Dirilyte Co. of America, Inc.

104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD history or lack thereof of the very group of employees concerned should not, we believe, be ignored by giving binding effect to the pat- tern established by another group not directly involved. Considering the lack of bargaining history for guards, their special attributes, the wide geographic dispersal of the Employer's plants, the degree of local control, and the nature of their present organization, we believe that a unit of guards at one of the Employer's plants and related warehouses would also be appropriate. The Petitioner here has asked for a unit of Lawrenceburg plant and Milan warehouse guards, but is also willing to include the guards at the Kings Mills and Middletown warehouses. As these warehouses bear the same relation to the Lawrenceburg plant as that at Milan, we believe that the guards at all three warehouses should be included in the unit. Accordingly, we find that all guards at the Employer's Lawrence- burg, Indiana, plant, and its Milan, Indiana, and Kings Mills and Middletown, Ohio, warehouses, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] MEMBER MURDOCK, dissenting : I am convinced that the Board's decision in the earlier Seagram case' was correct. The majority, in reversing that decision, has, in my opinion, discarded a salutary principle of representation case law that has been instrumental in furthering industrial harmony. Accord- ingly, I would, for reasons detailed in the former decision, dismiss the petition filed herein on the ground that the unit sought by the Peti- tioner is inappropriate. B Joseph E . Seagram k Sons, Inc., 83 NLRB 167. DIRILYTE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. and METAL POLISIIERS, BUFFERS, PLATERS AND HELPERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 24, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-2852. October 27, 1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Helene Zogg, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej- udicial error and are hereby affirmed. 101 NLRB No. 35. DIRILYTE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC . 105 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 Murdock and Peter- son]. 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. 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 Employer, an Indiana corporation having its principal office and sole place of business in Kokomo, Indiana, is engaged in the manu- facture and sale of tableware, hollowware, and airplane and rocket parts. The Petitioner seeks to add to its present unit the following em- ployees : All final inspectors and all employees operating belt-polishing machines in the forging inspection department? In 1946 the Petitioner was certified as the representative of a unit of metal polishers, buffers, platers, helpers, and apprentices. In 1947 as a result of self-determination elections entered into by agreement of the parties, "inspectors" 3 were added to the unit for which the Petitioner was previously certified and the Intervenor was certified as the representative of the production and maintenance employees.4 As noted above, the present petition proposes to enlarge the Peti- tioner's existing unit by adding to it final inspectors and forging department inspectors. The Final Inspectors There are two employees whose duties are visually to inspect table- ware for polishing, buffing, or other defects, and to wrap it into pack- ages for shipping. Their work consists of about 70 percent inspecting and 30 percent packing. Prior to the 1947 certifications, these em- ployees were classified as shippers and packers; sometime thereafter I United Steelworkers of America, CIO, Local 3535, was permitted to intervene at the hearing. 2 The latter employees will be hereinafter referred to as forging inspectors. 3 The only classification of inspectors in the Employer 's plant at that time was rough inspectors. These employees have been bargained for by the Petitioner since the "Globe" election in 1947. Their duties consist of the visual inspection of flatware and hollow- ware, already processed through the various other departments, for flaws and poor workmanship. At the same time, the International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America was certified as the representative of the foundry employees. 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOIt RELATIONS BOARD they were reclassified as final inspectors, but the record fails to show any substantial change in their duties. Until now, they have been considered a part of the unit represented by the Intervenor. Indeed, in August 1949 the Employer, Petitioner, and Intervenor agreed that the Petitioner would represent the rough inspectors and the Inter- venor the final inspectors. Petitioner claims that the final inspectors have been omitted from its unit through oversight .5 Intervenor contends that these employees bear no relation to the polishers and that their representation by the Intervenor since 1947 prevents their inclusion in the present polishers' unit. Although the Petitioner seeks to sever the final inspectors from an established production and maintenance unit and to add them to its existing craft group, it makes no attempt to show that these employees are craftsmen. Nor does it appear from the record that these em- ployees possess any craft skills.6 Because final inspectors fail to meet any of the recognized tests for severance, we conclude that the Peti- tioner's request must be denied 7 The Forging Inspectors There are nine employees who comprise the department of forging inspectors, organized within the past 18 months. These employees, unlike the two other groups of inspectors, work principally with defense items, such as rocket fins. The four forging inspectors on the first floor clean, wipe, inspect, and rack these fins. The fins, after being sent to other departments, reach the five forging inspectors on the second floor who perform work consisting of straightening and de- burring fins and inspecting." The rate of pay and working conditions are the same for all forging inspectors. Although it appears that three forging inspectors do all the deburring work on the three belt ma- chines, two continuously and one part-time, the Employer's production manager testified that all these inspectors are able to operate such machines. The Petitioner seeks to add three of the total of nine forging inspectors to its craft unit. The other six appear to have the same skills and have, at times, interchanged duties with the three employees in question. 8 This contention appears to be refuted by the agreement of August 1949 in which the Petitioner expressly agreed to the Inclusion of final inspectors in the Intervenor's unit. 8 The final inspectors operate no machines and do no work similar to that done by the employees in the Petitioner's unit. The record fails to show that any special skill or training period is a prerequisite to holding such position. '+ General Electric Company , 89 NLRB 726 , 742, 751, 752, 757; International Harvester Company, 87 NLRB 317; United Growers, Inc., et at, Sr. NLRB 583 ; see Kennecott Copper Corporation, 96 NLRB 1423. 8 The Employer stated that the primary duties of the first floor forging inspectors are stacking and racking and the primary duty of those on the second floor is inspection. 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 justifica- 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. "Gunnison Homes, Inc., 98 NLRB 1048 ; D. B. Thornton Co., 94 NLRB 1188. 79 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,1 PETITIONER CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and LODGE 681, DISTRICT LODGE 27, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL,' PETITIONER CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 369, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC- TRICAL WORKERS, AFL,3 PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 9-RC-1680, 9-RC- 1695, and 9-RC-1697. October 88,1952 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. x Hereinafter referred to as Lodge 681. $ Hereinafter referred to as IBEW. 101 NLRB No. 32.