Campbell Soup Co.

CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY 475 CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY and DISTRICT #1, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA- TION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 4-RC-22393, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 0038, 2239, 2240, and 2241. July 27, 1954 Decision, Order, and Direction of Election Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held in the above cases before Julius Topol, a hearing officer. The hear- ing 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. 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 Petitioner seeks to sever from the established bargaining unit of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Camden, New Jersey, operation, 10 separate units of (1) machinists and millwrights, (2) painters, (3) sheet-metal workers, (4) welders, (5) scale repairmen, (6) pipefitters, (7) concrete finishers, (8) elec- tricians, (9) carpenters, and (10) oilers, including in each group helpers and apprentices. The Employer and Local 80-A, United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, Intervenor herein, contend that the requested units are inappropriate and that the present plant- wide production and maintenance unit is appropriate. The Employer is engaged in the processing and canning of various food products at its Camden operation. This operation is comprised of two separate plants, a few blocks apart. Employees at both plants are currently represented, for the most part, in a single production and maintenance unit. The employees here sought are assigned to the maintenance department and perform maintenance work at both plants. Machinists and Millwrights The Petitioner requests a single unit of all machinists and mill- wrights and their helpers, including the linemen. In the alternative, the Petitioner would represent the machinists and the millwrights ' The Employer contends that the ruling of the hearing officer excluding testimony con- cerning the effect of craft severance on the operation , production, and effective representa- tion, at its Chicago, Illinois, plant, was erroneous and prejudicial . We agree with the hearing officer 's ruling and we also deny the Employer' s request to reopen the bearing to permit the introduction of such testimony. See American Potash & Chemical Corpora- tion, 107 NLRB 1418. 109 NLRB No. 81. 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in two separate units, and would also represent adjusters in the ma- chinists unit if the Board determined that adjusters were part of such unit. The Employer does not maintain an apprenticeship program for machinists or millwrights at its plant. It does, however, hire experienced and skilled machinists and millwrights, as well as other "craftsmen," and requires each one so hired to pass certain tests. In addition, production employees, and others, are hired as helpers to machinists or millwrights and do, after training and experience, be- come machinists or millwrights. The approximately 157 machinists and millwrights perform the customary duties of their respective crafts in various machine shops and other locations throughout the two plants.2 The machinists re- pair, install, dismantle, and overhaul the numerous machines and equipment in the plant, make necessary parts for such equipment, make dies, work from blue prints, and operate such equipment as lathes, drill presses, grinders, shapers, power Back saws, and milling machines. It also appears that machinists are transferred from work location to work location or are, on occasion, given other machinist job assignments to increase their knowledge of all plant equipment. The millwrights, in part, install new machinery and equipment, erect and maintain conveyors and chutes, install pumps, transmission, and conveyor belts, and move and maintain other types of machinery and equipment in the plant. The millwrights are not as skilled in the use of the lathe as the machinists, and depend upon the machinists to make most of the necessary parts needed in the repair work. The machinists and millwrights are supervised by the same general fore- man in each respective work area, and are included together, by the Employer, on one separate seniority list. The Petitioner contends, and we agree, that the machinists and the millwrights are craftsmen who regularly exercise their craft skills, and comprise a traditional craft grouping.3 Moreover, the Petitioner is a labor organization which historically and traditionally repre- sents these craftsmen. Under these circumstances, we find that the machinists and millwrights may constitute a separate appropriate unit if they so desire.4 Approximately three linemen, who also appear on the same senior- ity lists as the machinists and the millwrights, work under the fore- man supervising machinists and millwrights. The duties of the 2 Although the Intervenor appears to contend that certain "power maintenance men" perform work similar to that of the machinists and millwrights, it appears that they are engaged primarily in repairing the pumps and high pressure boilers under regular power- house supervision , and they do not perform such work normally done by the machinists or millwrights. 8International Harvester Company, Foundry Division (Louisville Works), 95 NLRB 730; A. C. Spark Plug Division, General . Motors Corporation (Milwaukee Plant), 88 NLRB 1214. 4 American Potash & Chemical Corporation , supra. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY 477 linemen are to fabricate and erect chutes in and around the can de- partment and to install and repair various cables. This work is less complicated than that performed by the skilled millwrights but some linemen have advanced to the millwright classification. As linemen appear to be in the direct line of progression in the millwright craft, we shall include them in the unit of machinists and millwrights. The adjusters, who are classified as production employees and who are supervised by regular production supervisors, make minor adjust- ments on certain production equipment to keep it functioning prop- erly, and, on occasion, will make minor repairs. However, the record does not show that the adjusters exercise any of the craft skills of machinists, and adjusters are not in the direct line of progression in the machinists craft. Accordingly, we will not include adjusters in the unit of machinists and millwrights. Scale Repairmen, Oilers, and Concrete Finishers The Petitioner requests three separate units for scale repairmen, oilers, and concrete finishers. The four scale repairmen, under the supervision of the general carpenter foreman, grind and shape pivots and bearings used in the Employer's scales, and otherwise repair and keep in good order all such scales. The approximately 19 oilers, un- der the supervision, for the most part, of the machinist and mill- wright general foreman, oil and grease production machinery and equipment. In addition, certain production employees also devote part of their time to oiling production machines. The four concrete finishers under the supervision of the general carpenter foreman re- pair, refinish, and waterproof concrete floors, walls, columns, and other concrete surfaces, construct concrete forms, pour concrete, lay and point brick, and repair asphalt and corrugated roofs. In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, we find that the scale re- pairmen, oilers, and concrete finishers are not true craftsmen, and do not constitute appropriate separate units by any of the Board's standards. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petitions in Cases Nos. 4-RC-2236, 4-RC-2238, and 4-RC-2241. The Petitioner also requests six separate units for all painters, sheet-metal workers, welders, pipefitters, electricians, and carpenters. In the recent case of American Potash di Chemical Corporation;, the Board stated that for severance purposes not only must a true craft be sought, but, in addition, the union seeking to represent such craft must be one which traditionally represents that craft. In es- tablishing the requirement that a labor organization seeking to rep- resent a specified craft must be one which has traditionally done so, the Board noted in the Potash case-that "we are taking cognizance of 5 Supra. 478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the fact that there are unions which have devoted themselves to the special problems of the various craft employees, thereby demonstrat- ing that the interests of these craft employees are distinctive and traditionally recognized." The foregoing observation, to which our dissenting colleague subscribed, was not lightly made. Experience garnered from dealing with requests for craft severance during the many years of the Act's administration clearly revealed to us that certain labor organizations historically and traditionally sought to represent, and were certified as the bargaining representatives of, certain types of craft groups. In the Potash case, the Board, joined by our dissenting colleague, translated this experience into the pres- ent rule which precludes a union from obtaining the severance of a craft unit where such labor organization has not historically and tra- ditionally represented such craft. Based upon this experience, we are satisfied that the Petitioner in the instant case does not meet this requirement of the Potash rule. Assuming, therefore, without decid- ing, that the painters, sheet-metal workers, welders, pipfitters, elec- tricians, and carpenters are craftsmen, we are convinced that the Petitioner does not historically and traditionally represent these crafts.6 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petitions in Cases Nos. 4-RC-2233, 4-RC-2234, 4-RC-2235, 4-RC-2237, 4-RC-2239, and 4-RC-2240. Accordingly, we will direct that an election be held in the following group of employees of the Employer at its Camden, New Jersey, op- erations : All machinists, millwrights, linemen, and their helpers, excluding all other employees, adjusters, guards, and supervisors within the meaning of 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 Intervenor, they will be taken to have indi- cated their desire to remain a part of the existing appropriate plant- wide unit and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certifi- cation of results of election to that effect. [The Board dismissed the petitions in Cases Nos. 4-RC-2236, 4-RC-2238, 4-RC-2241, 4-RC-2233, 4-RC-2234, 4-RC-2235, 4-RC- 2237,4-RC-2239, and 4-RC-2240.] [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 6 Accordingly, we hereby deny the Petitioner's request of March 24 , 1954, to reopen the record to receive additional information tehding to show that the units here sought are true craft groups which exercise genuine craft skills, the standards of departmental sever- ance exist, and that it is a union which traditionally represents the crafts here sought. GENERAL FURNITURE CORPORATION 479 MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting : I cannot agree with my colleagues' denial of the Petitioner's mo- tion to submit additional evidence to the Board which would, among other things, tend to show that the Petitioner is a union which tradi- tionally represents the crafts here sought. The petitions in this proceeding were filed on December 4, 1953. A hearing was held on January 12, 13, and 14, 1954. Briefs were filed on February 4, 1954. Subsequent to the hearing and the filing of, briefs, the Board, on March 1, 1954, issued its decision in American Potash d Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418, in which it an- nounced for the first time the traditional union test as a prerequisite in craft severance cases. The motion in question was filed on March 24,1954. It is crystal clear from the above chronological statement that when, the hearing was held in January 1954, the Petitioner had no possible way of knowing that the Board would at some future time promul-, gate a new rule in cases of this kind. Under these circumstances, it goes without saying that when the hearing was held the Petitioner presented only such evidence as it deemed necessary in the light of the Board policy that prevailed at that time. To now deny the Peti- tioner the opportunity to adduce testimony for the purpose of meeting the Board's new test-a test which did not come into existence until some time later-is to penalize the Petitioner because it did not possess the powers of divination at the earlier date. I regard this as most unjust and inequitable. My colleagues apparently are satisfied that they can decide that the Petitioner failed to meet the newly established traditional union test, without any evidence before them on therecord-a failure in no wise occasioned by the Petitioner but rather by the Board's own change of its policy while the present case was pending. I am unable to do so. I find that I must have the pertinent evidence with respect to this issue before me before I can reach a determination. For the foregoing reasons, I must necessarily dissent from that portion of the majority decision which dismisses the Petitioner's petitions for failure to show that the Petitioner is the traditional union within the meaning of the American Potash decision. GENERAL FURNITURE CORPORATION 1 and UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC-2183.! July 27, 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 George LoVerde, hearing offi- As amended at the hearing. 109 NLRB No. 60.