J. I. Case Co.

638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD J. I. CASE COMPANY, BETTENDORF WORKS and INTERNA- TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS, OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO, Petitioner and DISTRICT 102, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL. Case No. 18-RC- 1829. June 17, 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 Richard P. O'Connell, 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 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 meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and.(7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner and the Employer agree upon a gen- eral production and maintenance employee unit subject to certain agreed exclusions. They disagree as to the em- ployees in the experimental department (department 23) and in the research and development department (depart- ment 170), all of whom the Petitioner would exclude. The Intervenor requests a separate unit of the machine repair department employees (department 85), which both the other parties contend would be inappropriate. The Employer, a manufacturer of farm implements and farm machinery, makes combine and forge harvesters at its Bettendorf, Iowa, Works. Employees in the machine repair department (department 85) repair and maintain the production machinery on the plant floor. They are classified as grade A, B, and C ma- chinists. There is no formal training or apprentice program for them, but previous experience is required for assign- ment to this department. New machinists are recruited both by transfer from within the plant and by hiring from outside. These repairmen spend most of their time in the IThe hearing officer correctly ruled that the record need not reflect facts relating to the administrative investigation of the showing of interest. J I. Case Company, 95 NLRB 1493, en- forced 201 F. 2d 597 (C A. 9). In any event, the investigation shows that the Petitioner made a sufficient showing of representation. 105 NLRB No. 82. J. I. CASE COMPANY 639 production areas of the plant where the machines they re- pair are located and they spend very little time in their own department, although they keep their tools there and they punch the time clock as a departmental group. The department has its own foreman, who is responsible to the general foreman in charge of production . These em- ployees have the same hours and conditions of work as all other maintenance repairmen, and are paid on the same flat-rate basis , depending on degree of skill . Apparently, there are no other maintenance machinists in the plant except insofar as some employees in the tool and die making department, already represented by the Intervenor in a departmental unit, may be so designated. Employees in the experimental department (department 23) physically build new models and parts being developed by the engineering department for future production. Their work is not part of the production process but their skills and knowledge are similar to those of some of the produc- tion and maintenance employees elsewhere in the plant. The department is composed of experimental mechanics, blacksmiths , and general laborers . This department receives specific instructions from the engineers for all of the work it does. Thus , although these employees have their own foreman and department superintendent , the latter is re- sponsible to the engineering department which, in turn, is under the works manager. The research and development department (department 170) makes spot- check tests of the end -product coming off the production line and it makes corrections and necessary adjustments on farm machinery already in the hands of dealers and customers . Employees in this department are designated "field service workers " and are classified as grade A, B, C, D, and laborer . A new man is ordinarily first hired as a laborer , gradually moving up through the successive grades as he learns more about the operation and functioning of the farm equipment produced. Field ser- vice workers spend about 75 percent of their time in the field . They are supervised by their own foreman who is under a general foreman responsible to the production su- perintendent. Recruitment of both field service workers and experi- mental workers is from inside and outside the plant. Em- ployees in these two departments have the same benefits, hours, and conditions of work as production employees but, unlike the latter, they are paid on a flat - rate rather than piece-rate basis. However, their wages are comparable with those of other flat- rate employees , such as maintenance workers , who have similar degrees of skill. By agreement of the Employer and both Unions here involved, the employees in all three of the disputed depart- ments were included in the broad production and maintenance unit which the Board found appropriate in representation 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD proceedings in 1948 and again in 1951 .2 During the past 5 years several craft units were established apart from the plantwide unit . These groups , all excluded by stipulation now, are the toolroom (tool and die makers ), represented by the Intervenor ; the patternmakers , represented by the Pattern Makers Association; and the maintenance repair electricians , represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL. As a result of the 1948 Board proceeding , the Petitioner was certified in the production and maintenance unit, and apparently represented these em- ployees thereafter until the 1951 proceeding . It does not appear that any union won a majority in the overall unit in the 1951 election. We see no persuasive reason for excluding the employees in departments 23 and 170 from the general production and maintenance unit . The experimental employees (who build new models ) and the research and development workers (who test and adjust the end products ) perform work in- volving skills similar to those of other workers through- out the plant , and are subject to the same working condi- tions and benefits with substantially the same relationship to management . The mode of payment in both departments is the same as that of maintenance workers in the large unit and the rates are comparable . We do not agree with the Petitioner ' s contention that merely because the field service workers spend three -fourths of their time in the field, they have such different interests that their inclu- sion in the larger unit is improper . Differences in the situs of employment are not controlling in unit placement when employment interests are otherwise essentially the same, especially where, as here, a substantial portion of the dis- puted employees ' time is spent carrying out duties on the production floor.3 On all the record, including the fact that departments 23 and 170 have been part of the plantwide unit in the past and so represented by the Petitioner, we find no merit in the Petitioner ' s request for their exclusion, and we shall therefore include them in the production and maintenance group described below.4 As to the machine repairmen (department 85), it is clear on the record that they possess and exercise the traditional skills of their craft and category . The record does not support the Employer' s contention that this group may not constitute a separate bargaining unit, either because they properly belong in the overall unit or because they should be joined with the tool and die makers ' unit . As the Board has held, tool and die makers are highly skilled craftsmen whose interests are separate and distinct from those of maintenance machinists , and both groups may be separately 2 79 NLRB 1070; 97 NLRB No. 31. 3The North Electric Manufacturing Company, 89 NLRB 260. 4J. I. Case Company, 80 NLRB 223. J. L CASE COMPANY 641 represented in the same plant.' No reason appears, there- fore, why these machine repairmen, like comparable groups, may not also constitute a separate unit despite their history of inclusion in the plantwide unit.' Of course, they may also remain part of the production and maintenance unit if they so desire. We shall, therefore, make no final unit determination at this time, but shall be guided in part by the desires of the maintenance repairmen. Accordingly, we shall direct that separate elections be conducted among the Employer's employees in the following voting groups: Voting Group No. 1: All production and maintenance em- ployees of the Employer at its Bettendorf, Iowa, Works, including all employees in the experimental department (No. 23) and in the research and development department (No. 170), but excluding all employees in the machine repair department (No. 85); all maintenance electricians; the fol- lowing employees in department 84: All tool and die makers, toolroom machine operators, tool and die heat treaters, tool and die makers' apprentices, toolroom crib attendants and their leadmen, die sinkers, die finishers, inspectors on dies, tools and jigs, and tool welders; the following employees in department 281: All patternmakers and patternmakers' apprentices; all technical, clerical, and professional em- ployees; all trainees preparing for jobs not included in the production and maintenance unit, all plant-protection em- ployees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. Voting Group No. 2: All employees in the machine repair depprtment (No. 85) at the Employer's Bettendorf, Iowa, Works, excluding all other employees, plant-protection em- ployees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in each of the voting groups (No. 1 and No. 2) select the same labor organization, the em- ployees in voting group No. 2 will be deemed to have indi- cated their desire to form part of the overall unit and the Regional Director conducting the elections is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor or- ganization selected by the employees in the two groups, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be a single unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority of employees in voting group No. 2 selects a labor organization which is not selected by the employees in voting group No. 1, the employees in voting group No. 2 will be deemed to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit and the Regional Director conducting the elections is instructed to issue a certification of represen- tatives to the labor organization selected by the employees in that group, which the Board, in such circumstances finds to be a separate unit appropriate for collective-bargaining 5 Aluminum Corporation of America, 83 NLRB 398. 6 E I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, 83 NLRB 865. 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD purposes. If a majority of the employees in voting group No. 1 also selects a labor organization, the Regional Di- rector conducting the election is instructed to issue a cer- tification of representatives to the labor organization se- lected by the employees in that group, which the Board in such circumstances also finds to be a separate unit ap- propriate for collective-bargaining purposes. If the em- ployees in either or both voting groups do not select a la- bor organization, the Regional Director conducting the elec- tion is instructed to issue a certification of results of elec- tion with respect to such group or groups. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] THE CURTISS WAY CORPORATION and ALBIN J. MUZYCZKA, Petitioner and LOCAL 102, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF BOOKBINDERS , AFL. Case No . 1-RD-141. June 17, 1953 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 Harold M. Kowal, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member 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 Petitioner asserts that the Union, which is currently recognized by the Employer, is nolonger the bargaining repre- sentative of the employees of the Employer as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act. 3. The Union contends that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that it resulted from collusion between the Em- ployer and the Petitioner. The record shows that the Petitioner circulated among employees on his shift during working hours and secured signatures to the petition filed herein. Employees on the Employer's other shift were contacted at the plant by the Petitioner during their working hours. The Petitioner was reprimanded for engaging in such activity during his working hours but apparently no action was taken against him as to his securing signatures to the petition on his own time from members of the second shift. While the evidence clearly shows that the Employer's supervisors had knowledge of the Peti- tioner's activity, we have previously held that knowledge, alone, 105 NLRB No. 86.