Kuhns Brothers Co.

146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I want it to. However , if I did not want it that way it could easily be changed to 75 % to 90 % white and 10% to 25% colored . Be sure of this--the Union can not help you in this or have they ever been able to. I, myself control this. I trust you men understand my feelings in this matter and don 't ever make me regret the fact that I supported the colored people . . . . (Emphasis added.) At the March 2 meeting, Keiser , in answering that part of the Union' s handbill distributed that morning which read : "If you vote YES , you will have . . . a union to protect your rights," stated among other things to the employees: Don't let the union fool you. You know that I still have some control over this company whether there is a union contract or not . You know that I have kept many men on this job who have been here many, many years and who would find it mighty hard to get a job somewhere else if they were back in the open market . I kept them because I want them . You also remember that there are many men who are not with us today who were here two years ago. I did not want those men , *they are not here now, and you know it . (Emphasis added.) The two above-quoted excerpts from Keiser ' s speeches are clearly implied threats to the Negro and the older employees of loss of employment should the Union be successful in the forthcoming election . Therefore , apart from any consideration of other of Keiser ' s statements found by the Regional Director to be coercive , we find that these implied threats made im- possible a free and uncoerced choice by the employees at the polls of a bargaining representative , and shall order that the election of March 3 , 1953, be set aside ., We shall direct the Regional Director to conduct a new election at such time as he deems appropriate. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of March 3, 1953, be, and it hereby is, set aside. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the Regional Director for the Tenth Region for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems the cir- cumstances permit a free choice of bargaining representative. KUHNS BROTHERS COMPANY and DISTRICT 13 LODGE NO. 225 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner . Case No . 9-RC-1949. July 14, 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 William P. 106 NLRB No 25 KUHNS BROTHERS COMPANY 147 Witman, 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, Styles, 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 cer- tain 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 production and maintenance unit which has been represented for 8 years by Local 768, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, hereinafter called Intervenor, a unit comprising all toolmaker-inspectors, toolmakers, machinists, maintenance machinists, maintenance helpers,' welders, and tool crib attendants , employed by the Employer at its Dayton, Ohio, plant, or, in the alternative, such unit or units that the Board may find appropriate composed of any combination or combi- nations of the foregoing employees. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that severance should be denied because of the bargaining history for the production and maintenance employees as a single unit and the integration of plant opera- tions . We find, however, from the record that the Employer's operations are not so integrated as to preclude severance of craft units, nor does the bargaining history preclude such severance.2 The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of ductile iron and cast iron pipefittings. All of the employees in the proposed unit except 2 maintenance machinists and the welder have their headquarters in the toolroom and all except the 2 maintenance machinists mentioned are under the supervision of the toolroom foreman. Some laborers and an electrician, whom the parties agree to exclude, also work in the toolroom under the toolroom foreman. Employees who start as mainte- nance helpers become maintenance machinists after if years and after another if years become machinists. Approximately 2 years thereafter they become toolmakers. In addition, some employees having the requisite skills are hired originally as machinists and advance in the same manner as other ma- chinists. With the exception of the maintenance helpers, these employees all exercise to varying degrees the skills of the machinist's craft, using the tools of that craft. In addition to their duties as machinists, the toolmakers spend about 25 percent of their time doing the work of the toolmaker's classi- 1 Also referred to at the hearing as machinist helpers. 2 See Buffalo Weaving and Bedding Company, 105 NLRB 71. 322615 0 - 54 - 11 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fication. The toolmaker-inspector is a toolmaker who has the additional duty of checking the accuracy of the toolmakers' work. This task occupies about 5 percent of his time. Most of the remainder of the time of the toolmakers and toolmaker- inspector, as well as the majority of the time of the machinists and maintenance machinists, is devoted to the installation, repair, and maintenance of machinery. In view of the agreed exclusion of the laborers and the elec- trician, it is clear that the Petitioner is not seeking to repre- sent the toolroom employees as a departmental unit. In any event, such a unit would be inappropriate in view of the fact that two of the maintenance machinists sought are not assigned to the toolroom but to the foundry. 3 Under these circumstances, we find that all toolmakers, toolmaker-inspectors, machinists, maintenance machinists, including the maintenance machinists assigned to the foundry,4 and maintenance helpers comprise a distinct, homogeneous group of related craftsmen and apprentices who may, if they so desire, constitute a separate unit. 5 The tool-crib attendants sought by the Petitioner are plant clerical employees working in the toolroom under the super- vision of the toolroom foreman. The welder sought by the Petitioner, while under the same supervision as the toolroom employees, does not work in the toolroom but in the annealing room, where he spends all his time in maintenance welding. He is not regularly assigned to work with any of the other employees sought by the Petitioner. In view of the foregoing, there appears to be no basis for including the tool-crib attend- ants or welder 6 in the same unit with the craft group described above, and we will exclude them. Moreover, there is no basis for finding that the welder and tool-crib attendants constitute a separate appropriate unit or units. Accordingly, we shall direct an election among all tool- makers, toolmaker-inspectors, machinists, maintenance ma- chinists, and maintenance helpers at the Employer's Dayton, Ohio, plant, excluding all other employees, tool-crib attendants, welders, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority 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 election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collec- tive bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing plantwide unit to be appropriate, and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 3See Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 101 NLRB 441. 4See Westinghouse Electric Corporation, supra. 5See Buffalo Weaving and Bedding Company, 105 NLRB 71; Kimble Glass Company, 102 NLRB 933 6See Sullivan Mining Company, 101 NLRB 1366. EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY 149 Member Peterson , dissenting: The employees sought herein by the Petitioner have been represented by the Intervenor in a production and maintenance unit for 8 years . In view of this substantial collective-bar- gaining history on a plantwide basis, and in the absence of other factors which would warrant their severance from the established unit,T I would not accord these employees separate representation. T See my dissenting opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627. EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY and DISTRICT NO. 9 INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, A.F.L., Peti- tioner and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, LOCAL 1102, CIO. Case No. 14-RC - 2030 . July 14, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election ,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on February 6, 1953, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, in a voting group of machinists and tool and diemakers employed by the Employer. At the close of the election , the parties were furnished a tally of ballots . The tally showed that of the approximately 207 eligible voters, 199 ballots were cast . Of the ballots cast , 82 were cast for the Petitioner , 102 were cast for the Intervenor , and 14 were challenged. Thereafter , on February 11, 1953, the Petitioner filed timely objections , and a corrected objection on February 16, 1953, to the conduct of the election. In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board , the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on March 17, 1953 , issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections to election . In his report , the Regional Director found that the Petitioner ' s objections raised no substantial or material issues which would justify setting aside the election, and recommended that the objections be overruled , and that an appropriate certification of representatives be issued. On March 25, 1953, the Petitioner filed exceptions to the Regional Director ' s findings and recommendations as to these objections along with a motion for reconsideration of report on objections to election . On March 31 , 1953, the Regional Director issued a supplemental report denying the motion for reconsideration and recommending that the Board overrule the objection raised in the motion . The Petitioner filed ex- ceptions to this supplemental report. 1102 NLRB 303. 106 NLRB No. 28.