Remington Rand, Inc.

622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD standards clerks, professional employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (h) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] REMINGTON RAND, INC. and DISTRICT No. 157, INTERNATIONAL ASSO- CIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-1288. July 30, 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 Bernard Marcus, 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 em- ployees of the Employer.2 3. The Intervenor contends that its contract with the Employer, which is to expire September 24, 1954, with automatic renewal date 60 days prior thereto, constitutes a bar to an election in the unit sought by the Petitioner. Inasmuch as the "Mill B" date of the contract is about to occur, we find that it is not a bar. It is therefore unnecessary to consider other contract-bar contentions made by the parties. We find therefore that 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. 4. The Employer operates three plants at Ilion, New York, as a single operational unit under a single administrative head. The 3 plants are in close proximity to one another and the Intervenor has represented the production and maintenance employees at the 3 plants in a single unit for approximately 7 years. The Petitioner now seeks to sever from that unit a unit of all tool- and die-makers, model- makers, and apprentices or trainees at the three plants. The Inter- venor contends that the unit is inappropriate; the Employer takes no position. The Intervenor contends that a successful 7-year bargaining history on a broader basis precludes severance of the unit sought. The Board 1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Intervenor 's motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds of contract bar and inappropriateness of the unit sought. This motion is denied for the reasons stated below. 2 Local 334, International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, inter- vened at the hearing on the basis of a current contractual interest 109 NLRB No. 78. REMINGTON RAND, INC. 623 has recently rejected a similar contention in American Potash do Chemical Corporation 3 and there decided, inter alia, that it will per- mit the severance of a unit of true craftsmen from an established in- dustrial unit where such unit is sought by a union which traditionally represents such craftsmen. Accordingly, we will consider whether the conditions for severance set forth in American Potash are met in the instant case. Tool- and die-makers work at 3 separate locations in the Ilion plants : the toolroom in plant 2, the model shop in plant 2, and the automatic screw machine department in plant 3. Those in the tool- room make and repair tools, dies, jigs, fixtures, and gauges for use in production throughout the plants. They occasionally go into produc- tion areas to dismantle defective dies and fixtures or to locate defects, but always bring defective tools back to the toolroom to perform actual repairs. They remain under the supervision of the toolroom foreman at all times. The tool- and die-makers in the model shop perform essentially the same duties as those in the toolroom in connec- tion with the production of the Wahl Adder, a computing device pro- duced by the Employer. Those in plant 3 make and repair similar tools in connection with the automatic screw machines located in that plant. All of the tool- and die-makers exercise similar skills, and fall into the two highest paid classifications in the plants. The Employer formerly maintained a 4-year apprenticeship pro- gram for training tool- and die-makers, which it has, however, dis- continued and replaced with a so-called "training" program in the tool- and die-room, which has the same objective as the apprenticeship program, although it has not been approved as meeting State appren- ticeship standards. Employees have been selected for training pri- marily on the basis of aptitude tests. The program has not been in effect long enough for anyone to have completed it. Modelmakers all work in the separate model room in plant 2, under separate supervision. They make tools, dies, jigs, and fixtures in con- junction with the Employer's experimental and developmental work, as well as parts and models for the same purpose. Most of the ma- chine tools found in the toolroom have their counterparts in the model room, and the modelmakers are required to operate them all in the course of their duties. At least one of the modelmakers served his apprenticeship as a tool- and die-maker, and, while the record does not indicate the background of the other modelmakers, it would appear that the modelmakers are essentially tool- and die-makers chosen to work in the model room either because of high skill or their personal preference for working on experimental products. The modelmakers, like the tool- and die-makers, fall into the two highest pay grades in the contract unit, and there is a training program in the model room 3 107 NLRB 1418. 624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD similar to that in the toolroom. As noted above, there are also a number of tool- and die-makers in the model room who use the same equipment as do the modelmakers and are under the same super- vision. All the tool- and die-makers and the modelmakers are re- quired to furnish their own tools and all work to close tolerances. No one contends that the tool- and die-makers and modelmakers are not craftsmen. However, the Intervenor contends that the model- makers should be excluded from the unit sought because they are technical employees or, in any event, should not be placed in the same unit with tool- and die-makers as they exercise different skills from those of the tool- and die-makers. While the Employer takes no posi- tion as to the unit sought, it opposes placing modelmakers in a different unit from tool- and die-makers. In support of its first contention the Intervenor relies on the Board's decision in General Electric Company 4 finding that laboratory as- sistants employed in the engineering model shop were technical em- ployees rather than craftsmen. In that case it appeared that while the laboratory assistants were journeyman machinists, they also had specialized academic training and education which they utilized in designing, developing, and constructing test models on the basis of ideas presented to them by engineers. In the instant case the model- makers' functions appear to be limited to the fabrication of tools and parts for the construction of new models. While they may work from rough sketches, they do not themselves design and develop models. Consequently, we find that the modelmakers in the instant case are not technical employees.5 Furthermore, it is clear from the record, that, contrary to the Intervenor's second contention, the tool- and die- makers and the modelmakers exercise essentially the same skills. We find, therefore, that the tool- and die-makers and modelmakers are true craftsmen and that they belong to the same craft.6 In addition, we find that the Petitioner traditionally represents such craftsmen for purposes of collective bargaining.7 Accordingly, we conclude that the conditions set forth in American Potash & Chemical Corporation s for severance of craft units from established production and main- tenance units have been met, and find that the tool- and die-makers and modelmakers together constitute a separate appropriate unit if they so desire. We will include trainees in the tool and model rooms 4 105 NLRB 921 5 Kelsey Hayes Wheel Company, 85 NLRB 666 8 Superior Sleeprite Corporation, 106 NLRB 228. General Electric Company, 101 NLRB 1341. 7 Representation of these employees by the Petitioner is not precluded, as contended by the Intervenor, by the fact that the Petitioner represents other employees of the Employer on a plantwide basis , or by the fact that the Petitioner also represents employees other than machinists elsewhere. 8 107 NLRB 1418. NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL, ETC. 625 in the voting group set forth below, as they are in the line of direct progression to journeyman classifications. While the Petitioner does not seek to include other employees in the unit, the question arose at the hearing whether certain other em- ployees in the three plants should be included in the unit. These employees are classified as machine repairmen, machine setters, ma- chinists, grinding and lathe specialists, patternmakers, tool inspectors, attendants, and errand boys in the toolroom. It appears that none of these employees exercise the skills of tool- and die-makers or model- makers. Accordingly, even if some of them may exercise skills of ma- chinists or of other crafts, the unit sought by the Petitioner, excluding these employees, is 'appropriate, and we will exclude these employees from the proposed unit. Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be held among the employees of the Employer at its Ilion, New York, plants, in the voting group consisting of : All tool- and die-makers, tool- and die-maker trainees, modelmakers, and modelmaker trainees, excluding all other employees, supervisors, and guards as defined in the Act. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they shall be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is in- structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit described above, which the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective ' bargaining. If a majority vote for the Intervenor, they will remain a part of the exist- ing unit and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA and INSURANCE WORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 4-RC-2343. July 30,1954 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 Morris Mogerman, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 109 NLRB No. 100.