Clayton & Lambert Manufacturing Co.

CLAYTON & LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 305 that day in the computation of the 60 days required by the con- tract,' the Mill B date, or day on which the automatic renewal became operative, was October 2, 1953. The last day on which notice to forestall automatic renewal could be effective was October 1, 1953.4 As notice was not received'on or before Octo- ber 1, 1953, we find that the contract was automatically renewed. The Employer urges that the Union, by its subsequent conduct, waived the defect in the notice. The record discloses that in its notice letter , the Employer indicated a willingness to meet with the Union prior to December 1, 1953, "to discuss our reasons for the action... ." In its reply, the Union maintained that the notice was not timely and that it would "defend by all means available . . . all terms and conditions of the present working agreement as well' as the bargaining rights , .. ," but indicated a willingness to meet and confer "for the purpose of negotiating upon any changes to be proposed by either party to the working agreement." There is no indication that the Union at any time thereafter abandoned its initial position. In these circumstances, we view the Employer's September 30, 1953, letter and the Union's reply thereto as post-renewal requests to negotiate changes, having no effect upon the renewed contract as a bar to the petition herein.' For the foregoing reasons, we find that the contract, as automatically renewed, is a bar to this proceeding. We shall therefore dismiss the petition without prejudice to the filing of a new petition a reason- able time before the automatic renewal date of the existing contract. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 3See Williams Laundry Company, et al., 97 NLRB 995; Golden Belt Manufacturing Com- pany, 103 NLRB 1543, and cases cited therein. 4 A notice which will forestall automatic renewal must be received prior to the "Mill B" date. See Williams Laundry Company, supra p. 996. 5See Land O'Sun Dairies, Inc., 107 NLRB No. 253. CLAYTON & LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 369, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. of L., Petitioner . Case No . 9-RC-2087. April 20, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold M. Kennedy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made 108 NLRB No. 64. 339676 0 - 55 - 21 306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. i Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Z. The labor organizations involved claim to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 3. 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to sever from the production and main- tenance unit currently represented by the Intervenor, a unit of all instrument electricians A and B and all maintenance electricians A and B. Though both groups are part of the maintenance department they are separately supervised and work out of different shops and perform different duties. The instrument electricians -A maintain and adjust all electronic control instruments used by the Employer in its production operations. In their work they utilize portable voltmeters, port- able recorders, ohmmeters, optical pyrometer, portable py- rometer, Wheatstone bridge, circuit battery sets, tube testers, oscilloscopes, and small handtools such as pliers, side cutters, and soldering pistols. They work exclusively in the instrument shop. The instrument electricians B perform what is in fact a chemical rather than an electrical operation, treating waste products with chlorine and other chemical agents, to neutralize the cyanide contained in the waste products so that they can safely be disposed of in the sewage system. There is no progression between class A and class B instrument elec- tricians, and the class B instrument electricians work in the chlorinating house. Their only connection with instrument elec - tricians A seems to be the fact that they work under the same supervisor. Although the Employer attempts to hire men with previous electrical experience for class A instrument elec- tricians, the record contains reference to the experience of only 1 man, and he had less than 3 years of instruction and experience in the field of electronics before being hired by the Employer. The maintenance electricians class A maintain and repair electrical equipment. They work on transformer circuits, cir- cuits for electric motors, on stators, electrical controls, they run conduit, pull wire, and connect wires to equipment. They work with power ranging from zero to 13,000 volts. It is the Employer's policy to hire employees with journeyman skills for the classifications of maintenance electrician A. One of the employees involved testified that a man should have 4 years apprenticeship training in order to properly handle the duties i Local 4811, United Steelworkers of America, CIO, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest in the employees involved herein. CENTRAL RUFINA 307 of a maintenance electrician Class A. Although the maintenance electricians B are considered to be helpers to maintenance electricians A, there is no progression from B to A and the Employer hires less skilled employees for the B classification. There are 5 class A and 7 class B maintenance electricians. A regular part of the duties of this group consists of plating racks with a plastic, acid resisting, insulation coating. Three men are regularly assigned to these duties on the day shift and one man on the night shift. This work is performed by both A and B maintenance electricians. In the American Potash2 case the Board stated that craft severance will be granted only in those cases where the em- ployees sought to be severed constitute a genuine craft group. We find that, of the employees sought by the Petitioner, only the maintenance electricians A spend the major portion of their time performing tasks requiring the exercise of craft skills and have the necessary experience to qualify as craftsmen under the criteria set forth in the American Potash case.' Because the other employees sought by the Petitioner neither possess and exercise genuine craft skills nor are in the direct line of progression in the electrician's craft, and as the Petitioner has not indicated its willingness to represent a unit limited to the 5 maintenance electricians A, we find that the unit sought is inappropriate for severance purposes and shall therefore dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] Member Beeson took no part inthe consideration of the above Decision and Order. 2 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. 3107 NLRB 1418, pp 7-8, 9-10. MARIO MERCADO E HIJOS d/b/a CENTRAL RUFINA and UNION de TRABAJADORPS de FACTORIA de la INDUSTRIA AQUCARERA, LOCAL 1805, ILA, Petitioner. Case No. 24- RC-606. April 20, 1954 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 George L. Weasler, 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 meaning of the Act. 108 NLRB No. 59.