T. C. Wheaton Co.

158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any em- ployee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. LLOYD F. RICHARDSON, SR., LLOYD F. RICHARDSON, JR., AND WILLIAM L. RICHARDSON, D/B/A RICHARDSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Employer. Dated-- -------------- By--------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. T. C. WHEATON COMPANY AND WHEATON GLASS COMPANY and DISTRICT No. 1, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, PETI- TIONER. Cases Nos . 4-RC-2249 and 4-RC-2250. July 12, 1954 • Decision, Direction of Election, and Order Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before William Naimark, 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. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate units : The Petitioner seeks to sever separate units of welders and ma- chinists from an existing production and maintenance unit. The Employer and the Intervenors, Glass Bottle Blowers Association of the United States and Canada, AFL, and its Local No. 219, contend that (1) craft units are not appropriate in the glass industry' and ' The Board has held that, with certain exceptions not applicable In this case , the right of separate representation should not be denied the members of a craft group merely be- cause they are employed in an industry which Involves integrated production processes and in which the prevailing pattern of bargaining is industrial in character . Accordingly, we reject this contention . American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418. 109 NLRB No. 28. T. C. WHEATON COMPANY 159 (2) the proposed units constitute only a segment of the employees with like skills and interests. The Employer manufactures glass containers, scientific glassware, and other glass specialties. Since 1943, under successive bargaining agreements with the Employer, the Intervenors have represented pro- duction and maintenance employees, including welders and machinists, but excluding mold makers, truckdrivers, and warehousemen? -Welders: In Case No. 4-RC-2250, the Petitioner seeks to represent a craft unit of 3 out of the 9 welders employed by the Employer. It wishes to exclude six welders on the ground that they are not as highly skilled, and do not devote all of their time to welding. The portion of the time, if any, spent by these six employees on duties unrelated to welding has not been established in the record. Whenever these 6 employees engage in welding, they use regular welding equipment and exercise the customary skills and functions of welders in the same or similar manner as the 3 welders sought to be represented by the Petitioner. All the welders are under the same supervision and re- ceive the same rate of pay. Without deciding whether the welders are craftsmen, we find that the three welders in the proposed unit constitute but a segment of a larger group of welders having similar skills and duties. Accord- ingly, we find the proposed unit inappropriate and shall therefore dismiss the petition.3 Machinists: In Case No. 4-RC-2249, the Petitioner seeks to sever machinists and their apprentices, excluding maintenance mechanics, from the existing production and maintenance unit. The Intervenors and the Employer oppose the exclusion of the mechanics on the ground that their work and skills are closely related to those of the machinists. The Petitioner is willing to include the mechanics in its machinists unit if the Board so directs. The Employer has approximately 48 maintenance machinists who are, assigned to various shops throughout the plant. Of this group, about 38 including 6 to 7 apprentices, are headquartered in the general machine and maintenance shop, and are sent out to other depart- ments to repair machinery or to do preventative maintenance work. There are also eight machinists in the experimental machine shop, a machinist assigned to the mold making department, and another to the mold shop. All the machinists, irrespective of location or 2 American Flint Glass Workers Union, AFL, currently represents the mold makers, and Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, AFL, represents the truckdrivers and warehousemen 3E. I. Dupont de Nemoirrs and Companaf (Dana Plant), 107 NLRB 1504; Jefferson Chemical Company, Inc, 98 NLRB 805 at 808; Hampton Roads Broadcasting Corpora- tipn ^((^WGH), 98 NLRB 1090 at 1093. "^'Tte"Petifiolier has.not requested a brogdqC,^Welder unit. Moreover, its showing of in- terest is not sufficient to justify holding an election in such unit. 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD assignment, make and repair machinery, jigs, fixtures, or molds used in the manufacture of glass receptacles. They are all highly skilled and, in varying degrees, use the customary precision hand and machine tools of the machinists' trade, including lathes, micrometers, and milling machines. The Employer maintains a formal 4-year ap- prenticeship training program for machinists. We find that the machinists are craftsmen. The Employer also employs about 18 employees classified as "maintenance mechanics" who are stationed in the general machine and maintenance shop, the ampule department, and other areas of the plant. These mechanics, whom the Intervenors and Employer con- tend should be included in the proposed craft unit, frequently work as a team with skilled machinists in dismantling and repairing plant. equipment. However, the record is clear that the mechanics only assist the machinists. There is no formal apprenticeship training program for the mechanics nor are they in the line of progression to the machinist racing. Their rate of pay is also lower than that of machinists. As it is evident that the mechanics are neither machinists, nor exercise true skills, and are not in the direct line of progression in the machinist craft,4 we shall exclude them from the machinist voting group. As the machinists comprise a true craft group, and as the union requesting severance is one which historically and traditionally repre- sents such units, we find that the machinists and their apprentices may, if they so desire, constitute a separate unit or they may remain a part of the existing production and maintenance unit 5 We shall, therefore, make no determination as to the scope of the appropriate unit, until we have first ascertained the desires of the employees as expressed in the election herein directed. Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following group of employees at the Employer's Millville, New Jersey, plant : All machinists and machinist apprentices, excluding maintenance mechanics, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit, which the Board finds, under the circumstances, to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit. If a majority vote for the Intervenors, they will be taken to have 4 American Potash & Chemical Corporation , supra. 6 Western Electric Company, Incorporated, 108 NLRB 396; Marine Iron & Shipbusld- ing Company, 108 NLRB 172. SOLAR AIRCRAFT COMPANY 161 indicated their desire to remain a part of the existing plantwide unit and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] [The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 4-RC-2250.] SOLAR AIRCRAFT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE No. 50, PETITIONER. Case No.-21-RC- 3493. July 10, 11954 Decision and Order Upon a petition.duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Irving Helbling, hearing officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 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 employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation 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 a unit limited to all of the Employer's quality control analysts at its San Diego, California, plant. The Petitioner asserts that this group of employees constitutes a residual unit which has a strong community of interest with the employees it already represents. The Employer contends that the requested unit is in- appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining because it con- stitutes only a portion of the employees who do the same or related type of technical work. The Petitioner has been the certified bargaining agent for the Em- ployer's production and maintenance employees since 1943. In August 1953, the Petitioner was certified as bargaining representative for the Employer's tool planners, on the basis of a stipulated unit. The tool planners were subsequently covered by the contract between 1 At the hearing the petition was amended to show the correct name of the Employer. 2 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition. For the reasons stated infra, this motion is hereby granted. 109 NLRB No. 23.