F. L. Jacobs Co.

544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD opposition by Respondent to the purposes and policies of the Act, as disclosed by the evidence and said unlawful conduct, is such as to indicate the likelihood of similar and other unfair labor practices being directed against its said employees in the event they should continue, or again seek, to exercise their rights under the Act, the remedy applied should be coextensive with such threat. Therefore, in order to make more effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices , and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act. 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 constitute and affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Delmar Hoagland, Frank Kamenish, and Thomas Brooks, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organ- ization, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 4. By the aforesaid discrimination, as well as other conduct above specifically set forth and found , Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] F. L. JACOBS COMPANY, DANVILLE DIVISION and LODGE 710, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, Petitioner . Case No. 13-RC-3770. April 23, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hubert J. Sigal, 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 National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of the Employer's employees 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 represent as a separate craft unit tool and die makers at the Employer's Danville plant. The 108 NLRB No. 85. F. L. JACOBS COMPANY, DANVILLE DIVISION 545 Employer and United Automobile Workers of America, Local Union No. 914, A. F. of L., herein called the Intervenor, con- tend that the proposed unit is not appropriate for collective bargaining at this time. We find merit in their position. The Employer, primarily an automobile parts manufacturer with several plants in Michigan, started the plant at Danville, Illinois, for the manufacture of automobile seat springs in 1946. At this plant, known as the Employer's Danville Division. the Employer is presently engaged in manufacturing military items for the Army and Navy. Since 1946 the Intervenor has repre- sented in a single plantwide unit all production and maintenance workers, including the tool and die makers. The Danville plant consists of a 1 -floor production area, in one corner of which, enclosed within a wire mesh fence, is the toolroom which serves as headquarters for approximately 71 toolroom employees. The toolroom employees, classified by the Employer as tool and die makers, general maintainers, tool cutter grinders and trainees, electricians, and janitors,1 perform their work in the toolroom andinthe production areas, subject to the supervision and direction of the toolroom super- intendent and his subordinate shift foremen. The Employer's 16 tool and die makers set up, repair, and maintain production machines and test their performance. These employees principally repair tools, jigs, and fixtures, rather than make new tools and dies. Major types of tooling, such as cutting tools, fixtures, gauges, anddies, are purchased outside for plant use and not manufactured in the plant. Other toolroom employees include 14 general maintainers, who move and dismantle machines, assist tool and die makers in setting up machines, and do the necessary plumbing, carpentry, and painting of plant equipment. Electricians, 6 innumber, working closely with general maintainers, make electrical installations and repairs incidental to machine setup and plant maintenance. Tool grinders, 17 in number, sharpen tools and do cutting work.2 Janitors, 12 in number, remove metal from machines and otherwise do plant cleaning. Of the employees classified as tool and die makers, 6 are qualified to work efficiently with hand and machine tools with- out immediate supervision and guidance. For the most part, they make new parts either from brokenparts or from sketches made by foremen rather than from blueprints. There is con- siderable repetition in their work. The other 10 employees in this classification do not possess comparable skills or ex- perience and require almost constant immediate supervision. Among the tool and die makers, only 1 employee completed a 4-year tool and die apprenticeship; 5 completed machinist's 'Also classified in this department is a matron, who cleans offices and restrooms. 2 Although the Employer has no apprenticeship training for craftsmen, it provides a 3-month training period for cutter grinders at the plant. At the time of the hearing, there were five trainees in this category. 339676 0 - 55 - 36 546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD apprenticeships; 1, a former guard who took GI adult education training, was given a tool and die classification after a pro- bation tryout period; and another, a production worker, with 9 months trade schooling and a short apprenticeship, was pro- moted to the classification. Because trained tool and die makers are not available, the Employer hires applicants for work on the basis of their varied apprenticeship training and prior experience in machine shops and on machine repair and after they have satisfied the toolroom foreman that they can do the type of tool and die work needed by the Employer at this plant. While it is generally true that 1 or more of the 6 most skilled tool and die makers at the plant could perform the precision work usually associated with their trade name, the Employer does not have enough of such work to supply them with work on any full-time basis. Further, the urgent need to get and keep production machines in operation to meet time schedules re- quires a constant overlapping of assignments between general maintainers and tool and die makers, depending on the skills and availability of men when needed, so that tool and die makers are called upon to do work requiring lesser skills. It seems clear, therefore, (1) that the employees classified as tool and die makers whom the Petitioner would sever as a craft unit do not have the high degree of skills associated with this craft, and (2) that the work available at the plant is not such as to require a high degree of skill or furnish opportunities for the exercise of tool and die precision on any substantial or broad craft basis. Under these circumstances, and in accord with our recently declared policy,P we dismiss the petition, finding that the proposed unit for the Employer's tool and die makers is not appropriate for severance at this time.4 [The Board dismissed the petition.] 3 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. 4The fact that the Employer anticipates possible changes in the number and work of its tool and die makers at the termination of its present contract obligations does not bear upon the determination of the unit appropriate for these employees at this time. A. C. LAWRENCE LEATHER COMPANY and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC- 2086. April 23, 1954 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 Richard C. Curry, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 108 NLRB No. 88.