A. O. Smith Corp.

In the Matter of A. O. SMITH CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and DISTRICT LODGE No. 37, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETI- TIONER Case No. 39-RC-92.-Decided October 11, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Joseph A_ Jenkins, hearing officer. At the hearing, the Employer and the Steel- workers moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that : (a) an. existing contract is a bar to this proceeding ; and (b ) the units sought by the Machinists and the Boilermakers are inappropriate. For reasons discussed below , the motion is denied , except that we find inappropriate the unit sought by the Boilermakers. 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 [Chairman Hezrog, and Members; Reynolds and Gray]. 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. District Lodge No. 37, International Association of Machinists,. herein called the Machinists ; Local Lodge 649, International Brother - hood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers of America,. AFL, herein called the Boilermakers; and United Steel Workers of America, CIO, and its Local Union 3316, herein called the Steel- workers, are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 3. The Employer and the Steelworkers contend that a collective bargaining contract which they signed on July 30, 1948, for a term to. expire on September 30, 1950, is a bar to this proceeding. On July 18, 1947 , the Employer and the Steelworkers signed a collective bargaining contract covering all production and mainte- nance employees for a 2-year term expiring on July 18 , 1949. On. 86 N. L. R. B., No. 67. 466 A. 0. SMITH CORPORATION 467 July 30, 1948, the contracting parties signed a supplemental agree- ment which, among other things, extended the termination date of the original contract to September 30, 1950. The Machinists filed its petition May 12, 1949, before the original expiration date of the 1947 agreement. Under these circumstances, we find that the 1948 exten- sion agreement is not a bar, because it was a premature extension of the original contract, whose term has expired and as to which the Machinists timely filed its petition.'. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning 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 Machinists seeks to represent a unit of machinists, machin- ists helpers-handlers, and apprentices,2 excluding supervisors. The Boilermakers, which intervened in this proceeding, desires to repre- sent a unit of lay-out men, assemblers, cutters, testers, inspectors, elec- tric welders, helpers and handlers, excluding supervisors. The Em- ployer and the Steelworkers assert that both units are inappropriate, because of the integration of the Employer's operations and because of a 5-year bargaining history on a plant-wide basis. The Machinists unit The Employer is engaged in the fabrication of steel pressure vessels for the oil, gas, and chemical industries. Its operations are carried on in three interconnected buildings. The unit proposed by the Machinists consists of 6 machinists who are assigned to Department 10, 17 machinists who are assigned to Department 30, and 2 helper-handlers who are assigned to Depart- ment 30. Departments 10 and 30 together comprise the machine department which employs all the plant machinists. The machine department is located in Building No. 3 and is separately supervised by a machine shop foreman. Machine department employees make replacement parts and repair machines. In the performance of their duties, they use the machines and precision tools of the machinist trade and exercise a high degree of skill. They are not interchanged with other employees. We reject the contention of the Steelworkers and the Employer that because of the integrated nature of the Employer's operations there is no justification for severing these employees from the plant-wide unit. While there is necessarily some integration between the various .departments to achieve a finished product, the machine department is not so integrated as to make integration the controlling factor in I See Matter of Republic Steel Corporation., 84 N. L. It . B. 483 , and Matter of Doehler- Jarvis Corporation (Doehler Die Casting Division ), 81 N. L . R. B. 1097. 1 The Employer does not employ apprentices. 468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD determining the appropriateness of the Machinists unit.' These em- ployees constitute a homogeneous, identifiable craft group of the type that we have frequently found appropriate, notwithstanding a bar- gaining history on a broader basis.4 They may therefore, if they desire, constitute a separate unit. We shall include the helper-han- dlers in the machinists voting group because, although they are not machinists, they work in close association with, and under the same supervision as, the machinists. The Boilermakers unit As previously stated, the Boilermakers assert that a unit of lay-out men, assemblers, cutters, testers, inspectors, electric welders, helpers and handlers is appropriate. At the hearing, however, it advanced no reason for severing these employees, who do not constitute a craft group, from the existing plant-wide unit. In these circumstances, we find that the unit sought by the Boilermakers is inappropriate. We shall direct that an election be held among machinists and ma- chinists helper-handlers in the machine department of the Employer's Houston, Texas, works, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act. However, we shall make no final unit determination until we have ascertained the desires of the employees as expressed in the election directed herein. If a majority of them vote for the Machinists, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 5 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 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, 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 s Matter of Aluminum Company o f America, 83 N. L. R. B. 398, and cases cited therein. Matter of E. 1. DuPont de Nemours and Company , 83 N. L. R. B. 865 , and cases cited therein. 6 Local Union No. 3316 , United Steel Workers of America, CIO, Is omitted from the ballot because of Its failure to comply with the filing requirements in Section 9 (f), (g), and (h ). In the event that Local 3316 effects compliance with the filing requirements of the Act within 2 weeks of the date of this Direction , the Regional Director is Instructed to accord Local Union No. 3316, United Steel Workers of America , CIO, a place on the ballot in the election directed herein. A. 0. SMITH CORPORATION 469 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 rein- stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain- ing, by District Lodge No. 37, International Association of Machinists. 869351-50-vol. 86-31