Clayton and Lambert Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and LODGE 681, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN- ISTS, PETITIONER Case No. 9-RC-378.-Decided May 10, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed on January 31, 1949, a hearing was held before William A. McGowan, 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-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner and Intervenor are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 3. The question concerning representation : The Employer and the Intervenor 1 moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that a collective bargaining agreement executed by them on August 1, 1947, constitutes a bar to this proceeding. As the agreement does not terminate until August 1, 1949, the motion would be proper if the agreement otherwise satisfied Board requirements for the application of the contract bar doctrine. However, the agree- ment contains an infirmity which prevents it from being an effective bar to a representation proceeding. Such infirmity is found in Article IV of the contract, which provides that all employees covered by the .contract and all new employees at the completion of their probationary period, shall, as a condition of employment, become and remain mem- bers of the Intervenor in good standing for the duration of the con- tract. The Intervenor has not been certified by the Board pursuant to Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act as being authorized to execute a union-shop agreement. As the contract was entered into between the 1 United Steelworkers of America , Local 3845 , was granted intervention on the basis of the contract with the Employer. 83 N. L. R. B., No. 72. 458 CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 459 date of enactment (June,23, 1947) and the effective date of the Labor Management --Relations Act, 1947, the union-security provision is ,clearly not lawful after its first anniversary date, August 1, 1948 2 The now invalid union-security provision operates to remove the contract bar which might, in other circumstances, have been set up 3 We, therefore, find that the contract is not a bar to a present deter- mination of representatives 4 Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of certain 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 seeks a unit consisting of the Employer's toolroom employees, including the tool and die makers, and the tool grinder but excluding the tool crib keeper. The Employer and the Intervenor eQntend that the requested employees do not constitute an appropriate unit because (1) they are included in a unit of production and main- tenance employees currently represented by the Intervenor and (2) the Employer's operations are integrated in character. Alternatively, the Employer contends that the requested employees should be estab- lished in a unit together with the employees in the production machine shop. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of automatic water heaters and heat tools, such as blow torches and plumbers' fireboxes. Its operations are carried on in departments which are separated from each other by aisles. Assigned to the toolroom are 16 tool and die makers, of whom 2 work on the night shift, 1 tool grinder, and a tool crib keeper. The tool and die makers are all highly skilled craftsmen who have served a 4-year apprenticeship. They design, fabricate, and repair tools and dies. Their full time is devoted to these duties which are performed in the toolroom although they are sometimes required to go to production departments to make try-outs of the tools and dies on which they work. The tool grinder grinds the tool and die sections. The tool crib attendant, unlike the requested employees, does not de- vote his full time to toolroom functions. He is responsible not only for the tools used in the toolroom but for those used in the production machine shop which adjoins the toolroom. There is a foreman in charge of the toolroom who is an experienced tool and die maker. While he also supervises the employees in the production machine 8 Section 102 , Labor Management Relations Act, 1947. There is no need for us to con- sider the validity of the union-security provision during the first . year of the contract. 8 Matter of Ball Brothers Company of Californtia, 80 N. L. R. B 1316. 4 We find no merit to the contentions of the Employer and the Intervenor who claim that the union-security provisions of the contract are not being strictly enforced and therefore, they have no effect upon the contract 's validity. As we have previously held the "mere existence of such a provision acts as a restraint upon those desiring to refrain from union activities within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act." . See Matter of C. Hager and Sons Hinge Manufacturing Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 163. 460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD shop, there is no interchange between the two departments. The work of the production machine shop, like that of the other production workers, is routine in character, requiring no special training or skills. Their rate of pay is not as high as that of the requested tool- room employees who are the, highest paid non-professional employees in the plant. In view of the foregoing, we find that the toolroom employees sought by the Petitioner constitute a cohesive and well-defined craft group of a type which the Board has in the past found appropriate for bar- gaining purposes, notwithstanding a history of collective bargaining on a plant-wide basis.-' However, we shall make no unit determination until we have first ascertained the desires of the employees involved by means of our election directed below. If, in this election, the em- ployees in the voting group described below select the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. We shall not place the name of the Intervenor on the ballot, as it has not complied with Section 9 (f),. (g), and (h) of the Act. We shall direct an election among the following employees in the Employer's Louisville, Kentucky, plant : All the toolroom employees including the tool and die makers and the tool grinder, but excluding the tool crib attendant and all super- visors as defined in the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with Clayton and Lambert Manufac- turing Company, Louisville, Kentucky, 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 supervision 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 em- ployees in the voting group described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period imnlediately 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 vaca- tion 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 excluding em- ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining, by Lodge 681, International Association of Machinists. 6 Matter of International Harvester Company (Indianapolis Works), 82 N. L. R. B. 740; Matter of Dazey Corporation, 77 N. L R B. 408.