C. K. Williams & Co.

C. K. WILLIAMS & CO. 219 such modification, as in the instant case, does not warrant a different result.' We find, therefore, that ng question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and we will dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 3See Appleton Electric Company, 105 NLRB 666. C. K. WILLIAMS & CO. and DISTRICT NO. 9, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, A.F.L., 'Petitioner C. K. WILLIAMS & CO. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 149 A.F.L.,' Peti- tioner . Cases Nos. 14-RC-2202, 14-RC-2203, and 14-RC- 2213. July 20, 1953 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Walter A. Werner, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in these cases , the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to representcer- tain 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 Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of iron oxide pigments. The bargaining history of its East St. Louis, Illinois, plant, which is alone involved in this proceeding, dates back to 1936, when the Employer entered into a collective-bargaining agreement covering all its hourly paid production and maintenance employees. In 1948 Interna- 'Herein referred to as the I A M. 2 Herein referred to as the Operating Engineers. 3 The Employer and intervenor moved at the hearing that the petitions in all three cases be dismissed The motions were referred to the Board. For reasons stated below, in the text, the motions are granted only with respect to Case No 14-RC-2202. 4Local No 21, International Chemical Workers Union, A F.L., intervened in the instant cases on the basis of a current contract. 106 NLRB No 35. 220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers was certified for a unit consisting of six electricians and their helpers.5 All other production and maintenance employees are currently repre- sented by the Intervenor. The Petitioners seek to sever from this broad unit units of journeymen garage mechanics, ma- chinists, and powerhouse employees. In addition to more specific objections discussed below, the Employer and the Intervenor object to severance of any of the proposed units upon the ground that, in view of the long and successful collective-bargaining history on a comprehensive basis, the plantwide unit is alone appropriate. However, it is well settled that a history of bargaining on a broader basis does not preclude severance.6 Case No. 14-RC-2202 There are 41 employees classified as millwrights in the Employer's plant. The I.A.M. seeks to sever 2 of these em- ployees as a unit of journeymen auto mechanics. The Employer and Intervenor contend that the requested unit is not appro- priate. These employees tune up truck motors, change tires, and perform other duties usually associated with the job of automobile or garage mechanic. They have the same immediate supervision as many of the other millwrights and have the same general working conditions. We find that a unit consisting of the requested garage mechanics is inappropriate because such employees are not skilled craftsmen.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition in Case No. 14-RC-2202. Case No. 14-RC-2203 The I.A.M. also seeks to sever a unit consisting of all journeymen machinists and helpers. There are three em- ployees of the Employer's plant classified as machinists. The duty of the machinists is to fabricate and repair parts for the equipment and machinery used throughout the plant. These employees are headquartered, and spend most of their time working, in the machine shop, which is located in a building separate from other working areas in the plant. Such work as they do at other locations is largely restricted to gathering information such as size specifications for work to be performed in the shop. To qualify for the position of a machinist, an employee must have background as a journeyman in that craft. The machinists are highly skilled and use the 5 Case No 14-RC-81 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions). 6 Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 103 NLRB 1020; Nesco, Inc , 101 NLRB 147; Hudson Pulp & Paper Corporation, 94 NLRB 1018 7 Armstrong Cork Company, 97 NLRB 1057. The I A.M sought at the hearing to introduce into evidence a certificate issued to Verdon Johnson, one of the two garage mechanic mill- wrights prior to his employment with the Employer, attesting that he had completed a course of training as a Chevrolet mechanic. Both the Employer and the Intervenor objected to the introduction in evidence of the exhibit on the ground that it was immaterial. The 'rearing officer referred the objections to the Board. We have considered the exhibit as part of the record in the case. C. K. WILLIAMS & CO. 221 customary precision hand and machine tools such as microm- eters, calipers, lathes, and drill presses, and perform the traditional work of their craft. They do bench and layout work, must be able to work from blueprints and drawings, and frequently are required to work to close tolerances. The Employer contends, inter alia, that the proposed machinist unit is inappropriate because many of the millwrights fre- quently use the machine shop to perform certain tasks that are not unlike those performed by the machinist. None of the millwrights are headquartered in the machine shop, and they all spend most of their time working in other areas of the plant. The millwrights generally do work involving the mainte - nance and repair of existing machinery in the plant and the construction and installation of new machines or chemical processing equipment. In carrying out their duties, the mill- wrights perform jobs requiring plumbing, carpentry, cement, and brick laying work. Not infrequently a millwright may use certain machines that are located in the machine shop. Thus to a limited extent their work overlaps that performed by the machinists. However, the millwrights' work in the machine shop does not usually require the same degree of precision as does the machinists', work. Furthermore, unlike the ma- chinists, the millwrights rarely do machining on the lathes located in the shop. The machinists receive 13 cents an hour more than the journeyman millwrights. Upon the entire record, we find that the machinists may constitute a separate appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining. 8 Case No. 14-RC-2213 The Petitioner , Operating Engineers , seeks to sever a unit of all licensed engineers, firemen, and utility men who are employed in the power department. These employees all work in the powerhouse, which is a building separate and apart from the other buildings that make up the Employer's plant. They work different hours, and under separate immediate super- vision, from all other employees, and perform customary boilerroom duties. It is clear from the foregoing and the entire record that the powerhouse employees constitute a distinct, homogeneous, and functionally coherent group, which the Board has customarily held may be accorded separate representation.' Contrary to the contentions advanced by the Employer, the proposed unit of power department employees is not rendered inappropriate by its possible disruptive effect on labor rela- tions , " nor because most of the steam generated in the power department is used in the production process, n nor because there is a limited interchange of powerhouse employees with 8 W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627; Globe Steel Tube Co., 101 NLRB 772; Glass Fibers, Inc., 93 NLRB 1289. 9Heyden Chemical Corporation, 100 NLRB 520. 10 Heyden Chemical Corporation, supra. 11 Reynolds Metals Company, 93 NLRB 721. 222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD other production and maintenance employees through the process of plantwide bidding for vacancies throughout the plant. 12 Accordingly, we find that the power department em- ployees may constitute a separate appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining.13 We shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall direct separate elections by secret ballot be held among the employees at the Employer's East St. Louis, Illinois, plant in the following voting groups: (1) All journeymen machinists and their apprentices, ex- cluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) All licensed engineers , firemen, and utility men in the power department, excluding all other employees, clerical, technical, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in voting group (1) or (2) votes for I.A.M. or Operating Engineers, respectively, 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 certifi- cation of representatives to the I.A.M. or Operating Engineers for the applicable unit, which the Board, under such circum- stances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority of the employees in either voting group (1) or (2) votes for the Intervenor they shall continue to be represented by the Intervenor as part of the existing production and maintenance unit and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [The Board dismissed the petition.] [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] Member Peterson, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with my colleagues that the petition in Case No. 14-RC-2202 should be dismissed because the requested garage mechanics are not skilled craftsmen and a unit of these em- ployees is therefore inappropriate. However, I disagree with their decision to direct elections in Cases Nos. 14-RC-2203 and 14-RC-2213 for machinists and powerhouse employees, respectively. 12 Burroughs Adding Machine Company, 90 NLRB 1814. 13 The Operating Engineers sought to introduce in evidence a letter of November 28, 1952, from the Employer to a representative of the Operating Engineers, requesting his views on certain job instructions issued to engineers in the power department. The purpose of this offer was to show that the Operating Engineers had in fact participated in bargaining for the power department employees in the past. The Intervenor and Employer objected to the admission of this letter in evidence on the ground that it was irrelevant. The hearing officer referred these objections to the Board for a ruling. While the Board generally does not require any showing of separate bargaining by powerhouse employees to justify a finding that they may constitute a separate unit, we do not regard such evidence as wholly irrelevant and will treat the proffered letter as part of the record herein. INTERNATIONAL SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY 223 The record discloses that the machinists and powerhouse employees have been represented as part of the production and maintenance unit since 1936. Because of the long bargaining history of their inclusion in an overall unit and because other factors warranting their severance are lacking , 14 I would also dismiss the petitions in Cases Nos . 14-RC-2203 and 14-RC- 2213. 14 See my dissenting opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627. INTERNATIONAL SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY, RARITAN COPPER WORKS and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-1981. July 20, 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 W. Draper Lewis , Jr., 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 Peterson]. 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 representcer- tain 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 employees involved in the instant case are employed at the Employer' s Perth Amboy , New Jersey , plant , where the Employer is engaged in the smelting and refining of copper and other nonferrous metals . The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all hourly paid production and maintenance employees at the Employer ' s plant, excluding all salaried employees and all employees and their successors on an exempt list compiled by the Employer . Smelter Workers agrees that this constitutes an appropriate unit but would include in it salaried plant clericals, if any. MESA contends that the appropriate unit should include all salaried employees who are covered by its present contract with the Employer, in addition to the hourly paid production and maintenance employees , but agrees to the exclusion of employ- lLocal 17, Mechanics Educational Society of America, hereinafter referred to as MESA, intervened on the basis of a current contractual interest . International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, hereinafter referred to as Smelter Workers, intervened on the basis of a showing of interest. 106 NLRB No. 45.