Kwikset Locks, Inc.

KWIKSET LOCKS, INC. 247 majority of the group also held membership in the striking union. The court there stated that if the employees in question came within the protection of Section 7 of the Act, the find- ing of an unfair labor practice would be sustainable. It then proceeded to hold (1) that the activities were not concerted; (2) that a refusal to cross the picket lines was an act of principle and did not relate to their own grievances; and (3) assuming the activities to be concerted, they were not carried on for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection. The knotty problem here posed is perhaps well described by the language of the Supreme Court in Allen-Bradley Co. v Local Union No 3, 325 U. S. 197. The Court stated, "We must determine here how far Congress intended activities under one of these policies (to preserve the rights of labor through the agency of collective bargaining) to neutralize the results envisaged by the other (to preserve competitive business economy)." Although there is no direct evidence that the complainant herein was replaced, that would inevitably have been done, inasmuch as he was the only pickup man. And, since the Supreme Court majority in the Rockaway decision flatly rejected the Board's distinction between "discharge and replacement in this context," as "unrealistic and unfounded in law" it follows that Respondent, as a result, was within his legal rights in discharging the com- plainant for refusing to fully perform his job As a result, in this context and in the absence of any antiunion bias or motive, Respondent had the alternatives of tolerating this demonstra- tion of sympathy by the complainant or of treating it as a refusal on his part to perform the normal duties of his position This employer chose to treat it as the latter, as insubordina- tion, and in effect as an attempt to dictate the terms of his employment. In view of the foregoing, and under all the circumstances present herein, I am persuaded and find (1) that the complainant herein was not engaged in a concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and (2) that in any event, assuming these activities to have been protected under the Act, Respondent did not commit an unfair labor practice by discharging this employee for refusing to perform his normal duties. I will accordingly recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. See N. L. R. B. v. Montgomery Ward and Co., 157 F. 2d 486 (C. A. 8) and Elk Lumber Co., 91 NLRB 333. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The operations of Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 2. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act [Recommendations omitted from publication.] KWIKSET LOCKS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, Petitioner KWIKSET LOCKS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 21-RC-3225 and 21-RC-3283. November 30, 1953 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, hearings were held before L. A. Gordon, 107 NLRB No. 69. 248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hearing officer.'The hearing officer' s rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 organization involved claims to represent cer- 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 in Case No. 21-RC-3283. No 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 in Case No. 21-RC-3225. The Employer operates two plants at Anaheim, California, at which it is engaged principally in the manufacture of lock sets, consisting of the outside and inside knob and the latch or lock assembly which as a unit is fitted into ordinary household doors. The lock sets are manufactured at the Employer's Santa Ana Street plant. The Employer also manufactures metal parts for a 60-millimeter illuminating flare on what is referred to herein as the shell line, and metal links for machinegun ammunition belts on what is referred to herein as the link line. The shell and links lines are located at the Employer's Center Street plant. The Employer also temporarily leases premises at 709 Center Street, where shipping and receiving activities are per- formed. These operations will be housed in a new building at the Santa Ana Street plant within approximately 3 months. The Employer employs approximately 750 employees, 600 of whom are located at the Santa Ana Street plant, 135 of whom are located at the Center Street plant, and 15 of whom are located in the temporary premises at 709 Center Street. Supervision over all the operations is performed by the works manager. Under him, the production unit superintendent supervises the operations of the Santa Ana Street plant, and the Center Street plant superintendent supervises the operations of the Center Street plant. On the immediate supervisory level, each depart- ment is supervised by a separate foreman, except that the buf- iThe Petitioner filed its petition in Case No. 21-RC- 3225 on July 23, 1953. On the same date it filed a petition in Case No. 21-RC-3226 for a unit of all production and maintenance employees, excluding those involved in Case No. 21-RC-3225. The two cases were con- solidated for hearing by order of the Regional Director, but on August 11, 1953, Petitioner withdrew Case No. 21-RC-3226 After hearing was held in Case No. 21-RC-3225, Petitioner filed its petition in Case No. 21-RC-3283, which is essentially the same as the petition which it withdrew. At the hearing on the last filed petition the parties incorporated by stipulation the entire record and exhibits in Case No. 21-RC-3225. On September 23, 1953, the Em- ployer moved the Board to consolidate Case No. 21-RC-3225 and Case No. 21-RC-3283 for purposes of decision. The motion is hereby granted. 2 The Employer refused to stipulate that Petitioner is a labor organization within the mean- ing of the Act. The record adequately discloses that Petitioner admits to membership employees of the Employer for the purpose of representing them in bargaining negotiations with the Employer as to rates of pay, wages, hours, and working conditions. KWIKSET LOCKS, INC. 249 fing and polishing department and the automatic buffingdepart- ment are supervised by the same foreman , and the plating department and the burnishing department are under the super- vision of a single foreman. In Case No. 21 -RC-3225 the Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all employees of the buffing and polishing departments, automatic buffing department , plating department , and the burnishing department , and also the phosphatizing operators who work on the shell line and the tank operators who work on the link line. The Petitioner is also willing to include the em- ployees of the lacquer department if the Board so determines. In Case No . 21-RC-3283 , the Petitioner seeks to represent all production and maintenance employees , including shipping and receiving department employees , but excluding those employees who are the subject of its petition in Case No. 21-RC-3225. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one composed of all production and maintenance employees at both plants including the shipping and receiving department employees and the employees of the buffing and polishing, automatic buffing, plating , and burnishing departments. The Petitioner contends that the buffing and polishing , automatic buffing, plating, and burnishing department employees, and the phosphatizing and tank operators constitute a craft unit en- titled to separate representation as a departmental unit. The Employer denies that these employees are craft employees and contends that they do not under any theory constitute a depart- mental unit entitled to separate representation and moves to dis- miss the petition in Case No. 21 -RC-3225. The Petitioner states that if the Board finds that these employees do not constitute an appropriate unit, it is willing to include them in a plantwide pro- duction and maintenance unit. Petitioner ' s witness, Vargas , who admittedly possesses all the skills of a journeyman polisher, buffer, plater, and burn- isher, gained in employment for employers other than Kwikset, testified that it is necessary to serve an apprenticeship of at least 2 years and usually 3 or 4 years before an employee can learn all phases of buffing , polishing , plating, and burnishing on a great variety of different metals so as to be qualified for a journeyman rating in the craft. The Employer has no apprentice- ship program and makes no attempt to rotate its employees among the departments so that they can become skilled in more than one function of the craft. Each of the departments which come within the scope of the alleged craft unit performs only 1 function of the 4 basic functions of the craft. Only 5 employees of the 45 employees in the buffing and polishing department, only 1 of the 15 employees of the automatic buffing department, and 1 of the 22 employees of the plating and burnishing departments had previous experience as buffers , polishers , platers, and burnishers prior to their employment at Kwikset. Twenty-four of these employees were transferred into these departments from other departments of the Employer at varying times within the last 3 or 4 years . In addition to these permanent transfers 250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the record discloses that there are numerous temporarytrans- fers in and out of these departments to and from other depart- ments in the plant. Employees are hired as class C buffers, polishers, platers, or burnishers and advance from class C to class A primarily on ability and efficiency. In some instances employees have adva;tced from class C to class B in as little as 6 weeks. The Employer's job classifications show that the Employer expects newly hired employees to progress from class C to class A in less than a year. The Employer's production departments are organized on an assembly-line basis. The departments involved in the petition receive the component parts of the lock sets from the die cast, cylinder assembly, or punch press departments, for various finishing operations. They either return the parts to the cylinder, die cast, and punch press departments, and receive them back for further finishing operations or forward the parts to the lacquer departments or assembly departments. There is a continual flow of partially finished parts backand forth between the various departments. Even those few employees who do possess journeyman status in the purported.craft are not required to utilize all their skills at Kwikset. Vargas testified that at Kwikset he had not worked in the plating department or the automatic buffing department, and that he was not required to utilize his full complement of skills in performing his duties. He testified that he colored over 4,800 knobs a day. He also works on other parts of the lock set at various times, and it is apparent that even he, perhaps the most skilled employee in the group, is engaged in performing highly repetitive and standarized operations and is at most a production specialist. In view of the foregoing and on the record as a whole we find that the employees in the buffing and polishing, automatic buf- fing, plating, and burnishing departments do not constitute a group of craft employees but at most perform highly specialized production work.3 As no persuasive basis for establishing them in a separate unit has been shown, we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner in Case No. Zl-RC-3225 is inappropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. Accordingly we shall dismiss the petition in Case No. 21-RC.3225. 4. The appropriate unit: Since we have dismissed the petition in Case No. 21-RC-3225 we shall treat the petition in Case No. 21-RC-3Z83 as a petition for a plantwide production and maintenance unit as requested by the Petitioner. As noted above, the Employer agrees that this is the only appropriate unit. The parties stipulated that the unit should include the shipping, receiving, and warehouse em- ployees, presently located at 709 Center Street. We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- 3 Hyster Company, 106 NLRB 347 , General Metalcraft, Inc., Olympia Division , 106 NLRB 1131. PENN-DIXIE CEMENT CORPORATION 2 51 propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Santa Ana Street and Center Street plants in Anaheim, California, including leadmen,4 employees of the buf- fing and polishing, automatic buffing, plating, and burnishing departments, shipping, receiving, and warehouse employees employed at 709 Center Street, Anaheim, California, who are classified as material handlers , parts crib attendants, in- dividual truckdrivers, truckdrivers, leadman storekeeper, storekeeper, shipping clerk, and shipping clerk leadman, but excluding cafeteria employees, watchmen, guards, professional employees, office clerical employees, and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. [The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 21 -RC-3225 [Test of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 4 The parties stipulated that leadmen are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. PENN-DIXIE CEMENT CORPORATION and UNITED CEMENT, LIME AND GYPSUM WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 4 -RC-2005. December 1, 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 Sand- berg, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' 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 organization involved claims 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. On May 2, 1953, the Employer and Local No. 4 (a local of the Petitioner herein) executed a contract for the period from May 1, 1953, to April 1, 1954, covering the production and maintenance employees but specifically excluding the labora- tory employees,plant clerical employees, and storeroom em- ployees. The Petitioner in this proceeding seeks to represent 'Because the record and the Employer 's brief fully present the positions of the parties on the issues involved herein, the motion of the Employer for oral argument is hereby denied. 107 NLRB No. 74.