Tin Processing Corp.

300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would include in all relevant craft units those welders who spend more than 50 percent of their time serving that craft. I would, therefore, grant the Pipefitters' motion for reconsideration in these cases. I would also, in the interests of uniformity, modify the remaining craft unit findings to conform therewith. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above :Supplemental Decision and Order. TIN PROCESSING CORPORATION and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER TIN PROCESSING CORPORATION and LOCAL No. 973, UNITED 'BROTIIER- HOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER TIN PROCESSING CORPORATION and LOCAL No. 347 , INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER TIN PROCESSING CORPORATION and LOCAL No. 132, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS , IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER TIN PROCESSING CORPORATION and LOCAL No. 144, SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 39-RC-314, 39-RC-315, 39-RC-316, 39-RC-317, 39-RC-32O. September 21, 1951 Decision, Direction of Elections, and Order Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Clifford W. Potter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing 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 Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged ill commerce within the meaning of the Act. i Long after the time for filing briefs had expired, two intervenors, IBEW and Machinists, which had not filed briefs, one intervenor, Pipefitters, which had filed a brief, and the parent AFL, not ,a party to the present. proceeding, filed a joint request for oral a[ gi}_ytleant before the Board. In these circumstances, the. request is denied, particularly as, in our opinion, the issues are sufficiently developed in-the record and the brief in this proceeding. See Meier d Frank Company, 86 NLRB 517. 96 NLRB No. 39. TIN PROCESSING CORPORATION 301 2. Oil Workers International Union, CIO, herein called Oil Work- ers, and its Local 449; Local No. 527, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, herein called IBEW; Texas City Lodge No. 1446, International Association of Machinists, AFL, herein called Machinists ; Local No. 211, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL, herein called Pipefitters; Local No. 973, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, herein called Carpenters; Local No. 347, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL, herein called Operating Engineers ; Local No. 132, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America, AFL, herein called Boilermakers; and Local No. 144; Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL, herein called-Sheet Metal Workers, are labor organizations claiming to repre- sent certain employees of the Employer. 3. Except as indicated in paragraph numbered 4 below, questions affecting commerce exist concerning 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 units : The Oil Workers, in its amended petition, seeks to establish a single. plant-wide unit of all the Employer's production and maintenance employees,3 by adding pipefitters, machinists, and electricians to the other production and maintenance employees previously found by the Board to be an appropriate unit.4 It was certified for that appropriate unit and, along with its Local 449, has represented that unit since 1949.5 The Pipefitters, Machinists, and IBEW have intervened in order to preserve their separate craft units, likewise found appropriate by the Board,6 for which they had been certified, and which they have represented since 1949. . The Carpenters, Boilermakers, and Sheet Metal Workers have each filed at petition requesting the Board to sever additional craft units from the production and maintenance unit presently represented by the Oil Workers, and the petition of the Operating Engineers seeks to sever a certain noncraft unit. The Oil Workers has intervened in 2 The Oil Workers urges its current contract amendment as a bar with respect to the tinsmiths. The original contract covering the employees in question would have expired on June 30 , 1951, had it not been "prematurely extended" on April 23, 1951. As the Sheet Metal Workers' petition, filed on May 2, 1951, was timely with respect to the termination date of the original contract, we find no merit in the Oil Workers ' contract bar contention. Phelps-Dodge Corporation , Morenol Branch, 92 NLRB 1564 ; cf. Desoto Creamery & Produce Co , 94 NLRB 1627 , and cases cited therein. 2 The Oil Workers originally sought an electrical unit but thereafter filed an amended petition for the broader production and maintenance unit. 4 Tin P-eaeessing Corporatidn.,-80-NLRB -1369. 5 Prom, 1942 until 1949 all the production and maintenance employees of the Employer, including pipefitters , machinists , and electricians , were represented in a single unit. 6 '+'in Processing Corporation, 78 NLRB 96, and 80 NLRB 1369. 302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -order to preserve its present production and maintenance unit. The Employer took no position on the unit questions. In support of its position that craft units are inappropriate, the Oil Workers urges that the tin-smelting industry in the United States' is comparable to the basic steel and aluminum industries and, as such, should fall under the principle announced in the National Tube Com- ,pany 8 and The Permanente Metals Corporation 9 cases. Although aware that the Board, in 1948, had found that the National Tube doctrine was not applicable to the tin-smelting in- 4ustry,10 the Oil Workers urges, in effect, that the Board reconsider and reverse its earlier decision in the light of the present more compre- hensive and complete record and the newer Permanente case involving the basic aluminum industry. This record, the Oil Workers contends, presents more cogent evidence of the highly integrated and inter- dependent character of the tin-smelting industry and its similarity to the basic aluminum industry. Upon thorough consideration of the record, we do not find any persuasive reason for departing from ,our earlier decision. On the contrary, the record herein further sup- ports that decision. The testimony is that the Employer's present operations are substantially the same as they were at the time of our earlier decision in 1948; that craft employees generally work through- out the plant at irregular intervals, performing maintenance- work only as needed; and that, although the plant operates continuously, most craftsmen work on the first shift, with nothing more than skele- ton crews on the other shifts. Moreover, the president and general manager of the Employer, testifying as an expert metallurgical engi- neer, was of the opinion that, among all the metal-smelting industries, 'operations in the aluminum industry are most dissimilar to those in tin. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the opera- tions of the Employer, while integrated and continuous, do not require .an integration equivalent to that in the basic steel or aluminum industry 11 Accordingly, we find that the integration and continuity of operations and the bargaining history on a broader basis are not sufficient to offset the special community of interest among the em- ployees in the smaller craft units, and that such units may be appropri- ate. Depending, in part, on the desires of the employees involved, such crafts may be bargained for separately or as a part of the more inclusive plant-wide unit. ' The Employer operates the only tin-smelting plant In the United States except perhaps for a privately owned plant In New Jersey, whose operations are not set forth in the record. - - s 76 NLRB 1199. 0 89 NLRB 804. 10 Tin Processing Corporation, 80 NLRB 1369. . 11 See also Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, 87 NLRB 1076 , and Corn Produets'Refining Company, 80 NLRB 362. ' _ TIN PROCESSING CORPORATION 303 Case No. 39-RC-314 As .indicated above, the Oil Workers seeks an all-inclusive plant- wide production and maintenance unit, while the Pipefitters, Machinists, and IBEW oppose the absorption of their previously sep- arato craft units. Although the plant-wide unit sought by the Oil Workers may be appropriate, we also find that separate craft units of pipefitters, machinists, and electricians, as heretofore established by the Board, may also be appropriate. In these circumstances, we believe that we should not merge these groups of employees into a single plant-wide unit without first ascertaining their desires by means of separate elections I2 Before directing an election, however, the Board must be adminis- tratively satisfied that the Oil Workers has a sufficient representative interest in the employees in question 13 In the instant case, we are administratively satisfied that the Oil Workers has failed to make the necessary showing of interest among the pipefitters and machinists, although it has made an adequate showing among the electricians. Accordingly we shall not direct an election among the machinists and pipefitters. However, with respect to the electricians, including apprentices, helpers, and leadmen, we shall direct a separate election. If a.majority of these employees select the IBEW, they will be taken to have indicated their desire for continued representation as a sep- arate unit.' If, on the other hand, they select the Oil Workers, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to have the Oil Workers bargain for them along with the other production and maintenance employees now represented by the Oil Workers. In view of the Oil Workers' apparent lack of desire for an election among : the employees for whom it has been certified and whom it presently represents, we shall not direct an election in such group. Cases Nos. 39-RC-315, 39-RC-317, 39-RC-320 In Case No. 39-RC-315, the Carpenters seeks to sever a unit of carpenters (including one leadman, one apprentice, and one helper). In Case No. 39-RC-317 the Boilermakers seeks to sever a single unit of both riggers (including one leadman and one apprentice), welders (including one leadman, four apprentices, and six helpers), tinsmiths, and blacksmiths (including one apprentice). In Case No. 39-RC-320, the Sheet Metal Workers seeks to sever a unit of the tin- smiths 14 The Oil Workers contends that the groups sought should "Standard & Poor's Corporation, 95 NLRB 248; New Jersey Brewers' Association et al,, 92 NLRB 1400; Illinois Cities Water, Co, 87 NLRB 109. 13 See cases cited in footnote 11. 14 In its petition , the Sheet Metal Workers asks for a unit of "all maintenance employees in the Sheet Metal Department." The record discloses that such a department does not exist and that the sheet metal workers or tinsmiths or tinners , as they are called, are part of the welding department. 304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not be severed from its production and maintenance unit. We agree with the Oil Workers that the employees sought by the Boilermakers constitute a heterogeneous group of employees, lacking a sufficient com- munity of interest to warrant their severance in a single unit 15 How- ever, we believe that the constituent craft groups therein, as well as those craft employees sought by the Carpenters, may constitute sepa- rate appropriate units. The carpenters, the welders, the blacksmiths, and the tinsmiths per- form their respective craft work throughout the Employer's plant, exercising their traditional craft skills, performing no other work, interchanging with no other craft, and receiving the rate of pay for craftsmen, which is different from that for operating personnel. While we have held that welders who are all regularly assigned to work with a particular craft or crafts should not by themselves con- stitute a separate appropriate craft unit, the welders herein work with, and for, all crafts; are a part of a separate welding department; and perform all welding work for the entire plant in a separate welding shop.18 We are of the opinion that the carpenters, welders, black- smiths, and tinsmiths here exercise skills and functions similar to those exercised by other employees who, we have held, constitute iden- tifiable, homogeneous, craftsmen and that, therefore,-theflnay consti- tute separate appropriate units?' Accordingly, we shall establish separate voting groups for the carpenters, welders, blacksmiths, and tinsmith S.18 There remain for consideration the riggers sought by the Boiler- makers, all of whom are assigned to the rigging department. These employees also have been a part of the mbre inclusive plant-wide unit since 1942 and are presently represented by the Oil Workers. Their primary duty is the movement by machine of materials and equip- ment that cannot be moved by hand. While riggers may be skilled in the use of moving equipment and in the movement of heavy loads, we have previously held that such employees are not craftsmen,19 nor may they constitute an appropriate severable unit on any other basis, in view of the long, more inclusive bargaining history. Accordingly, we shall not direct an election among these employees. 'a International Paper Company, Southern Kraft Division (Rayon Plant ), 94 NLRB 500; International Paper Company, Southern Kraft Division, 94 NLRB 483. "International Paper Company (Southern Kraft Division), 96 NLRB 295 . Member Houston joins in this result only because he feels bound by the decision in the cited case from which he dissented. 17lnternational Paper Company, Southern Kraft Division (Rayon Plant ), supra ; Inter- national Paper Company, Southern Kraft Division, supra ; Merck & Co, Inc., 88 NLRB 975. 19 We have been administratively advised that the Boilermakers has failed to make a showing of Interest in the tinsmith group. Accordingly we shall not place It on the ballot in the election - directed for that group. 19 Continental Oil Company, 95 NLRB 165 ;`Heyden Chdmicai Corporation, 85 'NLRB 1185, and cases cited therein. TIN PROCESSING CORPORATION Case No. 39-RC-316 305 The Operating Engineers seeks to sever part of the Employer's 493 production employees presently represented by the Oil Workers: operators, operator helpers, master weighers, weighers, checkers, boiler attendants, and boiler attendant helpers, laboratory analysts, and lab- oratory trainees. The Oil Workers contends that this unit is inappro- priate, in part because it fails to include approximately 218 other pro- •duction employees, primarily laborers; all of whom have also been, since 1942, a part of the broader production and maintenance unit presently represented by the Oil Workers. The Employer's production group consists of approximately 8 operating departments, an analytical laboratory, and a transportation department. Each of the operating departments is separately super- vised and is composed principally of operators, helpers, and laborers. The operators and their helpers operate the machinery and perform the production work. They do not appear to be skilled craftsmen and receive less than the rate of pay for craftsmen. The laborers work with the operators and do the manual labor of carrying samples, sweeping floore, and cleaning up. Moreover, some laborers in the leaching and tungsten departments also perform production work. Laborers generally have plant-wide seniority, whereas the other em- ployees requested by the Operating Engineers have departmental seniority. However, contrary to the contention of the Operating En- gineers, this has not prevented laborers from applying for and secur- ing departmental jobs. In addition to excluding laborers, the Oper- ating Engineers would exclude the following operating department personnel: The regenerator rig man and the 4 employees who clean I he regenerators and operate a drill, the 4 scrap charge men who charge the kilns with scrap iron, and the coal crusher. Further, the Oper- ating Engineers would not include in its unit all the 30 transporta- tioirdepaYrtnient employees who operate the lift trucks that move mate- rial .througjiiout the plant; and the fusers,20 laborers, and janitors in the analytical laboratory. Working conditions and standards for working efficiency are the same for all these employees. They all re- ceive the same general wage increases, punch time clocks, use the same cafeteria and parking facilities, and are subject to the general provisions of the Oil Workers' contract. Thus, these categories of employees have interests in common with the other employees engaged in this highly integrated operation. In these circumstances, we see no persuasive reason for setting up a part of a group of production employees as a separate unit, particularly in the face of a long history 20 The fusers fuse or liquefy the ore in a gas-fired furnace to prepare it for the laboratory analyst who tests for silver. 306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of bargaining on a more inclusive basis.21 The only basis for the re- quested unit appears to lie in the extent of organization. As we are precluded by the Act from giving controlling weight to this factor in any unit determination,22 we find that the unit petitioned for by the Operating Engineers is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,23 and shall dismiss its petition. In view of the foregoing, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall direct separate elections by secret ballot among the employees of the Employer at its Texas City, Texas, plant, in the voting groups set forth below, excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act : (a) All electricians, apprentices, helpers, and leadmen; (b) all carpenters, apprentices, helpers, and leadmen; (c) all welders, ap- prentices, helpers, and leadmen; (d) all blacksmiths, including ap- prentices; (e) all tinsmiths and/or sheet metal workers. If a majority of the employees in any of these voting groups vote for the IBEW or Carpenters or Boilermakers or Sheet Metal Workers, in the voting groups where these labor organizations appear on the ballot, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute separate bargaining units. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 39-RC-316, by Local No. 347, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL; be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 21 See Central Cooperative Wholesale, 93 NLRB 1. 22 See Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act. 23 See Alpine Metals Manufacturing Company, 95 NLRB 1190 ; Silverwood's, 92 NLRB 949. INTERNATIONAL.PAPER COMPANY (SOUTHERN KRAFT DIVISION) and UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL, LOCAL 568, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-51i. Sep- tem,ber 21, 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 Andrew P . Carter, hearing 96 NLRB No. 35.