General Textile Mills, Inc.

GENERAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 263 GENERAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC. and DISTRICT # 128, INTERNATImN 'L ASSOCIATION OF MACI-IINISTS , AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 4-RCi- 2157, 4-RC-2158, 41-RC-2159,4-RC-2160, 4-RC-2161, 4-RC-2162, 4-I? C-2163, and 4-RC-2164. July 21,1954 Decision, Order, and Direction of Election Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held in the above cases before Alan Zurlnick, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' After the hearing in this lnatter, the Petitioner, on April 1, 1954, filed a motion with the Board requesting that the record be reopened to permit it to show that it sleets the "traditional union" test set forth by the Board in American Potash c0 Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. In view of our unit findings herein, it is unnecessary to deter- mine if the Petitioner historically and traditionally represents all the craftsmen sought. Accordingly, we deny the Petitioner's motion to i eopen the record. 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 em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A 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. 4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing plantwide unit of production and maintenance employees, eight separate units com- posed of (1) firemen, (2) electricians, (3) welders and heat treaters, (4) carpenters, (5) plastic department employees, (6) tool- and die- makers, machinists, and maintenance machinists, (7) truckdrivers, and (8) pipefitters, including in certain of the units both apprentices and )ielpers. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the re- quested units are inappropriate and that the present production and maintenance unit is appropriate. In addition, the Employer would now include the carpenters in the existing ulnt.2 i The Employer moved to dismiss the petitions in these proceedings on the grounds that (1 ) there is a history of collective bargaining on a plantwide basis , ( 2) its operations are integrated , and (3 ) the skills and work of the employees in the units sought are such that severance should not be permitted The Employer 's motion to dismiss is granted, in part, for the reasons expressed elsewhere herein 2 Local No 109, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL, hereinafter called the Intervenor, has represented all such employees , except the carpenters, since 1950 The carpenters , comprising one of the units herein sought , have not been included in the production and maintenance unit because they were members of another union 109 NLRB No. 39. 264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of helmets, para- chutes, and parachute assemblies at its plants in Simpson and Carbon- dale, Pennsylvania. The two Simpson plants, one known as the Empire plant or sewing mill and the other known as the Simpson plant or throwing mill, and the` Carbondale plant, known as the City mill, are operated as a single production unit. There is a constant flow and interchange of raw materials and partly finished goods among the three plants as well as among different departments in the same plant. The existing production and maintenance unit comprises the employees in the 3 plants and the "craft" employees here sought, for the most part, perform maintenance work at all 3 plants. Firemen and Helpers The Petitioner requests a single unit of all firemen and helpers. The Employer opposes this unit request- arguing that the firemen do not perform the kind of work ordinarily performed by employees found by the Board to constitute appropriate powerhouse units, and most of the firemen sought regularly perform the duties of guard. The Employer has 7 employees who perform the firemen's duties either full or part time; 4 are assigned to the Simpson plant and 3 are assigned to the City mill. The firemen assigned to the Simpson plant work under the supervision of the maintenance and plastic de- partment foreman. They fire and clean the 100-pound pressure boil- ers 3 located in the basement of the Simpson plant. These boilers are used to heat both the Simpson and Empire plants and to produce steam for the steaming of yarn in the plastic department. Of the 3 employees at the City mill who fire and clean the low-pressure boiler located in the basement of the mill, 2 are classified as firemen and the other employee is a production employee who cleans and oils the looms in the production department at least 75 percent of his time. The boiler in the City mill is similar to an apartment house boiler and is used only for heating purposes and is not used during the summer months. Only one of the firemen was hired as a fireman; the others were transferred to the job from the maintenance crew. None of the firemen are licensed. In addition, it appears that 3 firemen at the Simpson plant and 2 firemen at the City mill regularly perform certain guard duties. Thus when the Employer's guards or night watchman are off duty, the fire- men assume their guard duties and make regularly scheduled rounds throughout the plant assigned to them and punch watchmen clocks, guard against fires, thefts, and property damage. As it appears that the firemen here sought do not comprise a typi- cal powerhouse unit which we have found may constitute a separate a it appeais that these boilers are not considered high-piessuie boilers GENERAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 265• appropriate unit,' and as 5 of the 6 employees classified as firemen regularly act as guards,' we find that the firemen may not constitute a separate appropriate unit for collective-bargaining purposes. Electricians, Carpenters, and Pipefitters The Petitioner requests three separate units of electricians, carpen- ters, and pipefitters, respectively. The Employer contends that, since the petitions in these cases were filed, certain reductions in force have taken effect, and there is presently employed only one employee in each of the respective classifications sought and one-man units are in- appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes. The record shows that there were three electricians employed at the outset of the hear- ing." During the course of the hearing one electrician was laid off, and the Employer indicated that a second electrician would be laid off as soon as certain electrical work was completed. In its brief, the Employer stated that, on February 5, 1954, the second electrician had been laid off, and it presently employs only one electrician. Of the 2 carpenters employed at the time of filing the petitions herein, 1 was laid off on November 6, 1953, shortly before the hearing commenced. The Employer currently employs only one carpenter. The Employer- employed two pipefitters at the outset of the hearing. However, on November 20, 1953, 1 pipefitter was laid off; leaving 1 pipefitter cur- rently employed at the Employer's operation. In view of the foregoing, we find that separate units of electricians,. carpenters, and pipefitters are inappropriate for collective-bargaining- purposes as each unit would be a one-man unit.7 Truckdrivers The-Employer employs one full-time truckdriver 8 and utilizes a, shipping department employee as all emergency truckdriver. The emergency driver spends approximately 5 hours per week driving 1 of the Employer's 2 trucks, and the remainder of his time is spent performing his regulax shipping department duties. Under the cir- cumstances, we find that the emergency driver, unlike the full-time- * Cf. American Potash & Chemical Corporation, supra 5 Waterboro Manufacturing Corporation, 106 NLRB 1383. 6 An electrical foreman supervises the work of the electricians The parties agree that the electrical foreman is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act 7 The Petitioner appears to ( 1) question the timing of the foregoing layoffs, and (2) con-- tends that such employees were temporarily laid off and should be permitted to vote. As. to (1), we deem it unnecessary to consider such matters in view of the Board's established practice of excluding evidence of unfair labor practices from representation hearings. American Supplser's, Incorporated, 98 NLRB 692. As to (2), the record shows that those- employees who were laid off have little likelihood of being reemployed in the foreseeable- future. Accordingly, they would not be permitted to vote in any election directed 8 During the course of the hearing, the full-time truckdriver was discharged It appears,_ however, that the Employer now has another truckdriver 266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD driver, would be ineligible to vote in a truckdriver's unit.9 It fol- lows, therefore, that the requested unit, is in effect, a one-man unit and is, for that reason, inappropriate for collective-bargaining purposes. The Petitioner, in the alternative, seeks a combined unit of all fire- men, electricians, carpenters, truckdrivers, pipefitters, and their help- ers and apprentices. In advancing this alternative unit request, it contends that such multicraft maintenance group may constitute an appropriate unit where, as it alleges in this proceeding, there is no controlling bargaining history on a broader basis.' We do not agree that there is no controlling bargaining history on a broader basis. The record shows that on December 22, 1950, the Intervenor was certified by the Board as collective-bargaining representative in a unit of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's three plants involved herein; and of the employees herein sought, the cer- tification excluded only the carpenters. The Intervenor has since bargained for the employees in this unit." In view of our findings that the firemen, electrician, carpenter, truckdriver, and pipefitter do not constitute separate appropriate units, and as the Petitioner here seeks a multicraft group of the kind that the Board has refused to sever out of an existing overall produc- tion and maintenance unit," we shall dismiss the petitions in Cases Nos. 4-RC-2157, 4-RC-2158, 4-RC-2160, 4-RC-2163, and 4-RC-2164. Plastic Department The Petitioner. seeks to sever a unit of all plastic department em- ployees in the Employer's operation. The plastic department, located in the basement of the Empire plant, is one of the Employer's pro- duction departments. Although all plastic department employees were not covered by the collective-bargaining agreements prior to 1950, all such employees have since been included in the production and maintenance unit established at that time, and have been bar- gained for by the Intervenor as part of the three-plant unit. As the plastic department employees have been represented as part of the production and maintenance unit since December 1950, and as the Board has found that a plastic department does not constitute a "de- partment unit" within the meaning of the rule set forth in American Potash di Chemical Corporation,- we shall dismiss the petition in Case No. 4-RC-2161. O Fritzsche B, other s, Inc , 107 NLRB 889 no Dloreover, the Intervenor has bargained with the Employer for somewhat less than a three-plant production and maintenance unit since 1943 "A 0 Smith Corpot at ion of Texas, 99 NLRB 216 ; Hudson Pulp d Paper Corporation, 94 NLRB 1018. 12 Southbridge Finishing Company, 108 NLRB 54. GENERAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 267 Welders, Tool- and Die-Makers, Machinists, and Maintenance Machinists The Petitioner seeks a unit of all welders, heat treaters,13 and their helpers, and a unit of all tool- and die-makers, machinists, mainte- na1TCd machinists, and their helpers. In the alternative, it would com- bine all of the foregoing classifications in a single unit. However, in its brief, the Petitioner now seeks a unit of all machine shop employ- ees, including 2 welders, 4 tool- and die-makers, 5 machinists, 4 ma- chine operators, a setup man, and a tool-crib attendant. The machine shop is located in the basement of the Empire plant apart from the production area. All the employees in the machine shop, including the welders, are under the separate supervision of a machine shop foreman. The welders, in part, repair parts for the Employer's production machines, build certain machines and weld experimental dies, perform layout work, repair steampipes, and also perform certain welding on component parts' of the Employer's end products.'4 Some of their work requires the use of blueprints; and they frequently work in close contact with the machinists. The tool- and die-makers perform the skilled work usually associated with their classifications. The machinists, for the most part, perform the work usually associated with their craft, i. e., repair machines, work on dies, and make necessary parts needed to keep the Employer's machines operating efficiently. The machine operators work with such equipment as turret lathes, milling machines, drill presses, do-all saw, punch, press, and engine lathes. The machine operators make certain component parts of the e'mployer's end product,15 make parts for the production machines, and one of the machine operators also performs certain die repair and maintenance work. The setup man sets up the lathes for some of the machine operators and also over- hauls and repairs the machines in the machine shop. The tool-crib attendant passes out tools as requisitioned by the employees in the machine shop. It is clear from the foregoing that the machine shop employees compose a functionally distinct and separate departmental group. Moreover, the Petitioner is a labor organization which historically and traditionally represents such machine shop departmental units. Under these circumstances, and contrary to the Employer and Inter- venor, we find that all machine shop employees may constitute a sepa- rate appropriate unit,16 or may appropriately be included in the exist- ing plantwide unit. 18 There are no heat treaters employed at the Employer's Opel ations 14 It appears that such production welding is performed prlmaiily by one part-time- welder who works approximately 20 hours per week at the Employer 's plant 15 It appears that 3 of the 4 machine operators spend a considerable portion of their time-making such parts used in the helmets and parachutes 16 Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 108 NLRB 556 268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be held in the follow- ing group of employees of the Employer at its Simpson and Carbon- dale, Pennsylvania, plants : All machine shop employees, including welders, tool- and die-makers, machinists, machine operators, setup man, and tool-crib attendant, but excluding all other employees, office employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervis- ors within the meaning of the Act. If a majority of the employees in the voting group above vote for -the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to =constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director con- ducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certifica- tion of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds appropriate for purposes of ,collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Inter- venor, the Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [The Board dismissed the petition in Cases Nos. 4-RC-2157,4-RC- -,2158, 4-RC-2160, 4-RC-2161, 4-RC-2163, and 4-RC-2164.] ([Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] LAW TANNING COMPANY, PETITIONER and LOCAL 47, INTERNATIONAL FUR AND LEATHER WORKERS UNION OF TILE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. Case No. 13-RM-195. July V, 1954 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph Cohen, hear- ing 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. On December 19, 1952, after a Board-ordered election,' the Union was certified as the collective-bargaining representative of the pro- duction and maintenance employees at the Employer's Milwaukee, Wisconsin, split leather processing plant. There is no contractual relationship between the parties. On December 24, 1953, the ' Em- ployer filed the instant petition. We must, however, decline to pursue this investigation of repre- sentatives any further. The Board, on May 28, 1954, found that ' Case No. 13-RC-3008. 109 NLRB No. 46.