E. W. Bliss Company, Toledo Machine Tool Division,1 Employer And International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft And Agricultural Implement Workers Of America (uaw-cio), Petitioner, 428 (1949)

In the Matter of E. W. BLISS COMPANY, TOLEDO MACHINE TOOL DIVISIoN,1 EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER Case No. 8-RC-2~.9.-Decided January 31, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing 'officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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-man panel 'consisting of the undersigned Board Members.* Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:

1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.

2. The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees 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 appropriate unit:

   The Petitioner requests a unit of all office, clerical, and engineering 2 employees in the Toledo Machine Tool Division of the Employer, including employees in the finance department, engineering department, parts department, material control department, order department, production control department, purchasing department, shipping and receiving department, works manager's department, the 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.

   *Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock.

   2 The Petitioner describes the unit requested as 'all office and clerical employee\,' excluding supervisory employees. At the hearing the Petitioner described the unit sought iby way of departments, and added 'engineering employees' to those originally claimed.

   428 429 sales department,3 and the advertising department, but excluding confidential employees and supervisors as defined under the Act.

   The Employer, although agreeing to the exclusions proposed by the Petitioner, contends that various other employees should be excluded from the unit. Thus, the Employer argues that all employees in the engineering department, the parts department, the advertising department, and the sales department should be excluded upon the ground that such departments are controlled by and are integrated with plants of the Employer at other locations.4 In the alternative, the Employer contends that if the employees in the engineering department as such be included in the unit, certain employees therein in the classifications of junior and senior engineers, lay-out men, detailers and detail clerks, should be excluded as professional employees. The Employer further seeks the exclusion of all clericals in the shipping and receiving department and certain clericals in the material control department upon the basis that such employees are plant rather than office clericals. The Employer would also exclude as a supervisor a senior clerk in the material control department.

   The Toledo Machine Tool Division of the Employer, herein called the Toledo Plant, is located at Toledo, Ohio, and is one of five plants owned and operated by the Employer. The other four plants are located at Salem, Ohio; Cleveland, Ohio; Hastings, Michigan; and Englewood, New Jersey, respectively. The home office of the Employer is in Detroit, Michigan. All five plants manufacture the same type of power presses. All five plants are served by three engineering offices, of which one is located in the Detroit home office, another in the Hastings Plant, and the third in the Toledo Plant.

   The engineering, parts, sales, and advertising departments are all located in buildings which are a part of the Toledo Plant. There being no evidence to the contrary, we assume that the work of each employee in these departments is performed at the Toledo Plant. The record discloses that such employees all perform substantially the same type of work (clerical technical) under similar working conditions as do the employees from other departments of the Toledo Plant. The employees of the questioned departments have frequent contact with similar employees in such other departments. It further appears that there has been no history of collective bargaining cover3 The record is not clear as to whether there is a sales department proper, as distinguished from the sales...