Schick Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 4, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 931 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

SCHICK INCORPORATED 931
As we have found that, as of the time that the charge was filed in
Case No. 13-CD-37, the parties had agreed upon methods for the vol-
untary adjustment of the dispute, we find that we are without authority
to determine this dispute, and shall accordingly quash the notice of
hearing issued in this proceeding. However, with respect to the dis-
pute over the installation of the wood strips, we make no finding. In-
asmuch as neither the Bank nor Jobst was served with notice or par-
ticipated at the hearing, we find that the dispute over the wood strips
is not before us because not all of the necessary parties participated
in the proceedings. Furthermore, we make no finding with respect to
any dispute which may exist between the Pipefitters and Peoria Pip-
ing, likewise because Peoria Piping was not served with notice and
did not make an appearance at this proceeding.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]
ACTING CHAIRMAN RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order Quashing Notice of Hearing.
pressly identifying employees whose duties include the disputed work and, in fact, sheet
metal workers are expressly excluded from the unit. The contract appears to contain such
a broad and unqualified assignment of work to the Pipefitters that, if taken literally, it
would cover tasks and skills admittedly not claimed by the Pipefitters, but customarily
belonging to other craft groups such as sheet metal workers, electricians, and carpenters-
For this reason, the -contract at best is ambiguous and indecisive.
Schick Incorporated and District No. 98 , International Association
of Machinists, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 4-RC-2760. Novem-
ber 4,1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Seymour X. Aisher, 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 this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organisations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning, the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9'(c) (1) andSection2 (6) and(7) of the Act.
= International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, District Council No. 1,
CIO, herein called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its showing
of interest in the unit sought. ,
114 NLRB No. 143.
357644-56-vol. 114-60
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of electric
shavers and accessories. It recently moved its plant to Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, from Stamford, Connecticut. For approximately the
past 12 years the Petitioner'has bargained with the Employer for the
Employer's employees at the Stamford plant in separate units of pro-
-duction employees and maintenance employees. The parties are in
basic agreement, however, that a single unit of production and mainte-
nance employees is now appropriate. The parties further agree that
floor, inspectors, gauge control inspectors, instructors, group leaders,
senior group leader-toolroom, chief electrician, and setup men should
be included in the unit; and that check inspectors, work inspectors,
timekeepers, production schedulers, posting clerks, work center clerks,
and temporary employees should be excluded from the unit. Six clas-
sifications, however, remain in dispute. The disputed classifications
and the Board's rulings as to their unit placement, are as follows :
Supply clerks-maintenance and supply clerks-storekeepers: The
Employer would exclude and the Petitioner and the Intervenor would
include these employees. The Employer contends that the supply
clerks-maintenance and the supply clerks-storekeepers have inter-
ests more closely allied with management than with the other
employees.
The record shows that the supply clerks-maintenance are located
in the production area in an enclosure called the "storage cage"; are
supervised by the maintenance foreman; maintain stores records for
the maintenance department; issue supplies to mechanics; write up job
and time tickets; and make out maintenance department reports.
The supply clerks-storekeepers work in the production area of the
plant under the immediate supervision of the stores foreman ; issue
supplies to the production workers ; move supplies ; and take inven-
tories and maintain records of supplies.
In these circumstances, we find, contrary to the Employer's conten-
tion, that the supply clerks-maintenance and the supply clerks-
storekeepers are plant clericals whose interests are most closely allied
with those of the production and maintenance employees? Accord-
ingly, we shall include them in the unit.
Shipping clerks and receiving clerks: The Employer would ex-
clude and the Petitioner and the Intervenor would include these em-
ployees. The Employer contends that these employees have interests
substantially different from those of the production and maintenance
employees.
The shipping clerks work in the shipping department under the
supervision of the shipping room foreman; make out the various forms
required to ship packages ; and spend the majority of the time perform-
=ing clerical duties, but spend about 25 percent of their time in the
2 See United States Rubber company, 113 NLRB 746.
SCHICK INCORPORATED 933
physical handling of packages. In its brief the Employer appears to
•suggest that these employees have supervisory authority, when it notes
that the shipping clerks assign or direct other shipping department
employees who are manhandling packages. However, it appears from
the record, that any such assignments or directions that the shipping
clerks may give are purely routine in nature.
The receiving clerks work in the receiving area under the supervision
of the production control manager. At the hearing, the Employer's
director of industrial relations testified that the duties of the receiving
aclerks are virtually identical with those of the shipping clerks.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the shipping clerks and-the
receiving clerks are plant clericals having a mutuality of interests with
the production and maintenance employees.3 We further find that
neither the shipping clerks nor the receiving clerks possess supervisory
.authority. Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit.
Layout inspectors : The Employer would exclude the layout inspector
as a technical employee. The Petitioner and the Intervenor would in-
elude this classification. The Employer's director of industrial rela-
tions testified that the layout inspector performs quality control work.
The layout inspector's duties consist of-inspecting incoming shipments
,of parts from the Employer's various suppliers and inspecting first
runs of parts made by the Employer's own production and maintenance
employees. The layout inspector usually works alone and in a sepa-
Tate enclosure, and on occasion he may spend as much as 50 percent of
his time away from the plant visiting the plants of the Employer's
suppliers to check on their production of parts. The layout inspector
works with complex gauging setups and complicated blueprints. He
must know mathematics, including trigonometry. The layout inspec-
tor performs no production work, is salaried, and is substantially
higher paid than the production employees.
Under these circumstances, we find that the layout inspector is a
technical employee.' In view of our established policy of excluding
technical employees whenever any party objects to their inclusion,'
we shall exclude the layout inspector from the unit.
Tool, die, and gauge inspector: The Employer would exclude the
tool, die, and gauge inspector as a technical employee. The Petitioner
and the Intervenor would include this classification. There is pres-
ently no employee employed in this classification but it is contemplated
that an employee will be hired for this job. The record` shows only
that this employee classification was included in the unit and was
hourly paid at the Stamford plant; that the tool, die, and gauge in-
spector will work in a separate room under' the supervision of the
a See United States Rubber Company, s̀upra. See also Eagle Iron and Brass Company;
110 NLRB 747, 748, footnote 2.
4 United States Gypsum Company, 114 NLRB 523.
$ Ibid.
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
toolroom foreman; and that this employee's duties at the Lancaster
plant may differ somewhat from the duties of the tool, die, and gauge
inspector at the Stamford plant. The foregoing facts are not sufficient
to enable us to determine the proper unit placement of the tool, die,.
and gauge inspector. Accordingly, we shall not do so here but shall
permit any employees hired and working in this classification prior
to the eligibility date as established herein to vote subject to challenge.
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Lan-
caster, Pennsylvania, plant, including floor inspectors, gauge control
inspectors, instructors, group leaders, senior group leader-toolroom,
chief electrician, setup men, supply clerks-maintenance, supply
clerks-storekeepers, shipping clerks, and receiving clerks, but ex-
cluding check inspectors, work inspectors, timekeepers, production
schedulers, posting clerks, work center clerks, layout inspectors, tem-
porary employees, office clerical employees, technical employees, pro-
fessional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. At the time of the hearing the Employer was still engaged in the
process of hiring new employees in order to bring its employee com-
plement at the Lancaster plant to full strength. Approximately 134
applicants for employment had either been notified to report to work
on a specified future date, or had been notified that they were accept-
able and would be called "as soon as possible." It appears from the
record that past experience has shown that approximately 25 percent
of these "notified" employees, for one reason or another, ultimately
fail to accept employment with the Employer. The Employer con-
tends that these applicants have a status equivalent to temporarily
laid-off employees and should be permitted to vote regardless of
whether they have actually reported to work on or before the estab-
lished payroll eligibility date, i. e., the payroll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction of Election. The Petitioner and
the Intervenor contend that only those employees actually working
on or before the eligibility date should be permitted to vote.
In the circumstances, we find no reason to depart from the estab-
lished Board rules that, in order to vote, an individual must be em-
ployed and working on the established eligibility date, unless that
individual was absent for one of the reasons set out in the Direction
of Election .6
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
0 Barry Controls Incorporated, 113 NLRB 26.