O. B. Andrews Co.

150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act 18 On 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. United Steelworkers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. All production and maintenance employees at the Company's plant in Stratford, Connecticut, including shipping and receiving employees and truck drivers but excluding office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, foremen, and supervisors, as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. United Steelworkers of America, CIO, was on March 2, 1950, and at all times material herein, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the above-described unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By refusing on or about March 2, 1950, and at all times thereafter to bargain with United Steelworkers of America, CIO, as the exclusive representa- tive of the employees in the above-described unit, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section S (a) (5) of the Act. 5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Benjamin Bailey and Carl A. Hultman, also known as Charles Hultman, and the employees named in Appendices A and B, thereby discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America, CIO, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing his 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. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] - 18 See May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376. O. B. ANDREWS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA- CHINISTS, LODGE No. 56, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 10-RC-143 and 10-RC-1133. September 12, 1951 Decision and Order Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing 1 was held before Clarence D. Musser, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 1 The cases were consolidated by order of the Regional Director dated June 22, 1951. 96 NLRB No. 18. 0. B, ANDREWS COMPANY 151 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1: The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the 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 seeks to sever from an existing bargaining unit at the Employer's plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and to establish as separate units a group of pipefitters (Case No. 10-RC-1432) and a group of electricians (Case No. 10-RC-1433). The Intervenor, Inter- national Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL ,2 and the Employer contend that the requested units are inappropriate because (1) the employees in these units are not the kind of craftsmen to whom the Board grants severance, and (2) the severances sought are not coex- tensive in scope with the existing multiplant bargaining unit. The Employer, a wholly owned subsidiary of Container Corporation of America, is engaged at Chattanooga, Tennessee, in the manufacture and sale of paperboard, corrugated and fiber boxes, and folding car- tons. The Employer was acquired by its parent corporation in 1947, and collective bargaining commenced at this plant in February 1948. The corrugated and fiber box and folding carton production and maintenance employees have been represented by a labor organiza- tion not a party to this proceeding; 2 and the paperboard production and maintenance employees, including the pipefitters and electricians, have been represented by the Intervenor. The Intervenor and the Employer bargained on an individual-plant basis 4 until June 19, 1950, when the Employer's parent corporation and the Intervenor entered into a 1-year multiplant contract covering four paper mills, including Chattanooga, in which the Intervenor was the bargaining representative 5 On June 16, 1951, after the filing of the petitions in this case, the multiplant contract was renewed for another year. The Chattanooga bargaining unit represented by the Intervenor has not been changed since it was established in 1948. P Although the international union alone appeared at the hearing, Local 219 of the Inter- national was also a party to the contracts negotiated with the Employer. a International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, Local 394, herein called the Pressmen. 4 A 1-year contract executed In 1948 was renewed in 1949. P This contract also covered four other plants, and the two labor organizations in those plants also were parties to th s multiplant contract. I 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD There are approximately 550. employees in.. the Chattanooga plant, 25 of whom are -in the, maintenance department.. Some of these maintenance employees, namely, welders, machinists,, and,millwrights, are incl'uded'in the unit represented by the Pressmen ;,° the other, main- tenance department employees,. consisting of the pipefitters and elec- tricians involved-in this case, are presently included in the unit rep- resented by the Intervenor. The services of, the. maintenance depart- ment are available to the entire plant. Although the, maintenance department is separately supervised, when maintenance employees work in production areas they, are supervised by. production. foremen. The proposed' unit of pipefitters consists of, four employees,, a lead or head pipefitter, two pipefitters, and a helper. The proposed unit of electricians consists, of a maintenance electrician and a helper. When maintenance work within the. scope of their crafts develops, the work.is, assigned to,the pipefitter: and electrician. groups. How- ever,,it is clear ftom.the record that all employees in-the maintenance department are available for whatever type of maintenance work needs to be done,, and' that the Employer considers its maintenance department employees to be industry specialists rather. than craftsmen in the true sense of the word. Thus,,it appears that.a large part,,if not most, of the work done by the, electrician, and his helper. is. not electrical in nature. The pipefitters, frequently do work that is for- eign to pipe fitting. The record discloses that. normally 7 there is not enough, specialized maintenance work in the plant to restrict the various maintenance department employees to-their own-craft work, and that, although the maintenance department employees are classi- fied by craft titles, they are really "j acks-of-all-trades.'." Further= more, the record also shows that, while helpers in.the first instance are assigned to work for which they have developed special proficiency, helpers as a class are a part of a helpers pool and are available for. assignment to any job. It- further appears that the Employer main- taius no appreniticeship program but does have an on-the-job.training program which is designed to produce maintenance employees capable of handling the diversified 'type of,maintenance work the.Employer's operations require. It is our opinion that, as the employees in the units sought by the Petitioner are not restricted to.work.usually associated with a particu- l'ar craft, but are available for and are frequently assigned to such general duties in the maintenance department as maybe necessary,.the requested pipefitter and electrician units are not comprised of craft The Petitioner also filed a separate petition seeking. a unit ,of•machinists,,but withdrew this petition upon discovering that the,Eressmen's contract covering the machinists did not expire until 1952., 7 At the time of the hearing, the Employer was temporarily engaged in'a newiconstruction program at the plant, as a result of.which the pipefitters were largely, being confined to pipefitting work. PHILLIPS-JONES CORPORATION 153 employees such as we normally find may constitute separate bargain- ing units 8 We find, therefore, that the units sought by the Petitioner are inappropriate, and we shall order that the petitions be dismissed? Order Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions herein be, and they hereby are, dismissed. 88ee Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., 94 NLRB 770; American Viscose Corporation, Sylvania Division, 84 NLRB 202 ; and Harbor Plywood Corporation of America, 81 NLRB 1331. 8In view of our disposition of the case, we find it unnecessary to consider the addi- tional argument of the Employer and the Intervenor that the requested units are inap- propriate because they are not coextensive in scope with the existing multiplant unit. PHILLIPS-JONES CORPORATION 1 and UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases No. 15-11C-538. September 12, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John C. Truesdale, hearing officer. 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A 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. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit composed of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Geneva, Alabama, plant, including warehouse employees, with certain specified exclu- sions. The Employer contends that only a broader unit embracing the production and maintenance employees in both its Geneva and Hartford, Alabama, plants is appropriate. The parties also disagree as to the unit placement of group leaders, instructors, plant clerical employees, a truck driver, and machinist repairman. 1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing. 96 NLRB No. 17.