Munro-Van Helms Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of MUNRO-VAN HELMS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER Case No. 10-RC-168.-Decided January 13, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER Upon an amended petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hear- ing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Petitioner's motion to correct the transcript of the hearing is hereby granted. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations 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 and an intervening union, International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, A. F. L., herein called the Intervenor, are labor organizations claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit, for purposes of collective bargaining, composed of machine and pattern shop, machine production depart- ment, and maintenance department employees at the Employer's Munford, Alabama, plant. The Employer and the Intervenor con- tend that the unit sought is inappropriate. *Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray. 81 N. L. R. B., No. 19. 129 130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of soil pipe and fit- tings. Its plant consists of a large foundry where pipe castings are made, and several connected rooms and adjacent buildings where pat- terns are made, castings are drilled, machined and ground, and mainte- nance department employees are housed. The group which the Petitioner seeks to represent is composed of plant employees who are not foundry workers., These employees are predominantly craftsmen, classified as carpenters, tool makers, ma- chinists, pattern makers, welders, electricians, and machine repair mechanics.2 There is no appreciable interchange between them and the foundry workers; and the two groups, for the most part, work different hours. The bargaining history at the Employer's plant shows that on April 25, 1946, the Employer recognized the Intervenor as the bargain- ing representative of all production and maintenance employees at its plant, including those now sought by the Petitioner, and, on that date, executed a 1-year bargaining contract with the Intervenor covering such employees. Thereafter, on April 25, 1947, a new 1-year agreement, covering the same employees and containing a union shop clause, was executed by the Intervenor and the Employer ; and that agreement was subsequently amended by the parties in August 1947, and again in January 1948. As a result of an extension clause in the 1948 amendment, the Intervenor represented the production and maintenance employees when the instant petition was filed .3 Inasmuch as the employees within the proposed unit constitute a multi-craft group with different skills, and because of the collective bargaining history on a more comprehensive basis, we find that the unit 1 There are approximately 225 employees , classified , in part, as molders, laborers, mill operators, grinders, and casting handlers , who work in the foundry The foundry workers are , for the most part, paid on a piece-work basis. 2 There are approximately 44 employees in the group which the Petitioner seeks to, represent These employees are paid hourly rates. , There is evidence in the record showing that on two occasions during the incumbency of the Intervenor , employees within the unit proposed by the Petitioner were represented by a Machinist Committee in the negotiation of wage rates . On the first occasion, in October 1946 , it is evident that the Intervenor took part in the negotiations , and a re- sulting agreement was executed by it, alone , on behalf 6f the employees concerned. On the second occasion , in early 1948 , the Employer signed a memorandum of agreement, concluded solely with the Machinist Committee , which established wage rates for recently hired machine operators ; such memorandum , however , referred to the Employer's then existing agreement with the Intervenor, and specifically affirmed the machine production rates established thereby for other employees. Such evidence , in our opinion , is not sufficiently decisive to override the collective bargaining history on an over-all basis and to cause us to depart from our rule of deny- ing multi -craft severance in the face of a history of bargaining on a wider pattern Contrast Matter of Armstrong Cork Company, 80 N. 'L R. B., 1328, and Matter of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Go, 80 N. L. R B ., 1347 , where the Board established multi- craft units in the absence of a contrary bargaining history. MUNRO-VAN HELMS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 131 sought is inappropriate for collective bargaining.4 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 4 Matter of Pepsi-Cola Company, 78 N L. R B 790 ; Matter of Libbey Owens-Ford Glass Company, 78 N. L. R B. 1170 ; See also Matter of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, 78 N. L It. B. 478 , and Matter of George S Mepham Corporation, 78 N. L It. B. 1081. The decision in Matter of T. C. King Pipe Company , et at., 74 N. L. It . B 468, is hereby overruled to the extent that the King case permitted the severance of multi-craft units in the face of collective bargaining histories on more comprehensive bases 829595-50-vol. 81-10