General Electric Co.

In the Matter of GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY , PLASTICS DIVISION OF THE CHEMICAL DEPARTMENT, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL Asso- CIATION OF MACHINISTS , LocAL LODGE 1437 , PETITIONER Case No. 8-RC-121.-Decided February 7, 1919 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION 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 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, an unaffiliated labor organization, and Interna- tional Chemical Workers Union, Local 283, affiliated with the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, herein called the Intervenor, are labor or- ganizations 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.' *Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray. 1 At the hearing and in its brief, the Employer moved to dismiss these proceedings on the ground that the petition was unseasonably filed under Section 103 of the Labor Man- agement Relations Act. The Employer contends that under Section 103 the Intervenor's certification Is valid until the end of the contract period as automatically renewed (May 1, 1949 ) or until 1 year after the effective date of the amended Act (August 22, 1948 ), which- ever occurs sooner , and that therefore the petition herein was filed unsea sonably on March 26, 1948. Assuming that Section 103 Is applicable hereto, we believe that the petition was filed seasonably, as Section 103 does not deprive the Board of power to con- duct a hearing under Section 9 (c) before the end of the period specified in Section 103. Matter of Bush Woolen Mills Inc., 76 N. L. R. B. 618. Moreover, the purpose of Section 103 is to forestall the Invalidation of certain contract provisions under the amended Act ; it does not affect the applicability of contract-bar principles. Matter of General Electr e Company, 77 N. L. R. B 192. The motion to dismiss Is denied. The Employer also moved to dismiss on the ground that the Intervenor 's contract to a bar to these proceedings . The original contract ran for 1 year from February 20, 1947, 81 N. L. R. B., No. 87. 476 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 477 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit consisting of the employees in Department 79, also known as the toolroom, together with two machine repairmen in Department 82, also known as the maintenance department, at the Employer's Coshocton, Ohio, plant. The Employer and Intervenor contend that such a unit is inappropriate and should not be severed from the existing production and maintenance unit presently represented by the Intervenor. Pursuant to a consent election, the Intervenor was certified on Ja-n- uary 22, 1947, as collective bargaining representative for substantially all the production and maintenance employees, including the employ- ees sought by the Petitioner, at the Employer's Coshocton, Ohio, plant. On February 20, 1947, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a 1-year contract covering such employees. By a second contract,2 the effective date was changed to May 1, 1947; this contract was automati- cally renewed for another year, until May 1, 1949. The Coshocton plant was newly built in 1946 and went into produc- tion shortly before the consent election in January 1947. At that time there were approximately 200 employees; there are now almost 500 employees. At this plant, the Employer fabricates and sells lam- inated and allied products such as plastics. Its operations are divided into 7 departments or sections, each of which is headed by a depart- mental foreman who, in turn, is under the supervision of 1 of 4 assist- ant general foremen.3 A general foreman is in charge of the entire plant. Department 79, the toolroom, and Department 82, the main- tenance department, are under the supervision of different depart- mental and assistant general foremen. Generally, tool maintenance, such as maintenance of parts and dies used in production machines, is performed by Department 79; while capital or plant maintenance, such as the repair of production machinery, is performed by the machine repairmen of Department 82.4 and contained a 30-day automatic renewal clause . The second contract was identical with the original contract, except that it was dated May 1 , 1947. The petition herein was flied on March 26, 1948, after the automatic renewal date of the February 20 contract but before the automatic renewal date of the May 1 contract . The record reveals considerable uncertainty as to which of the contracts the parties were operating under . However, as both contracts provided for maintenance of membership without authorization under Section 9 (e) of the Act, neither of these contracts as renewed can operate as a bar. Matter of C. Hager A Sons Hinge Manufacturing Company, 80 N. L. It. B. 163 ; Matter of General Electric Company, 80 N. L. It. B. 169. Accordingly, we also deny the motion to dismiss on the ground of contract bar. n See footnote 1, aupra. 6 Two assistant general foremen work on the day shift and one each on the two night shifts. 4 There are 70 employees in Department 82 performing maintenance work , of whom 8 are classified as machine repairmen . The Petitioner proposes to include in its unit only 2 of these 8 machine repairmen. 478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In Department 79, the toolroom, the Petitioner would include all the employees except the tool crib attendant. Of the 19 employees re- quested by the Petitioner, 7 are classified as tool makers, 12 as machine repairmen. There are no apprentices. These employees spend 75 to 90 percent of their time in the toolroom and operate the lathes, shapers, mills, grinders, and drill presses located therein. The balance of their time is spent performing similar or related work throughout the plant. There is little interchange of personnel between the toolroom and the rest of the plant. When originally hired, toolroom employees, like the machine repairmen in the maintenance department, are not required to have any particular training or apprenticeship, the sole requisite being mechanical aptitude, although most applicants appear to have had tool and die or machine experience. The tool makers who build, repair, and set dies are skilled craftsmen.5 The machine repairmen, whether in Department 79 or 82, are less skilled than the tool makers and do not appear to have served the usual apprenticeship. The Employer and Intervenor argue, inter alia, that the unit is in- appropriate because not all the toolroom employees are skilled crafts- men and because the Petitioner proposes to exclude six of the eight maintenance machine repairmen. To support their position, they as- sert that all the toolroom and maintenance machine repairmen, as well as some production employees,6 possess similar skills, perform com- parable work, receive the same rate of pay, have the same seniority, pensions, and vacations, and therefore have interests in common; that Department 79 employees spend 10 to 25 percent of their time outside the toolroom working throughout the plant; that there is some inter- change of personnel ; and that the Petitioner proposes to split the separately supervised group of maintenance machine repairmen of Department 82 by including only two of them. The Employer and Intervenor further contend that the highly integrated nature of the Employer's operations, as well as collective bargaining on an industrial basis in this plant and in the plastics industry in general, precludes severance of the proposed unit from the more comprehensive produc- tion and maintenance unit. We have, however, in the past, found units of tool makers, ma- chinists, and other employees engaged in the fabrication and repair of tools, dies and machines to be appropriate, even though not all such toolroom employees possessed definite craft skills.7 Furthermore, we have also found to be appropriate a toolroom unit containing a nucleus 5 The only tool maker who testified stated that he performs tool and die work ; that he had served an apprenticeship ; and that the other tool makers had equivalent skills. This testimony was uncontroverted. 6 The record indicates that production employees, particularly in Department 78, the fabricating section, operate machines such as lathes , mills, grinders, and presses. 7 Matter of Robertshaw -Fulton Controls Company (American Thermometer Company), 77 N. L. R. B. 316; Matter of National Container Corporation , Inc., 75 N. L. R. B. 770. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 479 of skilled craftsmen together with less skilled, but related, categories, even though there were other employees in the plant possessing skills and performing work comparable to the less skilled employees in the toolroom 8 In the present case, we believe that Department 79 con- stitutes such a toolroom group. It is separately supervised and lo- cated, and contains a nucleus of highly skilled tool makers, whose skills do not appear to be matched by those of related categories elsewhere in the plant. Accordingly, we believe that such toolroom employees may, if they so desire, constitute a separate unit, and properly may be severed from the existing industrial unit notwithstanding a history of collective bargaining on a more comprehensive basis.9 As indicated above, the Petitioner seeks to include in its unit the two maintenance machine repairmen who spend more time in the tool- room than the remaining six maintenance repairmen who are excluded. However, these two maintenance machine repairmen are a part of the separately supervised Department 82, or maintenance department, and spend most of their time in their own department rather than in the toolroom. It appears that these two maintenance department repair- men have interests more in common with the maintenance machine repairmen and other categories of employees in the maintenance de- partment than with the toolroom employees. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the toolroom voting group. We shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate ap- propriate unit. We shall, accordingly, direct an election among all employees in the toolroom, Department 79, at the Employer's Coshocton, Ohio, plant, including tool makers io and machine repairmen, but excluding the tool crib attendant," the maintenance machine repairmen in De- partment 82 and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 8 Matter of International Harvester Company, 79 N. L R B 1452 ; Cf. Matter of Ethyl Corporation (Sodium and Tetraethyl Lead Areas), 80 N L. It B 9 9 Matter of Robertshaw -Fulton Controls Company ( American Thermometer Company), supra. Cf Matter of International Harvester Company, supra Moreover, as noted aboie, the Employer started production at its Coshocton plant in January 1947 and, on February 20, 1947, first executed a collective bargaining contract with the Intervenor Thus, at the time of the filing of the petition herein on March 26, 1948, there had been only a rela- tively short history of bargaining on a production and maintenance basis 10 The working or group leader is a tool maker whose duty it is to lay out and distribute the work. He has no authority to discipline or effectively to recommend the hire or dis- charge of employees or increases in their pav. We believe he is not a supervisor v^rthrii the meaning of the Act and we shall include him 11 The tool crib is separate and apart from the toolroom. It serves as a general tool crib for the entire plant rather than for the toolroom alone In these circumstances, we shall giant the Petitioner's request which was not opposed by the other parties, and exclude the tool crib attendant 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR IMATIONS BOARD DIRECTION OF ELECTION 22 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and su- pervision of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees de- scribed in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay- roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid of, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been dis- charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge 1437, or by International Chemical Workers Union, Local 283, AFL, or by neither. " At the time of the Decision and Direction of Election herein , the Intervenor was not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. On February 24, 1949, the Regional Director advised the Board that the Intervenor had complied with the provisions of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, and requested that its name appear on the ballot for the directed election herein . The Board, therefore, ordered on March 3, 1949, that this Decision and Direction of Election be amended by according the Intervenor a place on the ballot.