any
other unit determination.
The Employer, opposes the Petitioner's unit positions
and contends that all the Employer's plants constitute
a single appropriate unit; namely, the two divisions at
Naugatuck and the Danbury, Thomaston, and Water-
bury plants. As a modified alternative unit position, the
Employer would agree that the FMP Division at
Naugatuck and the Danbury plant, which comprise its
cosmetic operation, constitute an appropriate unit and
that the Aerosol Division at Naugatuck by itself consti-
tutes an appropriate unit. There is no history of collec-
tive bargaining.
The facts adduced at the hearing show that the FMP
Division was established in 1913 at its present location.
The,division's production is devoted to metal stamp-
ings which are used in the manufacture of lipstick cases
and compacts by the Danbury plant and as components
by the Employer's other plants. Together with the Dan-
bury plant the FMP Division comprises the Employer's
cosmetic operation. The various metal stampings pro-
duced at the FMP Division, which are sent to other
plants, including the Danbury plant, are finished at
those plants and then shipped directly to customers.
Approximately 70 percent of the lipstick cases and
compacts finished and assembled and shipped from
Danbury are primarily made from parts produced at
the FMP Division. The Waterbury plant produces wire
formed products such as safety pins, straight pins,
drapery hooks, and needles. The Thomaston plant per-
forms metalizing ' operations for products of the
Aerosol Division, the cosmetic operation, and Water-
bury plant, as well as for companies not owned by the
Employer. The Aerosol Division produces aerosol
valves, which are used in aerosol bottles and cans, as
well as plastic components for the aerosol valves, lip-
stick cases for the Danbury plant, and some compo-
nents for' the Waterbury plant.
Until early 1971 the FMP Division was a separate
administrative entity with its own manager, the same
as the other plants and the Aerosol Division. The
manager reported directly to the Employer's executive
vice president. In, 1971 the cosmetic operation, consist-
ing of the Danbury plant and the FMP Division, was
placed under an overall manager who reports directly
to the Employer's president. However, the managers of
the FMP Division and the Danbury plant continue to
spend 90 percent'of their time'in their home plants, and
195 NLRB No. 109
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the day-to-day management of the FMP-operation,has
not been significantly changed. Danbury and the FMP
Division hire employees from their own local areas,
train and directly supervise their own employees, and
have control of the hiring, promotion, and the giving
of raises to such employees. Although there is some
temporary transfer of employees from the 180 to 185
employees of FMP to Danbury and to other,plants, the
number of transfers is minimal. The record shows that
permanent transfers among the Employer's plants, in-
cluding the FMP and Aerosol Division , are insignifi-
cant.
The Aerosol Division was originally located in Dan-
bury, where it started around 1953. The division moved
to its Naugatuck location in 1967 where it was com-
bined with the Plastic Division to form the Aerosol
Division. Although both the FMP Division and the
Aerosol Division are located in Naugatuck in one large
building, they are physically separated. The FMP Divi-
sion occupies the older one-story part of the building,
together with the Employer's main offices, and the
Aerosol Division is located in a new two-story addition
to the building. The two divisions are separated by a
cinder block wall. The Aerosol Division is independ-
ently administered and is under the direction of a sepa-
rate division manager. The division advertises for its
own help and maintains its own employment office,
hires and trains its own employees, and determines the
status of its employees separately from the FMP Divi-
sion. There is little interchange of its 180 nonsupervi-
sory personnel between Aerosol and FMP, or among
the Employer's other plants.
In support of its contention that only a companywide
unit is appropriate the Employer stresses the following
common nexus and' integration among the plants. The
FMP Division toolroom frequently does toolmaking
for the other plants and builds jigs and fixtures for the
Danbury, Thomaston, and Waterbury plants. The en-
gineering section of the Aerosol Division serves all the
plants and builds, installs , and maintains certain equip-
ment for the other plants . Machinery and shipping
cartons are transferred among the various locations, as
the need arises. The Waterbury plant performs all the
printing for other plants , as well as for its own use, and
an independent trucking contractor services all the
plants on regularly scheduled trips using employer-
owned trailers . In addition , the executive offices are
located in Naugatuck and most of the purchasing, ac-
counting, billing, and accounts receivable for all plants
are handled from these offices. All insurance, including
liability, Workmen's Compensation, Blue Cross, and
health and accident are similar for all employees with
central administration' from the main offices in the
Naugatuck building . All plant managers meet regularly
on a biweekly basis in the Naugatuck plant and there
are common sales meetings for the -sales -departments of
the. various plants and divisions. ,
The record further shows that employee benefits,
such as holidays, vacations, pensions, funeral leave,
shift premium, insurance benefits, overtime premium,
leaves of absence, credit unions, and related benefits are
uniform in all the Employer's plants . The Employer
also maintains a uniform hiring policy , probation
period, and training period and has followed the prac-
tice for many years of granting uniform wage and fringe
benefit increases in all its plants and divisions.
While the record supports the Employer's position
that the Employer's plants are integrated insofar as
they involve executive, overall-managerial, engineering,
or service activities, and that uniform wage and person-
nel policies are maintained, the record also indicates
that each plant, and the FMP and Aerosol Divisions,
are organized to operate independently from each other
and each has a separate identity. Thus, each plant
"buys" products from other plants in the same fashion
that a plant would buy products from the outside, and
each has its own budget. In addition to their own sepa-
rate manager, as described above, who has the day-to-
day responsibility of running the plants or the divisions,
each plant has its own sales force. Although most of the
purchasingfor the various plants is done from, the main
office in Naugatuck, such purchases are based on requi-
sitions received from individual plants. Personnel
records of hourly -employees are kept at .the plant level
and each plant advertises for its own help and main-
tains its own employment office. The jobs and the skill
requirements of the work at each of the plants are
unique, and the machinery used and products pro-
duced differ among the plants.,
Although the FMP and the Aerosol, Divisions are
located in the same building and in the same city, the
record shows that in their day-to-day operations they
also operate independently of each other, the same as
the individual plants. The two divisions are physically
separated, are under separate managers , and perform
different types of work, and there is insignificant inter-
change between their supervisory and nonsupervisory
personnel.,For all practical purposes each of the divi-
sions operates in the same manner as individual plants
located at Danbury, Waterbury, and Thomaston.
In view of the foregoing and the entire record, espe-
cially the degree of automony in the operations of each
plant and the FMP and, the Aerosol Divisions, the lack
of substantial interchange ,. of employees, among the
various plants and divisions, the stability of the work
force, and the distinctive nature of the work at the
respective locations, we are unable to conclude that the
Employer's operations are so functionally integrated as
to preclude units smaller than on a multiplant basis.
Moreover, we find that the FMP and the Aerosol Divi-
sions are sufficiently distinct from each other and the
RISDON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 581
Employer's other plants, including the Danbury plant,
to be separately identifiable units consisting of em-
ployees which have a substantial community of inter-
est. Accordingly, we find that in the circumstances of
this case the FMP and -the Aerosol Divisions at the
Employer's Naugatuck location constitute separate ap-
propriate units and that such separate units will not
only assure to the employees the fullest freedom in
exercising the rights guaranteed by the Act, but will
also be viable units for collective-bargaining purposes.'
There remains for consideration the unit placement
of certain categories of employees which are in dispute.
Line foremen and group leaders. The Petitioner con-
tends that persons classified in these jobs are super-
visors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act
and should be excluded from the appropriate units. The
Employer would include them. The record shows that
unlike salaried foremen under whom they work they
are hourly paid. Generally, however, their hourly rate
is higher than that of other employees. They work the
same hours as production employees and do not attend
supervisory meetings. However, line foremen receive
certain time off for personal leave in addition to the
same fringe benefits as the production and maintenance
employees and as the group leaders. Neither line fore-
men nor group leaders have any authority to hire, sus-
pend, layoff, discharge, or discipline employees. The
record shows that they spend most of their time doing
physical work similar to the production or mainte-
nance employees in their groups or sections and that
their special responsibility is to maintain the flow of
work and their authority over other employees is for
that purpose. They have no independent responsibility
for the quantity or quality of production performed by
employees with whom they work, and they report to
the foremen if work runs out or if any difficulties are
encountered in work flow. Although some of the line
foremen or group leaders may, on occasion, make
recommendations to their foremen as to disciplinary
action or merit increases, the foremen do not accept
such recommendations without making their own inde-
pendent investigations. Employee, requests for time off
or a change in work status are generally made directly
to the foremen, and when made to group leaders or line
foremen are taken up with the foremen for them to take
independent action.
On the basis of the above and the entire record, we
find that line foremen and group leaders do not possess
the attributes of supervisors under the Act and for the
most part are conduits for foremen, and any authority
which they exercise over employees with whom they
work is related to their special skills and experience.
2 See, e.g, Dixie Belle Mills, Inc., 139 NLRB 629, 631-632; Matts Shop
Rite ofSpringfield, 182 NLRB 172, 173; Maryland Cap Corp., 182 NLRB
686, 687.
Accordingly, we find that the line foremen and group
leaders are nonsupervisory employees and shall include
them in units found appropriate herein.
Timekeepers, shipping clerks, and production control
clerks: The Petitioner would exclude these three
categories of clericals as lacking a community of inter-
est with unit employees because they receive greater
leave benefits than production and maintenance em-
ployees, work a large portion of their time closely with
supervisors, in some cases work the same hours as office
clericals, and are on a separate budget from the hourly
production employees. The Employer would include
them as plant clericals. The record shows that the em-
ployees involved are hourly paid, have little contact
with office clericals, work out of locations near
production areas, and spend a considerable portion of
their time in the areas with unit employees. The duties
of all three categories are directly concerned with-unit
work. We find that jobs involved are directly related to
unit work and these employees have plant clerical du-
ties. Accordingly, we shall include them in the appro-
priate units.
Research and development employees: The Petitioner
would exclude and the Employer would include the
two assemblers in the laboratory section and the three
toolmakers and molders who work in the Employer's
research and development department. The record
shows that employees in these job categories are all
hourly paid, work the same shift as the production
employees, receive similar wage rates and- fringe
benefits, and have skills related to production jobs.
However, the record also shows that the research and
development department is geographically separated
from the production and maintenance operations, the
employees involved in such work have little or no con-
tact with production and maintenance employees, and
there is no interchange or transfer. The research and
development employees work under separate super-
vision and production and plant employees are not
allowed in the research and development work areas.
In agreement with the Petitioner, we find that the re-
search and development hourly employees lack suffi-
cient community of interest with production and
maintenance employees to require their inclusion in the
units found appropriate herein and we shall, therefore,
exclude them.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of
the Employer constitute appropriate units for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
1. All production and maintenance, shipping, receiv-
ing and trucking employees, line foremen, group lead-
ers, timekeepers, shipping clerks, and production con-
trol clerks employed at the Employer's Fabricated
Metal Products Division located in Naugatuck, Con-
necticut, excluding watchmen, office employees, re-
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
search and development employees, salaried em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
as amended.
2. All production and maintenance, shipping, receiv-
ing and trucking employees, line foremen, group lead-
ers, timekeepers, shipping clerks, and production con-
trol clerks employed at the Employer's Aerosol
Division located at Naugatuck, Connecticut, excluding
watchmen, office employees, research and development
employees, salaried employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, as amended.
Although the units we thus find appropriate differ
from the plantwide unit at Naugatuck sought by the
Petitioner, we shall not dismiss the petition inasmuch
as the Petitioner has indicated that it is interested in
proceeding to elections in the above units. We shall,
therefore, order elections, as provided below, subject to
the Regional Director's ascertaining that the Petitioner
has made an adequate showing of interest among the
employees in the appropriate units. If the Petitioner
does not desire to participate in an election in the units
found appropriate herein, we shall permit it to with-
draw its petition without prejudice upon written notice
to the Regional Director within 10 days from the date
of this Decision.
On November 18, 1971, after the hearing had closed,
the Employer filed a Motion To Open the Record with
a supporting affidavit alleging that on September 30,
1971, the Employer entered into an agreement for the
purchase of certain assets and equipment of the Dorset
Division of the Dorset Company in Thomaston, as well
as the sublease of that Company's plant premises in
Thomaston, approximately 15 miles from Aerosol's
present location. The affidavit also alleges that the Em-
ployer has made a firm corporate decision to move the
entire Aerosol Division from its present location, as
well as the Vacuum-Metalizing plant in Thomaston to
the Dorset property. Accordingly, the Employer con-
tends the Aerosol Division in Naugatuck because of
proposed changes in geographical location, personnel,
and organization will have material and substantial
changes from the unit requested by the Petitioner. The
Employer's affidavit further contends that personnel
and machinery are now being transferred to the Dorset
location and that the changeover will be completed by
April 1972. In its opposition the Petitioner contends
that the proposed change is not of a sufficient size and
nature to preclude an immediate, election.
The Board, having duly considered the matter, is of
the opinion that the issues raised by the Employer's
Motion To Reopen the Hearing in regard to the
Aerosol Division can best be resolved on the basis of
record testimony in the matter. Accordingly,
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the Employer's Motion to
Reopen the Hearing in regard to the appropriateness of
a unit of the Aerosol Division at the Naugatuck loca-
tion be, and it hereby is, granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the record in this pro-
ceeding be, and it hereby is, reopened and, that further
hearing be held for the purpose of taking testimony
with respect to changes which have occurred in the
Aerosol Division since the original hearing and how
such changes have affected the appropriateness of the
Aerosol Division unit described above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be
remanded to the Regional Director for Region 1 for the
purpose of conducting such further hearing and that
the Regional Director be, and he hereby is, authorized
to issue notice thereof.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, however, that the election
in the unit found appropriate in the Fabricated Metal
Products Division at Naugatuck be held as directed
below.
[Direction of Election3 omitted from publication.]
' In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad-
dresses which may be used to communicate with them. Excelsior Under-
wear, Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R.B v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759
Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing
the names and addresses of all the eligibile voters, must be filed by the
Employer with the Regional Director for Region 1 within 7 days of the date
of this Decision and Direction of Election. The Regional Director shall
make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of time
to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordi-
nary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be
grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed