Buffalo Weaving and Belting Co.

BUFFALO WEAVING AND BELTING COMPANY 71 in 1947 and amended in 1949, 1950, and 1952. At the time of the hearing it had been reopened and the parties were in the process of negotiating new terms. In 1950, while United operated as Atlas, the Board found appropriate a unit of production and maintenance employees at the Hayward can plant and held Hunt and Atlas to be a single employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. In 1951 the petitioning union lost the Board- conducted election and Union No. 768, the historical repre- sentative of these employees , was certified as their collective- bargaining representative. All parties except the IAM stipulated at the hearing that the employees of the Hayward can plant continued tobe covered by the CP & G contract, as they were prior to the certification. The IAM contends that the CP & G contract has not been applied to the employees of United because United is not a signatory to this contract . In view of the Board's finding in the Atlas decision that Hunt and Atlas constituted a single employer, the stipulation of the parties in this case that Hunt and United are, for the purposes of this proceeding , one em- ployer, and the lack of evidence of any change in the relation- ship between Hunt and United since the prior Board decision, we find that Hunt and United constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. We therefore find that it is immaterial that United is not a signatory to the CP & G contract . The signature of Hunt to that contract as the employer of these employees affords a sufficient basis to find, and we do, that the CP & G contract has covered , in form as well as practice , the employees of the Hayward can plant since, at least, 1951. The foregoing facts show that the production and maintenance employees of the Hayward can plant have a history of bargain- ing on a multiemployer basis. The Employer desires to con- tinue to bargain on a multiemployer basis. It is well settled that in these circumstances , severance of a craft unit must be coextensive with the existing production and maintenance unit.3 Accordingly, we find that the craft unit at the Hayward can plant sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate , and shall dis- miss the petition herein. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 3Pioneer Incorporated , 86 NLRB 1319 ; Byrant' s Marina , Inc., et al., 92 NLRB 718. BUFFALO WEAVING AND BELTING COMPANY and INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC-1904 . May 28, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles A. Fleming, hearing officer. The hearing officer ' s rulings made 105 NLRB No 12 291555 0 - 54 - 6 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case , the Boards finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the plantwide unit, which has been represented for 11 years by the Intervenor, International Brotherhood of Foundry and Metal Employees, Local # 110, Independent,' a unit of all toolroom and mainte- nance department employees at the Employer's Alliance, Ohio, plant, or, in the alternative, any unit or units of these em- ployees which the Board finds appropriate. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that severance should be deniedbecause of the bargaining history on a plantwide basis, a community of interests among all employees, and integration of plant oper- ations. We reject this contention as none of the grounds ad- vanced in support thereof is sufficient in the instant case to preclude severance of appropriate craft units.' The Employer is engaged in machining and stamping aircraft and automotive parts. The plant occupies 1 building, originally a carbarn, consisting of 3 main bays with free passageways between them. The Employer at present employs about 252 production employees and 58 maintenance employees in its plant. The Petitioner, in its primary unit request, would include in a single unit all jig, tool, and die makers, machinists, special machine builders, precision grinders, and tool grinders, com- prising the toolroom employees, and all electricians, car- penters, millwrights, and maintenance mechanics, mechanic- welders, and their oilers, helpers, and apprentices, as the maintenance department employees.' The Intervenor contends that this unit is inappropriate because it constitutes a hetero- geneous group of employees. As this proposed unit would com- bine unrelated craftsmen among the Employer' s maintenance employees in the face of a plantwide bargaining history, we find such a unit inappropriate.4 We shall, however, consider the Petitioner's alternative unit request. t The Intervenor's current contract with the Employer, which expires on June 16, 1953, is not raised as a contract bar. z Kimble Glass Company, 102 NLRB 933. 'The Employer does not now employ carpenters, or mechanics' helpers and apprentices; nor is the "rmllwright" classification used, although mechanics are commonly referred to as millwrights in plant parlance. ,4See Kimble Glass Company, supra. BUFFALO WEAVING AND BELTING COMPANY 73 There are 39 toolroom employees, comprising 9 jig, tool, and die makers, 5 machinists, 1 special machine builder, 12 precision grinders , and 12 tool grinders , workingina separate area occupying 30 percent of 1 of the bays in the plant and separately supervised by the toolroom foreman who also has overall supervision of the maintenance department. While the duties of all but the grinders may entail working in the produc- tion areas an average of 1 hour a day, the toolroom employees have and exercise the skills of the related machinist and tool and die maker crafts and are engaged exclusively in making and repairing jigs , tools , and parts used in plant production operations .5 In the maintenance department, in addition to the 3 electricians discussed below, there are 13 mechanics, 1 mechanic -welder, and 5 oilers . The mechanics and oilers are under separate immediate supervision. The mechanics and the mechanic-welder 6 have a separate work area and spend about 90 percent of their time in the plant performing the usual mill- wright duties of repairing , installing , and moving machinery, as well as occasional pipefitting duties. The oilers are un- skilled, have no designated work area, and spend most of their time oiling and greasing machines under the direction of the mechanic's foreman or production foremen. The toolroom and maintenance department employees do no production work,' do not interchange with production workers,' and do not, like production workers, receive incentive pay. Under all the circumstances of this case, we find that the toolroom employees together with the maintenance department mechanics,' all of whom perform skilled related operations under the same overall supervision , comprise a distinct, homo- geneous group of related craftsmen who may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit.'° The electricians work in a separate enclosed area and have separate immediate supervision. They divide their time about equally between their shop and the production areas perform- ing all the Employer's electrical maintenance work. Although one electrician is probationary, all are qualified electricians. We find that the electricians comprise an identifiable, homo- geneous group of craftsmen who may, if they so desire, consti- tute a separate appropriate unit.U 5 The tool grinders, who are less skilled than the other toolroom employees, use the tools and instruments of mechanics and advance to the pay rate of precision grinders 6 The mechanic-welder, in addition to his millwright duties, does all the repair welding for the plant. 7Except for the oilers who occasionally assist in production work 8 However, under the existing seniority system, when layoffs occur, toolroom and mainte- nance employees may displace production workers. 9 We shall exclude the oilers from this group as their interests are more closely identified with those of production workers Ingersoll Products Division of Borg-Warner Corporation, 100 NLRB 1531. 10 Emerson Electric Company, 102 NLRB 303; Ford Motor Company, 96 NLRB 1075; John Deere Plow Works, 94 NLRB 1286; Layne & Bowler, Inc , 90 NLRB 1872; and A. C Spark Plug Division, 88 NLRB 1214. ii Norris-Thermador Corporation, 103 NLRB 1625; The Standard Register Co., 100 NLRB 981; and A C Avery & Sons Company, 86 NLRB 24. 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly , we shall direct elections among employees of the Employer at its Alliance , Ohio, plant, in the voting groups set forth below, excluding from each group office clerical employees , professional and experimental employees , watch- men, all other employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act: (1) All jig , tool , and die makers , machinists , special machine builders , precision grinders , and tool grinders in the tool- room, and all mechanics , including mechanic-welders but ex- cluding oilers , in the maintenance department. ( 2) All electricians. If a majority of the employees in either group vote for the Petitioner , " they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit or units, which the Board , under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority in either group vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to remain part of the existing bargaining unit , and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] Member Peterson , dissenting: Because the petitioning IAM has not shown why the collec- tive-bargaining interests of the toolroom craftsmen or the electricians would be better served by separate unit repre- sentation or have not been fairly and adequately served as part of the overall unit, I would , for reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627, dismiss the petition. It may be conceded , as my colleagues find, that the toolroom employees and the electricians are, respectively , " a distinct, homogeneous group of related craftsmen " and "an identifiable, homogeneous group of craftsmen ." But their craft status is the only factor I can find , in the record or the majority opinion, favoring severance . Against this , the record shows that these employees have been included for 11 or 12 years in a plantwide unit represented by the intervening Independent;" there is a close community of interest among all employees ; and plant operations are closely integrated and in physical proximity. Although my colleagues refer to these factors , they conclude, without more , that none " is sufficient in the instant case to preclude severance of appropriate craft units ." To my mind, 12 As the Employer stated at the hearing that it planned to recall certain temporarily laid- off toolroom and maintenance department employees , including those who , under the seniority provisions of the existing contract, chose to take production jobs, such laid-off employees in either voting group may vote in the elections directed herein 13 Toolroom employees have participated in this bargaining Two or three of them have been president of the independent's local and they have also served as members of its con- tract negotiation and grievance committees. MOTHER'S CAKE AND COOKIE COMPANY 75 each of these considerations is important and in combination they are sufficient to deny craft severance when that result is supported by nothing more than the craft status of the em- ployees proposed to be split off. Accordingly , I would dismiss the petition. MOTHER'S CAKE AND COOKIE COMPANY and CHARLES H. DUTHIE AND LAWRENCE HEALY. Case No. 20-CA-691. May 28, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On March 31, 1953, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. 1 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 [Members Murdock, Styles, and Peterson] . The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Ex- aminer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent's ex- ceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Re- spondent , Mother's Cake and Cookie Company, of Oakland, California , its officers , agents, successors , andassigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership of any of its employees in International Association of Machinists , Local Lodge 284, AFL, or any other labor organization , by discriminating in any manner in regard to any term or condition of employment of any of its employees. I On May 1, 1953, the Respondent filed a motion alleging that complainant Healy voluntarily resigned from the Respondent's employ after the close of the hearing and, in substance, re- questing that the findings and order herein be so amended as to reflect the fact of Healy's resignation. The motion is denied. The fact of such resignation and its effect on the appro- priateness of the remedy prescribed herein can best be resolved in the compliance stage of this proceeding. 105 NLRB No. 23.