International Harvester Co.

In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY (LOUISVILLE WORKS, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BLACK- SMITHS, DROP FORGERS AND HELPERS, A. F. L., PETITIONER In the Matter of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY (LoUISVILLE WORKS), EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC- TRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION No. 369, A. F. L., PETITIONER In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY (LOUISVILLE WORKS, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMO- BILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMER- ICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER In the Matter of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY (LOUISVILLE WORKS), EMPLOYER and FALLS CITIES CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUN- CIL, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., PETITIONER Cases Nos. 9-RC-446,9-RC-467,9-RC-4190, and 9-RC-408.-Decided December 2, 1940 DECISION DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS AND ORDER Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before William A. McGowan, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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. International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers, A. F. L., herein called the Blacksmiths; International Broth- erhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 369, A. F. L., herein called the Electricians; International Union, United Automobile, Air- craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the UAW-CIO ; Falls Cities Carpenters District Coun- cil, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 87 NLRB No. 21. 317 318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. F. L., herein called the Carpenters ; and United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, Local 236, C. I. 0., herein called the FE-CIO 1 are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 3. For reasons stated hereinafter, no questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of employees of the Employer in Cases Nos. 9-RC-446 and 9-RC-467 within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. We do, however, find that questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of employees of the Employer in Cases Nos. 9-RC-490, and 9-RC- 498, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit; the determination of representatives : At its Louisville plant, the Employer is engaged in the production of tractors, tractor parts, and other machinery. The plant is a rela- tively new one, operations having begun in the latter part of 1946. In 1947, the Board directed elections 2 among the employees which resulted in the establishment of several craft groups and a residual. production and maintenance unit. Thereafter, and before the hear- ing herein, several other craft groups were carved from the produc- tion and maintenance unit originally established. The current pro- ceedings involve employees who are now included in the production and maintenance unit. These employees are located in the following departments: Department 51-Electrical Heat Treat; Department 52-Gas Heat Treat; Department 53-Forge Shop and Shear Room; Department 17-General Maintenance. The Electricians' alleged appropriate unit The Electricians seeks to sever from the existing residual produc- tion and maintenance unit a unit of employees in the electrical heat treat department. The Electricians did not present any evidence at the hearing, stating that it would rely on the record made by the other parties; but presumably it takes the position that these employees are craft electricians and therefore severable. The UAW-CIO, the FE-CIO, and the Employer contend that this unit is inappropriate. The employees whom the Electricians seeks do not exercise the skills usually associated with the craft of the electrician, nor are they required to be electricians.. In fact, the record indicates that em- ployees are promoted to heat treat operator from the position of la- borer. Under these circumstances, we perceive no basis, craft or other- At the hearing, the FE-CIO was permitted to intervene in all these cases on the basis of a contract covering the residual production and maintenance unit. The contract has expired , and it was not contended at the hearing that it was a bar to the petitions herein. 2 International harvester Companij, 73 NLRB 971. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 319 wise, for establishing this department as a unit and shall dismiss the Electricians' petition. The Blacksmiths' alleged appropriate unit The Blacksmiths seeks a unit consisting of employees in the Forge Shop and Shear Room, Department 53, and the Gas Heat Treat De- partment, Department 52. Included in these departments are em- ployees in such classifications as forge press operator, bulldozer opera- tor, snag grinder, laborer, trimming press operator, coining, press operator, sawyer, shear operator, forge shop setup man, blacksmith,3 gas heat treat operator, and shot blast bachine operator. The NAW- CIO, and the FE-CIO, and the Employer contend that this unit is in- appropriate and should not be severed from the residual production and maintenance unit. The forge shop produces forgings used in the fabrication of various components of tractors and motors.4 The steel billets from which the forgings are made are cut to the required lengths in the shear room. They are then transported by cranes to the forge shop, where they are heated and then forged upon either a drop press or an upsetter press. After the metal has been forged it goes either to the heat treat departments or to another department for machining. In some in- stances a forging will be returned to a heat treat department after machining. Completed forgings are then used in assembling final products. The Blacksmiths contends that the unit it seeks may be severed upon either a craft nucleus or a departmental basis. In this connec- tion,.it argues that the drop forgers included in the unit it seeks con- stitute a nucleus of skilled craftsmen.5 As noted above, the forge press operators forge the hot metal upon either drop or upsetter presses. The operator has no control over the force of the blow struck upon the metal. He is responsible, however, for the proper setting of the dies in the press, and for correct place- ment of the steel billet. Failure to make these adjustments accurately may result in spoiling the dies, which are extremely expensive, or in producing an unusable forging. The forging press operator must also be able to judge the heat of the metal to be forged, and must have a kn'wledge of metal structure. 3 This group includes only one blacksmith and one blacksmith helper. 4 The record also indicates that the Employer purchases an indeterminate amount of forgings from outside sources. 6 The Blacksmiths points, in this connection, to the following items of evidence, inter alia: (a ) the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and the Census Bureau's classification sys- tem both of which classify forging as a skilled trade ; (b) a job evaluation rating issued by the Drop Forging Institute which rates the job of forging press operator as equivalent to that of machinist. 320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the recent General Motors case,6 under analogous circumstances, we held that similar forge press operators were not craftsmen. Here, as there, the press operators are part of a mass production operation; they work upon the same machine all the time, and are not required to operate any other; their task is repetitive and routine; and essentially they are no more than skilled machine operators. Furthermore, their work is less skilled than that of the hammerman in the above-cited case, who were also found to lack the requisite craft skills. Nor are these forge press operators required to have the versatility necessary in a commercial forge shop, where the operator must be able to work many kinds of presses. It is sufficient, at this point, that an operator can produce quickly upon one machine. It appears further that neither apprenticeship nor a prolonged training period is necessary to qualify as a forging press operator at this plant. The Employer's testimony indicated that it was its prac- tice to upgrade employees to all jobs in this department except that of blacksmith, and that there had been no difficulty with such pro- cedure. Indeed, in at least one instance, an employee was transferred from driving an industrial truck to operating a forging press, and was able to earn his piece-work rate in several weeks. Under these circumstances, including the mass production nature of the Employer's operations, the lack of an apprentice or training program, and the essentially routine and respective nature of the forger's work, we find that the forgers herein- do not exercise more than a part of the skills customarily associated with the craft of the blacksmith. We therefore conclude that they are not true craftsmen and do not constitute the necessary nucleus for severance of the requested unit on a departmental basis. Moreover, not only is there a lack of a nucleus of employees pos- sessing true craft skills, but the departmental unit sought includes only a segment of the employees engaged in the forging process, i. e., it would exclude the above-mentioned operators of electrical heat treat equipment whose work is indistinguishable from that of the requested gas heat treat operators. Accordingly we shall dismiss the petition.' a General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Forge, Spring and Bumper Division, Detroit, Miciiigan, 80 NLRB 145. 7 Plomb Tool Co., 87 NLRB 134, in which the Board recently found certain forgers to be craftsmen , is distinguishable on its facts from the instant case . The forgers, who were there found to constitute the craft nucleus of a forge department , performed work which partook less of the nature of mass production ; served a 2-year training period ; were required to work within much smaller tolerances ; and there was some bargaining history with respect to forgers on a separate basis. Nor is the Petitioner's contention with respect to the severability of a departmental unit without a craft nucleus, supported by Fayscott Corporation, 78 NLRB 12333 0, upon which it relies . The basis of the Board's decision in the Fayscott case was the existence of a craft nucleus of molders and coremakers . See United States Pipe and Foundry Com- pany, 84 NLRB 954. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY . 321 The Carpenter's unit; the UAJV-CIO unit The Carpenters seeks a unit composed of millwrights, millwright- welders, helpers, and apprentices; 8 alternatively, the Carpenters will accept a unit which excludes the welders. The UAW-CIO seeks an election in the existing residual production and maintenance unit. The FE-CIO and the Employer join the UAW-CIO in contending that this is the only appropriate unit. In a prior case involving this plant,9 the Board found, in effect, that the millwrights were a craft group. It directed an election in which the millwrights alone (not including welders) were to indicate whether they desired to be grouped with either machinists or car- penters, or to be part of the residual unit. The millwrights at that time chose to be included in the residual unit. There have apparently been no significant changes since that time in Department 17, to which the millwrights are assigned, along with blacksmiths, painters, sheet metal workers, carpenters, and other maintenance classifications. Now, as then, these classifications func- tion on a job basis, depending upon the requirements of the particular job. As a result of this practice, employees in all classifications work together to a considerable extent. Nor does the record indicate that there is a classification of millwright-welders as sought by the Car- penters. There is a classification of welders, but the welders do not have an especially close relationship to the millwrights. Under these circumstances, we find that the millwrights alone constitute a craft group which may feasibly be granted separate representation 10 As already noted, the UA.W-CIO and FE-CIO seek an election in the currently existing unit which includes the millwrights. Such a unit is clearly appropriate. However, we have also indicated that the millwrights may function separately, if they so desire. Accordingly, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of the employees as expressed in the elections hereinafter directed. We shall direct elections among the following groups of employees of the Employer's Louisville Works : (a) All millwrights and millwright helpers in Department 17, ex- cluding clerical employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) All remaining production and maintenance employees, includ- ing janitors and inspectors, working leaders and apprentices, but ex- eluding powerhouse, boiler room, toolroom, tool grinding, and ma- 8 The record indicates that there are no apprentices and that the Employer does not maintain an apprentice program for these crafts. 'International Harvester Company, 73 NLRB 971 (1947). 10 Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, 84 NLRB 298; Certain-iced Products Corpora- tion, 78 NLRB 910. 322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD . chine repair departments, die shop, foundry, all electricians, plumbers, steamfitters, pipefitters, carpenters, and helpers, student executives, guards, expediters, time keepers, time-study men, tool and die de- signers, laboratory technicians, draftsmen, engineers, and all other technical and professional employees, all factory and office clerical employees, and all supervisors. If the employees in voting group (a) select the Carpenters, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit. ORDER Ul'on the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, the Board orders that the petitions filed in this proceeding by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 369, A. F. L., in Case No. 9-RC-467, and by International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers, and Helpers (AFL), in Case No. 9- RC-446 be, and they hereby are, dismissed. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 11 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, elections 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 groups of em- ployees described in section numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Elections, including employees who did not work clur- ing said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem- porarily 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 elections, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether, for purposes of collective bargaining, (1) The employees in voting group "(a)" desire to be represented by Falls Cities Carpenters District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. L., or by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, or by United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, Local 2361 CIO, or by none; and 11 Any participant in any election directed herein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 323 (2) The employees in voting group "(b)" desire to be represented by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America, CIO, or by United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, Local 236, CIO, or by neither. MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Decision, Direction of Elections, and Order. 877350-50-vol, 87-22