Sunshine Biscuits, Inc.

770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The unfair labor practices found reveal on the pact of the Respondent such a fundamental antipathy to the objectives of the Act as to justify an inference that the commission of other unfair labor practices may be anticipated. The preventive purposes of the Act may be frustrated unless the Respondent is re- quired to take some affirmative action to dispel the threat. It will be recom- mended, therefore, that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent, Farber Brothers, Inc, 1llemphis, Tennessee, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section-2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, UAW-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Betty Bilderback, Ledell Haney, and Irene Alsup the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 4. By such discrimination and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The record does not show that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices by inquiring, questioning, and interrogating its employees with respect to their union activities, threatening its employees with discharge if they joined the Union, or made statements and held conversations interfering with its em- ployees' union activities. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] SUNSHINE BISCUITS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , LOCAL LODGE No. 92 , PETITIONER . Cases Nos . 17-RC- 917 and 17-RC-0'1. May 21, 19-51 Decision and Order Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before William J. Scott, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby afflrmed.1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act , the Board has delegated its powers in connection with 1 After the close of the hearing, the Intervenor filed a motion to amend its name on the formal papers in this proceeding . The motion is granted The Intervenor's name appears herein as amended. 94 NLRB No. 92. SUNSHINE BISCUITS, INC. 771 these cases to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner urges that (1) all maintenance engineers and their helpers and (2) all machinists, maintenance mechanics, maintenance oilers, maintenance welders, tool crib attendants, and their helpers. at the Employer's Kansas City, Kansas, plant, constitute separate appro- priate craft units. The Employer and Local 184-L, United Bakery and Confectionery Workers, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (CIO), the Intervenor herein, contend that the employees in neither group sought by the Petitioner are true craftsmen, and urge that the integration of the Employer's operations and the previous history of collective bargaining on an over-all basis make the existing plant-wide unit of production and maintenance employees the only appropriate unit for bargaining purposes. At its Kansas City, Kansas, plant, the only plant involved in this proceeding, the Employer manufactures candy and bakery goods. This plant was placed in production in 1949, when the Employer transferred to this location its Kansas City, Missouri, operations. The plant is relatively modern and contains much automatic mnohin- ery. It employs approximately 1,000 workers. The plant operations are divided into 2 main sectors, all under the management of the general manager : (1) candy production, under tha direct supervision of the candy superintendent; and (2) bakery pro- duction, under the supervision of the plant superintendent. All main- tenance work is under the plant superintendent, wherever ,the work may be performed. Maintenance employees, of whom there are ap- proximately 30, work, however, under the immediate separate super- vision of a maintenance supervisor. All employees sought by the Petitioner work in the maintenance department under the maintenance supervisor. The four maintenance engineers, working in three shifts, sought by the Petitioner as a sepa- rate craft unit, operate and repair the Employer's boilers, air-condi- lioning units, hot water beaters, and similar equipment. They spend about half of their working time in the Employer's boiler room and the remainder of their time out in production areas. The equip- 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD went which they oversee is heated by gas, and is automatic. They have considerable time which they devote to other general maintenance work. The maintenance engineers are given all assistance they may require in their work by other maintenance employees at the plant, and they assist other maintenance employees in any maintenance work about the plant as they are able. Although the four engineers now employed by the Employer have State or other licenses, licenses are not required for the work which they perform for the Employer. The Employer has no apprentice training program for maintenance engi- neers or other maintenance employees, and assigns workers to do any of the various maintenance jobs that they have sufficient ability toy perform or can learn with on-the-job training. Other maintenance employees sought by the Petitioner in a separate unit include seven maintenance machinists, five maintenance me- chanics, two maintenance oilers, a welder, and a tool crib attendant, otherwise classified as a second-class maintenance mechanic. The maintenance mach mists maintain and repair plant equipment. In the course of their duties they use, as necessary, micrometers, calipers, gauges, and scales. Only some of their repair work is of close toler- ance. They do no construction work. The maintenance mechanics make mechanical adjustments on plant machinery, sew belts, and do general plant maintenance work. Production machine operators also work on machine adjustments. Oilers oil plant machinery and assist other maintenance employees as helpers. A welder and two other maintenance employees do welding work as necessary and other main- tenance work. The tool crib attendant takes care of the tool crib for the maintenance department and does general mechanical work. Maintenance employees spend approximately half their working time in the Employer's general shop and the remainder of their time in production areas. Other maintenance employees not included in the unit sought by the Petitioner, who do primarily electrical, carpentry, and plumbing jobs in the plant, are in the same department and use the same workshop. All these employees assist in doing any job to which they may be allotted by their common supervisor. Other mechanics work in the packing department under another supervisor.2 Some of the maintenance employees in the groups proposed by the Petitioner had some experience along craft lines before coming into the Employer's plant. About half of the maintenance employees were directly transferred to do maintenance work from production sections. Others were hired as a result of newspaper advertisements and appli- cations filed in the employment office. The Employer has no ap- prentice training program. The Employer shifts employees about to do various maintenance duties as they have sufficient ability "to do the s The Petitioner would exclude these mechanics from its proposed unit. SUNSHINE BISCUITS, INC. 773 job" and assimilate on-the-job training. Promotion has been on a plant-wide seniority basis. Employees are not restricted to work within their job categories but perform any general duties within the maintenance section as their common foreman may assign. On February 4, 1938, the Board certified the Intervenor as ex- clusive bargaining representative of employees of the Kansas City, Missouri, plant, then operated by the Employer's predecessor.' As noted above, the Employer moved this plant in 1949 to its present location in Kansas City, Kansas. Since 1938, the Employer's pred- ecessor and the Employer have entered into collective bargaining agreements with the Intervenor covering plant production and main- tenance employees. Under these bargaining contracts, all plant em- ployees have enjoyed similar privileges, and plant-wide seniority, and employees have been frequently transferred between production and maintenance jobs as opportunity for advancement permitted. The employees in neither of the units proposed by the Petitioner herein constitute a traditional craft group nor a separate department of the Employer 's operations such as the Board has traditionally found may constitute an appropriate unit for bargaining purposes. All of them and others whom the Petitioner would exclude are within the larger plant maintenance department. Employees in this depart- ment in mobile working groups assist in mechanical , plumbing, elec- trical, and carpentry work as may be necessary. Employees in neither proposed unit constitute a homogeneous and clearly identifiable and coordinated group possessing work interests separate from those of other maintenance employees . For a number of years, collective bar- gaining has been conducted on a broader plant basis. Under these circumstances, we find that employees in neither of the units sought by the Petitioner may constitute a separate appropriate unit & at this time. We shall therefore dismiss the petitions.5 Order Upon the entire record in these cases, the Natitonal Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions herein be, and the same hereby are dismissed. 3 Loose-Wiles Biscuit Company, 5 NLRB 59. 4 Heyden Chemical Corporation, 85 NLRB 1181 , and cases cited therein , Appalachian Electric Power Company, 91 NLRB 1376. 6 Because we dismiss the petitions on the ground that the units are not appropriate we find it unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised in his proceeding.