La Pointe Machine Tool Co.

514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ganizations, to join or assist Local 749, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any or all of such activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL offer Dale Rex immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed and we will make whole said employee for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining members of any labor organization except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act. PETROLEUM CARRIERS, INC., 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. LA POINTE MACHINE TOOL COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 1-RC-34142. July 28,1954 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 A. Sweeney , 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.' 3. Since December 1944, the Intervenor has been in contractual rela- tions with the Employer as the representative of all the Employer's hourly rated employees , including the draftsmen now sought to be represented by the Petitioner' On July 1, 1952, the Intervenor en- tered into a collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer for a term expiring on December 31, 1953 . A clause in this agreement 1 Local 3536, United Steelworkers of America , CIO, was permitted to Intervene at the hearing. 2 As a result of a consent election, the Intervenor was designated the bargaining repre- sentative of the Employer 's production and maintenance employees and draftsmen. Pur- suant to the July 1950 contract the office clerical employees were added to this unit. 109 NLRB No. 91. LA POINTE MACHINE TOOL COMPANY 515 provided for reopening the contract on July 1, 1953, for the limited purpose of changing or- discussing wages and vacation benefits. Pur- suant to this clause, the parties, on June 26, 1953, modified various terms of their agreement and, in addition, extended the termination date from December •31, 1953, to December 31, 1954. The Intervenor and the Employer urge this extended agreement as a bar to this proceeding and therefore move to dismiss the petition. Before the execution of the extended contract, the Petitioner filed a representation petition which was withdrawn without prejudice on June 23,1953. The present petition was thereafter filed on October 22, 1953, which was timely with respect to the original contract terminal date of December 31, 1953. For this reason, the Petitioner asserts that, under the Board's premature extension doctrine, the extended contract does not bar this proceeding. The Intervenor and the Employer, on the other hand, contend that the premature extension doctrine is inapplicable because the Petitioner participated in the negotiations resulting in the extended agreement and accepted for its constituents the benefits therein provided. Under the premature extension doctrine, a petition which is timely filed with respect to the termination date of the original contract is not barred by the extended contract.' However, in the Raytheon case 4 the Board made an exception to this doctrine and found a contract bar 'where the petitioning union actually participated in the negotiation of the extended contract and accepted its benefits. We have considered the evidence relied upon by the Intervenor and the Employer to show the applicability of the Raytheon rule and find that it does not establish that the Petitioner participated in the negotiations of the extended agreement or received any benefits thereunder.' Accordingly, we find that the extended agreement does not prevent the processing of the instant, petition. We further find that a ques= tion affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of em- ployees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2, (6) and (7) of the Act. We shall therefore deny the motion of the Employer and the Intervenor to dismiss the petition herein s s This principle has been reasserted in the recent American Steel c€ Wire Division of United States Steel Corporation case, 109 NLRB 373. Although dissenting in that case, Chairman Farmer and Member Murdock consider themselves bound by the majority hold- ing therein. 4 Raytheon Manufacturing Company, 98 NLRB 1330. This principle was reiterated in General Electric Company (River Works ), 107 NLRB 70 5 In the Raytheon case, the record there discloses that the petitioning union had entered into an agreement with the incumbent union whereby the petitioning union was given cer- tain bargaining rights, as a result of which at least one official representative of the peti- tioning union participated in the negotiations of the extended contract. 9 The Employer also moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that (a) the Peti- tioner 's amendment of the unit defined in its petition by adding the classification of draft- 334811-55-vol 109-34 ,516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of draftsmen, drafting ap- prentices, tracers, detailers, designers, and checkers, excluding all other employees, the chief draftsmen, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer and the Intervenor, which currently represents the drafting employees as part of a production, maintenance, and office clerical unit, urge that the only appropriate unit is the broader unit. They contend that the proposed smaller unit is inappropriatebecause (a) the history of bar- gaining on a plantwide basis has achieved industrial stability; (b) drafting employees have the same interests as production employees; (c) drafting employees participate in the same plantwide profit- sharing plan (Scanlon Plan) as production employees, thereby cre- ating a greater degree of cooperation and integration of activities in the plant than is customarily found in the industry; and (d) there are other technical employees such as expediters, inspectors, and tool- makers whom the Petitioner does not seek to include in the proposed technical unit. There are approximately 40 employees in the unit requested by the Petitioner. These employees, together with certain engineers and clerical employees whom the parties agree to exclude,' constitute the engineering department. This department is located on the third floor of the plant adjacent to the toolroom where some 40 toolroom em- ployees are employed. With the exception of the toolroom and some production control employees, all production work is performed on the first two floors of the plant. The draftsmen and designers design and detail the complicated broaching machines, cutting tools, and fixtures manufactured by the Employer. The tracers, detailers, and checkers perform the lesser .skilled drafting jobs. All of these employees are supervised by the chief draftsman who is himself responsible to the chief engineer. Be- cause of the technical nature of the product manufactured by the Em- ployer, some contact between production employees and drafting em- ing apprentices and checkers increased the number of employees in the unit ; (b) the Peti- tioner did not make the required showing of interest; (c) the Regional Director did not avail himself of the opportunity to check the Petitioner's showing of interest against the Employer's payroll, and (d) the intent expressed in the "no raiding" pact between the C.I.O and the A.F L. should bar this petition. We find no merit in these contentions for the following reasons: (a) The Petitioner's amendment of the petition merely particu- larized the various job classifications utilized by the Employer; (b) the Petitioner's show- ing of interest is an administrative matter for the determination of the Board and is not subject to collateral attack. Stokely Foods, Inc, 78 NLRB 842 ; 0 D. Jennings & Com- pany, 68 NLRB 516 ; (c) we are satisfied that an adequate investigation of the Petitioner's showing of interest has been made; and (d) on the present state of the record, the afore- mentioned "no raiding" agreement is not a sufficient ground for dismissing the petition. Accordingly, the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition is denied. 7 Electric engineer, service engineer, chief tool engineer, the vice president in charge of research engineering, the chief engineer, the chief draftsman, 2 full-time and 1 part-tine ,stenographers, and a microfilm operator. LA POINTE MACHINE TOOL COMPANY 517 ployees occurs. Thus, production employees may request clarifying information from drafting employees concerning some detail or speci- fication contained in blueprints prepared by the latter. There are also occasions when drafting employees enter the production areas to discuss problems with production employees. On other occasions, drafting employees may be placed on special assignment in the shop. However, drafting employees and production employees do not inter- change with each other. Inasmuch as drafting employees have been represented as part of the overall unit, they have enjoyed the same benefits, working condi- tions, and have participated in the same profit-sharing plan, as pro- duction employees. Although drafting employees work the same number of hours as production employees, the latter work a 5-day week, whereas drafting employees ,work 6 days. Unlike production workers, drafting employees do not bid for vacant jobs. Under all the circumstances, and in view of the specialized skill and distinctive character of the work performed by the drafting employees, we find that these employees are technical employees .s We further find, contrary to the contention of the Employer and the Intervenor, that expediters, inspectors, and toolmakers, are not tech- nical employees.' As the drafting employees are the only technical employees in the plant, and as such have interests sufficiently different from the production and maintenance employees to warrant separate representation, they may constitute a separate appropriate unit.10 However, we will make no final unit determination until we have first ascertained the desires of the employees as expressed in the election herein directed. Accordingly, we shall direct a separate election among the following group of employees at the Employer's Hudson, Massachusetts, plant : All draftsmen, drafting apprentices, tracers, detailers, designers, and checkers, excluding all other employees, the chief draftsmen, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in the voting group selects the Peti- tioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and the Regional Director conducting the 8 The Sheffield Corporation, 108 NLRB 349. 8 The expediters are primarily concerned with routing the Employer's product through the.various production stages and checking for material shortages They are usually in- cluded in production and maintenance units as plant clerical employees. General Electric Company, 106 NLRB 364. The inspectors check machines and tools used in the fabrica- tion of the product as well as the product itself. The Board usually includes such em- ployees in a production and maintenance unit. Palmer Manufacturing Company, 103 NLRB 336; Bell Aircraft Corporation, 96 NLRB 1211. Toolmakers or toolroom employees are customarily included in a separate craft or production and maintenance unit A P Controls Corporation, 108 NLRB 593; Mendon Company, It B. M. Divaalon, 108 NLRB 310; United Screw and Bolt Corporation, 106 NLRB 1308. 10 General Electric Company, 89 NLRB 726, 734. 518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. On the other hand, if a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain part of the existing unit currently represented by the Inter- venor, and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY and DISTRICT No. 8, INTERNATIONAL ASSO- CIATION 1 OF MACHINISTS AFL and DISTRICT No. 8, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL and LOCAL 194, FOOD, TOBACCO AND AGRICULTURAL 2 DIVISION OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE, PROCESSING AND OFFICE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO and PIPE FITTERS' ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UNION 597,3 UNITED ASSOCIATION, A. F. OF L. and LOCAL 194, FOOD, TOBACCO AND AGRICULTURAL DIVISION OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE, PROCESSING AND OFFICE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONERS. Cases Nos. 13-RC-3679, 13-RC-3686, 13-RC-3710, 13-RC3715, and 13-RC-3731. July 28,1954 Decision, Direction of Elections, and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La- bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Rush F. Hall, 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.4 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. At approximately 1: 30 p. in. on December 1, 1953, the Employer and DPO executed a memorandum agreement extending their re- cently expired contract for the production and certain maintenance 1 Herein called IAM. 2 Herein called DPO. 8 Herein called Pipe Fitters. 4 DPO was permitted to intervene at the hearing in Cases Nos. 13-RC-3679, 13-RC-3686, and 13-RC-3715, and IAM was permitted to intervene in Cases Nos. 13-RC-3710 and 13-RC-3731. 109 NLRB No. 83.