Hyster Co.

HYSTER COMPANY 347 employees classified as truckdrivers are licensed drivers. They drive a semitrailer and a "bob-tail" truck on a public highway between the mill and the loading plant ; unlicensed employees drive the two unregistered dump trucks, which ply between the mine and the mill on the Employer's property. Neither licensed nor unlicensed employees who drive trucks are sufficiently skilled to maneuver a trailer truck completely and properly without aid. In fact, the only employee who has had sufficient skill and experience to do so is classified as a shovel operator, and there is no evidence that he drives a truck. All employees are hired at the rate paid by the Em- ployer to common laborers. The only training the employees receive is what they learn in the performance of the particular jobs to which they are assigned. Employees spend unspecified amounts of time performing the work of the classifications under which they are listed. Their work frequently overlaps that of other employee classi- fications. Thus, the 2 truckdrivers, currently paid at the same rate as common laborers , may spend half an entire day cleaning out accumulations of dust in the mill. They spend half their time performing utility work, because there is not sufficient driving to occupy their time. The 2 shovel operators operate trucks between the mine and the mill; 1 shovel operator also doubles as a tractor operator ; and 1 shovel operator is one of the 2 employees who perform welding operations. The other employee who performs welding operations is classified as the maintenance man; he also performs minor repairs on the Employer's machinery and exercises the supervisory powers of the superintendent in the latter ' s absence . There is no history of collective bargaining for the Employer's em- ployees. No labor organization seeks to represent them in a single production and maintenance unit. Under these circumstances, we find that the employees herein sought to be represented have no special craft skills nor do they constitute groups with homogeneity of interests not possessed by other employees at the Employer ' s operations. They are therefore not entitled to representation in separate units on a craft or other basis . We shall accordingly dismiss the instant petitions.2 [The Board dismissed the petitions.] 2 The Waterbury Tag Company, 102 NLRB 1116. HYSTER COMPANY and DISTRICT LODGE NO. 24, INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 36-RC-938. July 22, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert. J. 106 NLRB No. 60. 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Wiener, 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 certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning repre- sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) of the Act for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of machinists and tool and die makers from the existing production and maintenance unite at the Employer's Portland, Oregon, plant. The Employer, joined by the Intervenor, moved to dismiss on the ground, among others, that the petition was substantially amended at the hearing and therefore barred by their contract executed on April 13, 1953. The petition described the proposed unit as "all machinists, machine operators, tool and die makers, their helpers and apprentices, tool crib attendants and welders in the machine shop." At the hearing, in clarifying its unit re- quest, the Petitioner indicated that it sought all employees performing machinist work, including tool and die work, wherever located in the plant. As the Petitioner's amended request, like its original request, was for a unit of related craftsmen, it did not constitute a new petition or affect the timeliness of the original filing. We find, therefore, that the contract is not a bar, and the motion to dismiss on this ground is hereby denied.3 As further ground for their motion to dismiss, the Employer and the Intervenor contend that the unit sought is inappropriate. They argue that the majority of the employees sought to be included in the unit are not machinist craftsmen and that, as the Petitioner indicated at the hearing that it did not seek any alternative unit, the petition should be dismissed. 1The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and the briefs submitted, in our opinion, adequately set forth the issues and the positions of the parties. 2 This unit is represented by the Intervenor, United Shop Employees of Hyster Company, which was formed and recognized in 1937 following a strike by another labor organization at the Employer's plant. In 1942, after winning a consent election in which the Petitioner partici- pated, the Intervenor was certified as bargaining representative for the production and maintenance employees and entered into a contract with the Employer covering this unit. In 1946 the Petitioner filed a petition for a unit of machinists, which was amended at the hearing to seek a production and maintenance unit, but the Board dismissed on the ground of contract bar. See Hyster Company, 72 NLRB 937. In 1951 the Petitioner again sought an election in the production and maintenance unit, but the Regional Director dismissed the petition as untimely filed. Finally, on April 10, 1953, the Petitioner requested recognition as bargaining agent for the employees sought herein; on April 13, 1953, the Employer and the Intervenor signed a contract for a new term; and on April 16, the Petitioner filed the instant petition. 3Essex Wire Corporation, Chicago Transformer Division, 102 NLRB 332. HYSTER COMPANY 349 At its Portland plant, the only one involved herein,4 the Employer devotes most of its production to 3 models of lift trucks and 2 models of straddle trucks. Each step in the production process from raw material to final assembly is planned and operations are synchronized on a prescheduled basis by 4 engineering departments.s Production is performed under a factory manager in 3 main departments:The plate and assembly departments in one building, and the machine-shop department in another building separated from the first by a large warehouse. About 32 saws, yard, and material handling employees, located next to the plate shop and throughout the plant, prepare material for the plate and machine shops, and do the necessary moving and painting of materials, castings, and parts. About 113 plate-shop employees fabricate flatplate, flat bar, and parts, and the approximately 133 machine-shop employees perform machine operations on castings and fabri- cated parts. Frequently the scheduling will require the move- ment of parts back and forth between the plate and machine shops for work at different stages of production. Assembly and subassembly of parts is done by approximately 65 assembly employees. Maintenance and service functions in the factory are performed by 10 employees in the maintenance department, 18 in the toolroom department, 20 in the tool-crib department in both the machine and plate shops, 16 in the parts department, 16 in the shipping department, and 13 in the plant-guards department, as well as by 11 in the inspection department under manufacturing engineering. There are 1 or more fore- men in each department and all have equal authority under the assistant factory manager. The Petitioner would include in its unit as craftsmen all machine-shop department employees except 6 in the burr room, all toolroom department employees, tool-crib employees located in the machine shop (excluding similar employees in the plate shop), and machinists in the maintenance department (excluding millwrights and electricians). The main contention of the Employer and the Intervenor is that the machine-shop department employees, who comprise the bulk of the Peti- tioner's proposed unit, although admittedly skilled, are produc- tion specialists and not machinist craftsmen. The Petitioner argues that they are properly part of the unit because they have skills and perform work within the traditional craft of ma- chinists. These employees perform machining operations in the Em- ployer's production process. Each is assigned to one machine tool for an indefinite period.' Numbers' of units of parts or castings are scheduled for machine operations on the machine tools, and the operators set up their machines and perform 4 The Employer operates other plants at Peoria and Danville, Illinois, and at Nijmegen, Holland, and is generally engaged in the manufacture and sale of industrial truck and tractor equipment. 5 A small percentage of the Employer's production involves custom jobs for other companies, and, where backlogs develop, work may be contracted out. 6 When an operator's regular machine breaks down, he is assigned temporarily to another machine. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD each type of operation in accordance with detailed instructions as to methods and procedures. Admittedly, these machine operators exercise skills: they must read blueprints and use machinist measuring devices for work which is frequently at close tolerances. However, the Employer has noapprentice- ship program for these employees, nor does it have a job- progression program in lieu thereof, although they, like other plant employees, may be promoted or upgraded on the basis of foremen's quarterly reports. While 64 machine-shop depart- ment employees are classified by the Employer as journeyman machinists, they may qualify for this classification merely by having the ability to operate two or more machine tools, and it appears that when an operator reaches the top of the machine- operator grades, the Employer utilizes the journeyman classi- fication as an upgrading device. It appears, therefore, that although some of these machine operators were machinist craftsmen when hired and although all exercise skills related to the machinist craft, the Employer does not require machinist craftsmen in its production operations. We conclude, upon the entire record in this case, that the machine-shop department employees sought by the Petitioner are not machinist crafts- men.7 Furthermore, the interests and skills of these employees are not so closely related to those of admitted machinist and tool and die maker craftsmen in other departments performing maintenance and service functions as to form a necessary part of a machinists' craft group. Accordingly, as the Petitioner stated it did not seek a unit excluding the machine-shop department employees,-we hereby grant the motion to dismiss the petition herein.q [The Board dismissed the petition.] Member Peterson, concurring: I concur in the dismissal of the petition herein, not because I believe that the machine-shop department employees do not constitute a craft group, but for the reasons more fully set forth in my dissenting opinion in the Hamiltoncase.9 Inasmuch as there has been a substantial bargaining history on a plant- wide basis, and in the absence of other factors warranting severance from the established unit, I agree that the machine shop and the tool and die employees are not entitled to separate representation. 7See Louisville Plant of The Minneapolis- Moline Company, 101 NLRB 1766. 8 In view of this disposition, we find it unnecessary to consider other arguments raised by the Employer and the Intervenor as to the inappropriateness of the proposed unit. 9 W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627.