International Harvester Co.

In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY (INDIANAPOLIS WORKS), EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN- ISTS, PETITIONER Case No. 35-RC-54.-Decided April 5,1919 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. At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the basis of the inappropriateness of the proposed unit. For reasons hereinafter discussed the motion is denied. 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 labor organizations named herein claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. The question concerning representation : The Intervenor 1 contends that its contractual relations with the Employer constitute a bar to this proceeding. The Employer takes no position with respect to the contract bar issue. On April 29, 1946, the Intervenor and the Employer entered into a bargaining contract effective, as provided for in Article XXVI thereof, to April 29, 1947, and from year to year thereafter, unless either party gave 30 days' notice of their intention to terminate or modify prior to any anniversary date. This contract automatically renewed after its initial term. Thereafter, on August 16, 1947, the contracting parties executed another agreement 2 which referred to the April 1946 contract as the "main agreement," and contained the following termination clause : 1 International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft , and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, Local 98, whose motion to intervene was granted at the hearing 2 Both the Petitioner and the Intervenor take the position that the agreement of August 16, 1947, constituted a new and separate contract. 82 N. L. R. B., No. 86. 740 INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 741 Article XXVI entitled "Duration of Agreement" shall be de- leted in its entirety and there shall be a new Article XXVI reading as follows : "Article XXVI "Duration of Agreement "This contract shall remain in full force and effect until the 16th day of August 1948. "It is hereby agreed that, as hereinabove amended and supple- mented, said main agreement of April 29, 1946, shall remain in force and effect between the parties." By letter dated March 1, 1948, the Petitioner requested recognition as bargaining representative of certain employees of the Employer, and thereafter, on March 9, 1948, filed its petition herein. On September 7, 1948, a new contract was executed between the Intervenor and the Employer. The Intervenor contends that the petition was prematurely filed with respect to the August 1947 contract and that therefore that con- tract as superseded by the September 7, 1948, agreement is a bar to this proceeding. We do not agree. The August 1947 contract has expired; moreover, as it was executed during the term of the renewed 1946 agreement, it was a premature extension of that contract. There- fore, in any event, it is not a bar.3 Under the circumstances, we think that the Petitioner was well advised to file the petition shortly before what would have been the automatic renewal date of the renewed 1946 contract had not that contract been prematurely extended by the August 1947 agreement. We therefore find no merit in the Inter- venor's contention that the petition was prematurely filed. The exist- ing contract which was executed on September 7, 1948, cannot consti- tute a bar because the petition was filed prior to its execution.4 We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation 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 Employer's Indianapolis Works, at which it manufactures motor truck engines, consists of two operational divisions, the Foundry and the Machine Shop. Only the Machine Shop division is involved 3 Matter of Philip B. Wallace, Jr., George A. Wallace, Emily McPhee, d/b/a U. S. Pipe t Manufacturing Company, 78 N. L. R. B. 15; also Matter of Houston Packing Company, 71 N. L. R. B. 1232 ; Matter of Murray Leather Company, 73 N. L. R. B. 892 ; Matter of Continental Can Company, 78 N. L. R. B. 819 ; Matter of Teletype Corporation, 79 N. L. R. B 1051. In the application of this principle the Board has ruled that it is immaterial whether the new contract is treated analytically as a new contract or as an extension of an existing contract Matter of Blair Limestone Company, 70 N. L R. B. 689. * Matter of Beattie Manufacturing Company, 77 N. L. R. B 361 ; Matter of Armstrong Cork Company, 80 N. L. R. B 859. 838914-C0-vol. 82-.48 "742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in this proceeding.5 This division is composed of various numbered departments. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing pro- duction and maintenance unit, which has been represented by the Intervenor since 1945, and to establish as an appropriate unit all non- supervisory employees except laborers of Departments 51 (Toolroom), 52 (Tool Grinding) and 53 (Machine Repair)." The Employer and the Intervenor contend that this group of employees should not be severed from the established production and maintenance unit because of the bargaining history on a more comprehensive basis, and because these employees do not comprise a homogeneous group of skilled workers having a separate identity. Physically the three departments adjoin one another and are sepa- rated from each other by wire screen partitions. Each of them has the same supervisory hierarchy; the progression being group leader, assistant foreman, and foreman. The department foreman is respon- sible to the mechanical engineer and the assistant mechanical engineer jointly. Tools, jigs, fixtures, bushings, and other machine parts are fabri- cated in Department 51 and ground in Department 52. Replacement parts used in the repair of production machinery are manufactured in Department 53. The employees of these three departments report to their respective departments where they do the bulk of their work. They are paid on an hourly basis as distinguished from the piece- work rate received by the large majority of other employees in the Machine Shop division. So far as the record reveals, there is no inter- change of personnel between the three departments and the other Machine Shop departments. Departments 51, 52, and 53 are listed as "skilled trades departments" in the currently existing collective bargaining contract covering the Machine Shop division. The 22 toolmakers in Department 51 and the 4 machine repair machinists in Department 53 have served a 4-year apprenticeship. Department 51 also employs 5 toolmaker apprentices. Although it is not entirely 5 It was stipulated at the hearing that the Foundry and Machine Shop are functionally independent. It appears from the record that the Foundry is located in a separate building, that there is no interchange of personnel between the divisions , and that the production of the Foundry is utilized by other plants of the Employer in addition to the Indianapolis Machine Shop. O The unit requested by the Petitioner would include approximately 265 employees variously classified as follows : toolmakers, toolmaker apprentices , toolmaker leaders, machinists, machine repair machinists , lathe hands, inspectors, tool crib attendants , grinders and grinder hands, boring machine hands , milling machine hands, toolroom machine bands, perishable tool salvage men , tool builders , trouble shooters, reamers, oilers, and checl(ers of perishable tools. The Petitioner is agreeable to representing the three laborers in these departments should the Board decide that they should be included in the unit it would exclude all leadmen , foremen, and assistant foremen who have the authority to hire, discharge , or effectively to recommend change in the status of employees. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 743 clear from the record, it seems evident that the 27 machinists in Department 51 and the 39 machinists in Department 53 are skilled workers. Thus, it appears that the unit sought by the Petitioner contains a substantial nucleus of skilled craftsmen. The remaining employees in these 3 departments are less skilled workers whose skills in some instances are duplicated by employees elsewhere in the Machine Shop division. We have heretofore found department units of toolmakers, machin. ists, and other employees engaged in the fabrication and repair of tools, jigs, fixtures, and machines to be appropriate, notwithstanding the fact that not all the employees in the unit possess definite craft skills.? We have also found such a unit appropriate where it con- tained a nucleus of skilled craftsmen together with less skilled but related employee classifications, even though there were other em- ployees in the plant possessing skills and performing work comparable to the less skilled employees in the unit." We find that the employees in Departments 51. 52, and 53 constitute such a group. They are sepa- rately supervised and located. They do not interchange with em- ployees of other departments. Their basis of pay is different from other employees in the plant. They, as a group, are centered around a nucleus of skilled workers whose skills do not appear to be matched by those of related categories elsewhere in the Machine Shop division. Accordingly, we find that these employees may, if they so desire, con- stitute a separate unit, and properly may be severed from the existing Machine Shop production and maintenance unit, notwithstanding the history of collective bargaining on a more comprehensive basis.9 We shall include the three laborers in the voting group. However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall be guided in part by 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 appropriate bargaining unit. In accordance with the foregoing, we shall direct that an election be held among all employees of Departments 51, 52, and 53 of the Em- ployer's Indianapolis, Indiana, Machine Shop, excluding all leadmen, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the amended Act. 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 It. B 770. 8 Matter of International Harvester Company, 79 N. L R. B. 1452 ; Cf Matter of Ethyl Corporation (Sodium and Tetraethyl ,Lead Areas ), SO N. L. R B. 9 9 Matter of General Electric Company, Plastics Division of the Chemical Department, 81 N. L R B. 476. 744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with the International Harvester Com- pany (Indianapolis Works), Indianapolis, Indiana, 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 super- vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the voting group described 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 off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also exclud- ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of col- lective bargaining, by International Association of Machinists, or by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, Local 98, or by neither. MEMBER MURDOCK dissenting : I cannot agree with my colleagues that the employees in Depart- ments 51, 52, and 53 of the Employer's Machine Shop division may appropriately be severed from the established plant-wide unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. The majority decision rests principally upon the theory adopted by the Board in an earlier case 1O involving the Employer's Memphis, Tennessee, plant. In that case the Board held that because the pro- posed unit of toolroom employees contained a nucleus of skilled crafts- men, it was appropriate even though the skills of other employees in the unit were duplicated by employees in other parts of the plant. As noted in the majority opinion, the Board has also found that such a group of employees might be severed from a more comprehensive unit already established. It is my opinion that in cases such as the one before us which involve the issue of severance of such a group of em- ployees from an established plant-wide unit, the craft nucleus of the proposed unit should constitute a substantial part thereof and should itself be comprised of employees who possess definite craft skills. Here, 66 of the 97 employees comprising the so-called craft nucleus are m Matter of International Harvester Company, 79 N. L. R. B. 1452. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 745 workers who do not, as do the other 31, serve an apprenticeship and whose skill as craftsmen the majority must necessarily infer solely from their classification as "machinists." The subtraction of these 66 machinists whose craft status is uncertain would leave the pro- posed unit of 265 employees with a craft nucleus of only 31 employees. In my opinion, therefore, sufficient justification does not exist for sev- ering the group of employees sought by the Petitioner from the established production and maintenance unit.