Clayton and Lambert Manufacturing Co.

CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 107 The Petitioner contends that, as the three forging inspectors on the belt machines work in a manner similar to the polishers, they should be added to the Petitioner's present unit. The Employer contends that all nine forging inspectors should be placed in the same unit .9 The Intervenor contends that the group sought to be included in the Petitioner's unit is inappropriate and that any single unit of in- spectors would also be inappropriate 10 As the three forging inspectors sought by the Petitioner constitute only an arbitrary segment of a group of employees performing the same type of work, we find that a unit limited to them is inappro- priate." Because it appears that the requested unit is inappropriate upon a craft or other basis and because the record affords no j ustifica- tion for directing a self-determination election for either final in- spectors or forging inspectors,- we shall dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 9In the alternative, the Employer asks for one unit, encompassing all inspectors. It should be noted that the Intervenor appears to have made a demand on the Em- ployer to recognize it as the bargaining representative for all nine forging inspectors. U Gunnison Homes, Inc., 98 NLRB 1049; D. B. Thornton Co., 94 NLRB 1188. 3' Although a separate election for all forging inspectors is not precluded by a broader bargaining history, the Intervenor has submitted no showing of interest as a basis for holding an election in this group. Moreover, we will not establish a separate unit of all forging inspectors, as neither the Petitioner nor the Intervenor seeks such a unit. CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL,' PETITIONER CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and LODGE 681, DISTRICT LODGE 27, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL,2 PETITIONER CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 9369, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC- TRICAL WORKERS, AFL,3 PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 9-RC-1680, 9-RC- 1695, and 9-RC-1697. October 28,195°L Decision, Order, and Direction of Election Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Richard C. 1 Hereinafter referred to as IAM. z Hereinafter referred to as Lodge 681. Hereinafter referred to as IBEW. 101 NLRB No. 32. 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Curry, 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-mem- ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. 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 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 Sections 9 (c) (1) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act in Case No. 9-RC-1695. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9 (c) (1) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act in Cases Nos. 9-RC-1680 and 9-RC-1697, for the following reasons : The USA urges as a bar to the petitions filed in Cases Nos. 9-RC-- 1680 and 9-RC-1697, its contract with the Employer signed on July 22, 1952, effective to December 20, 1953, and covering the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Louisville, Kentucky, Naval Ordnance plant, exclusive of the toolroom employees who are involved in Case No. 9-RC-1695. On July 18, 1952, the IAM, the Petitioner in Case No. 9-RC-1680, wrote a letter to the Employer in which it claimed to represent "a substantial interest among the Production and Maintenance em- ployees at your Louisville Ordnance Division." In the letter the TAM also advised the Employer not to enter into any agreement with any other labor organization covering such employees. This letter was received by the Employer on July 21, the day before the Em- ployer signed the agreement with the USA. The Employer's answer to this letter, dated July 23, noted that the IAM did "not claim to represent a majority of either the entire plant or of your own craft," and that since it had signed a contract with the USA covering a unit of production and maintenance employees, it could not recognize the TAM as bargaining agent for those employees, but would recognize the IAM as bargaining agent for the employees in the toolroom 5 4 The United Steelworkers of America , CIO, hereinafter referred to as the USA, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest . The Falls Cities Car- penters District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, hereinafter referred to as the FCC , was permitted to intervene on the basis of an adequate showing of interest. For reasons stated, infra, the motion of the USA to dismiss the petitions in Cases Nos. 9-RC-1680 and 9-RC-1697 is granted. 6 At the Employer's 18th Street plant the TAM is the duly certified bargaining repre- sentative for the toolroom employees and the USA is the recognized bargaining repre- sentative for the production and maintenance employees. CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 109 The IAM filed its petition in Case No. 9-RC-1680 on July 29. The 1BEW filed its petition in Case No. 9-RC-1697 on August 11, 4 days after it notified the Employer that it claimed to represent a majority of the electricians in the maintenance department. On these facts the USA contends that its contract with the Em- ployer is a bar to the above-named petitions. We agree. We find that the IAM's letter of July 18 does not constitute a sufficient claim of representation. The letter merely contains an admonition to the Employer not to negotiate a contract with any other labor organiza- tion and a bare assertion of interest. It does not contain a request for recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's employees nor does it notify the Employer that the IAD'I intended to file a petition with the Board. Consequently, we find that the contract is a bar to both petitions because it was executed before either was filed and before either of said Petitioners had made an adequate claim of representation.5 We shall therefore dismiss the petitions filed by the IAM and the IBEW. 4. We find, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, that -ill toolroom employees, including the tool and die makers and the tool grinders, at the Employer's Naval Ordnance plant in South Louisville, Kentucky, but excluding all other production and mainte- nance employees and all office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. Order Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions filed in Cases Nos. 9-RC-1680 and 9-RC-1697, respectively be, and they hereby are, dismissed. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 6 See Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 79 NLRB 1040. We find no merit in the FCC's contention that its request for recognition as bargaining representative of the maintenance employees , dated June 27, prevents the USA contract from operating as a bar. The FCC's petition filed thereafter was dismissed by the Regional Director and no appeal was taken to the Board , the request or claim upon which it was based is therefore inoperative. Cushman's Sons, Inc., 88 NLRB 121.