Titeflex, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 2, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 223 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

TITEFLEX, INC. 223 TITEFLEX, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIR- CRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW- CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-5340. March R, 1953 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 Samuel Korenblatt, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. 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 organization 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) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner is currently recognized by the Employer as the bargaining representative of its production and maintenance em- ployees. By this petition the Petitioner seeks to represent in a sep- arate unit, all shop and office clerical and technical employees. The parties stipulated as to the appropriateness of the unit requested. They are also in agreement as to the general composition of the unit, but were unable to agree as to whether certain classifications should be included in the unit. The Employer contends that junior engineers, sales representatives, sales engineers, customers' serviceman, field engineer buyer grade I, and matron should be included in the unit. The Petitioner contends that the matron properly belongs in the pro- duction and maintenance unit and should be excluded from the unit sought herein, that the junior engineers should be excluded because they are professional employees and that the other above-named em- ployee classifications sought to be included by the Employer should be excluded because they are managerial employees. The Employer contends that payroll clerks, telephone operators, and relief opera- tors are confidential employees and should therefore be excluded from the unit. The Petitioner denies that these employees are confidential employees and seeks to include them in the unit. Junior engineers. The Employer employs 6 junior engineers, 4 of whom work in the engineering department and 2 of whom work in 103 NLRB No. 23. 224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the quality control department.' Those working in the engineering department are employed as layout draftsmen and test lab techni- cians. They design work on drawing boards and perform mathemati- cal calculations. They work under close supervision of a project en- gineer and from time to time under the supervision of draftsmen (who are included in the unit). An engineering degree is not required of these employees. Although all four junior engineers in the engi- neering department do have such degrees, the record indicates that the duties of their job do not require the use of knowledge which can be gained only from a specialized course of study necessary to obtain such degrees. The junior engineers work in the same general area as the clerical employees, under the same working rules and regulations, and receive the same benefits. We find that the junior engineers are technical employees and we will include them in the unit 2 Sales representatives. The sales representatives solicit customers locally within the Metropolitan New York area. As a group they spend more than 50 percent of their time in the office. They normally report to the office every day. While in the office they perform routine sales correspondence work. They work in the same general area as do the clerical employees, are subject to the same working rules and regu- lations and receive the same employee benefits. When soliciting cus- tomers they may quote prices approved by their superiors but have no authority to set their own prices or to commit the Employer to any transaction without the final approval of their supervisor. Their work is directly related to that of the other employees in the unit. We find that these employees are not managerial employees and that they have a sufficient community of interest with the other employees in the unit to warrant including them.3 Sales engineers. The work of the sales engineers is, in general, similar to that of the sales representatives. They handle certain special accounts which require the close attention of one individual. They handle all correspondence dealing with these accounts and an- swer telephone inquiries concerning them. One of the 2 individuals in this classification is out of the office about 20 percent of the time. The other individual may be gone from the office for 2 or 3 days at a time due to the geographical location of his accounts. Other than that they perform all their work in the office. They are required to have some technical knowledge with respect to the Company's prod- 'In its brief the Petitioner agreed that the two junior engineers in the quality control department are technical employees and should be included in the unit . We agree and furthermore we are unable to perceive such a distinction between their duties and the duties of the other junior engineers which would warrant finding that one group is comprised of professional employees and not the other. 2 Sonotone Corporation, 90 NLRB 1236. 8 The Constitution Publishing Company, 81 NLRB 615. TITEFLEX, INC. 225 ucts. Their rate of pay is higher than that of the sales representa- tives. They work in the same general office area, are subject to the same working rules and regulations, and receive the same employee benefits as do the other employees in the unit. The record indicates that they may make recommendations concerning company policies but they do not take part in actual decisions concerning changes in policy. They cannot commit the Employer to any transaction with- out the approval of their supervisors. Under all the circumstances we find that these employees are not managerial employees 4 and as they have a sufficient community of interest with the other employees we shall include them in the unit. Customers' serviceman and field engineer. The customers' serv- iceman's function is to keep the product sold after it has been delivered to the customer. He maintains regular contact with the customer and checks upon performance of the product and files reports with the Employer as to product performance. He spends up to 80 percent of the time away from the office. While in the office he compiles statistical data and follows up technical data which is developed in the field. He is subject to the same working rules and regulations, receives the same employee benefits, and works in the same general area as do the other employees in the unit. The field engineer per- forms generally the same function as the customer's serviceman. He is more highly trained and consults with the more highly technical employees of the Employer's customers about problems arising in connection with its products. He has the same community of interest with the other employees of the unit as the customers' serviceman. Both of these employees may make recommendations concerning overall policies of the company but do not participate in making policy decisions. We find that they are not managerial employees 5 and that they have a sufficient community of interest with the other employees involved 6 to be included in the unit. Buyer grade I. The parties agreed to include the classification buyer grade III in the unit. The record indicates that the Employer regards buyer grade I as having more responsibility than buyer grade III. He receives requisitions that have been prepared by the plan- ning department, countersigned by the person in charge of that de. partment, and he places them with an approved list of vendors. Al- though he cannot go outside that list of vendors he may use his dis- cretion as to which of those vendors will receive the order. He has final authority over such deals and is able to responsibly commit the 4 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 97 NLRB 1271. 5 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, supra. Nu-Way Corporation, 87 NLRB 377; San Antonio Machine Q Supply Co., 85 NLRB 143; The Constitution Publishing Company, 81 NLRB 815. 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD credit of the Employer. We find that he is a managerial employee and we shall exclude him from the unit' Matron. The matron cares for the ladies' washroom and serves coffee to the office employees. When not taking care of the wash- room she spends her time in a small room adjoining the general office room where she serves coffee. The female employees must go through this room to get to the washroom. The Petitioner contends that since another employee who places towels in the men's washrooms is in the production and maintenance unit the matron belongs in that unit. Because the matron comes in daily contact with the office em- ployees and generally receives the same benefits as they do and be- cause no showing is made that she has any association with the produc- tion and maintenance employees, we find that she has a sufficient community of interest with the office employees to be included in the unit .8 Telephone operator and relief operator. The Employer contends that these employees have the opportunity to overhear conversations concerning labor relations matters and therefore should be excluded from the unit as confidential employees. The Board has repeatedly held that the mere opportunity to overhear conversations pertaining to labor relations does not make telephone operators confidential employees.9 We will therefore include them in the unit. Payroll clerks. The payroll clerks maintain all records that have to do with computing the executive payroll. They are also in a posi- tion to know about welfare loans made to employees, garnishee pay- ments exacted from the earnings of employees, and bond purchases made by the employees. The Employer contends that such informa- tion is of a confidential nature and that the payroll clerks should be excluded from the unit. As the Petitioner points out this information is available to any of the employees if they desire to ascertain such information. As these employees do not deal with information in the field of labor relations we find that they are not confidential employees and we will include them in the unit .10 The appropriate unit. We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: 11 All shop and office clerical and technical employees including junior engineers, sales representatives, sales engineers, customers' serviceman, field engineer, matron, telephone operator, relief operator, and payroll 7 Federal Telecommunications Laboratories , Inc, 92 NLRB 1395 ; The Girdler Corpora- tion, 96 NLRB 137 ; Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 89 NLRB 8. s Con$olcdated Electrical Products , 71 NLRB 360. General Electric Co , 99 NLRB No. 75 ; The Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 95 NLRB 736. 10 Repubhc Steel Corporation , 94 NLRB 1294. 11 Allen Adams and Thomas Carr, part -time employees are included in the unit pursuant to stipulation of the parties. GOTTFRIED BAKING COMPANY, INC. 227 clerks, but excluding buyer grade I, all supervisors as defined in the Act, professional, confidential, secretarial, and other confidential em- ployees, guards, and executives. [Text of Direction of. Election omitted from publication in this volume.] GOTTFRIED BAKING COMPANY, INC. and MAX WINZELBERG and BAKERY & PASTRY DRIVERS AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL No. 802, INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT R. K. BAKING CORP. and MAX WINZELBERG and BAKERY & PASTRY DRIVERS AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL No. 802, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT BAKERY & PASTRY DRIVERS AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL No. 802, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL and MAX WINZELBERG and GOTTFRIED BAKING COMPANY, INC., PARTY TO THE CONTRACT and R. K. BAKING CORP., PARTY TO THE CONTRACT . Cases Nos. 2-CA- J741, 2-CA-2067, and 2-CB-578. March 3, 1953 Decision and Order On November 13, 1952, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow is- sued his Intermediate Report in this proceeding, finding that each of the Respondents had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that each of them cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that each of the Respondents had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended that the com- plaints be dismissed with respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel, Respondent R. K. Baking Corp., and Respondent Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and supporting briefs.' The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions, and briefs and hereby adopts the 1 The Respondent Union's request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the positions of the parties. 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. 103 NLRB No. 3.