Ladish Co.

LADISH Co. 159 4. By refusing on and after October 26, 1951, to bargain collectively with the aforesaid Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appro- priate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 5. By the aforesaid unfair labor practice, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,'and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] Appendix A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby netify our employees that : WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO A\D -MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, as the exclusive repre- sentative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein, with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages rates of pay, hours of employ- ment. and other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All plant department and operating department employees employed at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, excluding office clerical and sales employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-named union to bargain collectively with us, or refuse to bargain with said union, as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit set forth above. THE AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, 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. LADISH Co. and CUDAIIY FORGERS LOCAL #509, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BLACI\SDIITHS, DROP FORGERS AND HELPERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-2591. July 14, 1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Seciion 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William D. Boetticher, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudical error and are hereby affirmed. 100 NLRB No 26. 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to u three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mealiing of the Act.' 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Employer, a Wisconsin corporation, is engaged in the manu- facture or forgings, flanges, and fittings for farm implements, road- making, general industrial machinery, and oil well equipment at its only plant in Cudahy, Wisconsin. A previously reported case' in- volving the Employer shows that the Employer's plant was divided into 17 departments,2 each with separate supervision and with a sepa- rate and distinct function in the Employer's operations. The present record indicates that, although a few departments may have been added since our earlier decision above, the administrative division of the plant has remained substantially the same. At the time of the hearing, the Employer had approximately 3,500 employees, most of whom are currently iepresented by various labor organizations 3 It appears from the Board records that only 2 have been previously cer- tified as bargaining agents for any of the employees which they now represent, the other labor organizations having been recognized as bargaining agents by the Employer., In a 1945 Board proceeding 4 the Petitioner was certified for two departments (steel stores and forge shop) of the four departments it now represents,' and in the same proceeding the IAM was certified for the maintenance and repair department. Also, in 1945, following a 1 Ladish Drop Forge Company, 57 NLRB 1468 ( 1944). 2 These were, viz, steel stores, forge shop, heat treating, cleaning , straightening, grinding and salvage, production machine, die room , painting, galvanizing, shipping, flange store, stockroom, power plant, inspection , maintenance and repair , and metallurgical B The labor organizations and the employees which they represent are (1) Petitioner (steel stores, forge shop, draw bench, and heat treat departments ) ; ( 2) Milwaukee Die Sinkers' Lodge, Local 140 (all employees, working on dies or parts of dies) ; (3) Electrical Workers Union , 494, IBEW ( electricians) ; ( 4) Associated Unions of America and Its Office and Professional Workers, Local 85 (plant clericals ) ; and (5 ) International Associ- ation of Machinists, District 10 (all remaining employees except office employees and the metallurgical department employees who together apparently constitute the only unrepre- sented employees at the Employer 's plant). 4 Ladish Drop Forge Company, 61 NLRB 572. 5 Since the certification of the Petitioner by the Board as bargaining representative in 1945 for the steel stores and forge shop departments , the Employer has also recognized the Petitioner as the representative of the draw bench and heat treat departments. LADISH CO. 161 consent election c the TAM was further certified as the bargaining agent for those employees which it now represents, in addition to the main- tenance and repair department . The Petitioner now seeks to repre- sent as a separate unit all employees in the combustion control division of the metallurgical department , or in the alternative, if the Board finds that a separate unit of these employees is inappropriate , the Pe- titioner seeks to include them in its existing unit. As discussed be- low, it is the Petitioner's contention that the employees in the combus- tion control division constitute a readily identifiable group with a nucleus of skilled employees and that they may thus appropriately be bargained for as it separate unit. The Employer assumes a neutral position with respect to the unit question . It appears from the record that neither the metallurgical department as a whole nor the combus- tion control division thereof is currently represented or has ever been represented by a labor organization. The metallurgical department is a separate and distinct depart- ment with respect to location, supervision , and seniority. The metal- lurgical department is charged with full responsibility for the metal- lurgical quality of all forgings produced by the Employer, in which respect it lends its assistance to all the manufacturing, processing, engineering, and administrative departments. It is composed of physical testing, chemistry , combustion control, administrative, pho- tographic, metallographic, stress analysis , x-ray defraction , and non- destructive testing divisions. A representative of the Employer. .testified that a metallurgical department is more or less unusual in the forging industry and that to his knowledge no other forging com- pany has employees doing work similar to that done by the employees in the Employer's combustion control division . Because, however, the Employer frequently works with unusual types of alloys in forging, for example, parts for jet aircraft engines, the metallurgical depart- ment is necessary to insure proper production of these forgings. The metallurgical department as a whole comprises about 175 employees, of whom about 35 employees are in the combustion control division sought by the Petitioner . The combustion control division represents as extension of metallurgical engineering into the forge shop. Thus, by necessity, combustion control employees spend the greater part of their time in the forge shop area where they see that the technical specifications developed and set forth by the metal-' lurgical department are, followed in the forge operation. The combustion control department has its own general supervisor and a head supervisor . The latter is in turn under the supervision of the chief metallurgist and his assistant who are the over-all supervisors of the metallurgical department . When the combustion control em- BLa(lish Drop Forge Company, Case No. 13-RC-2763 ( not reported in printed volumes of decisions). I 162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees are working in the forge shop, they are not subject to the control or authority of the forge shop supervisors. Although a part of the metallurgical department proper, the com- bustion control personnel have their own suboffice which is adjacent to the forge shop, and about 700 feet from.the metallurgical department proper. At this office, the supervisors of combustion control employees do their detail work and receive communications for directing the assignments of their men. Combustion control employees spend a total of about 30 minutes a day in this office, and the rest of their time at their assignments which take them into the forge shop and other departments represented by the Petitioner. They also spend somewhat less than 5 percent of their time elsewhere in the plant checking vari- ous inspecting operations adjacent to the metallurgical departient. The job classifications of the combustion control division are process controller, heat monitor, and combustion instrument adjuster.' The Employer requires a process controller to have a high school educa- tion, some college training in metallurgy or engineering, knowledge -along specialized fields such as steel alloys, and ability to use pyrom- eters and potentiometers. A heating monitor is required to have a high school education and some college training in metallurgy or mechanical engineering, or the equivalent in experience, while a combustion instrument adjuster must have a high school- education or the equivalent preferably with a background in science or mechanics. Each job classification has a learner and A, B, and C grades. It- takes from 1 to 3 months for an employee to advance from a learner to a class C grade and about the same time to advance to a class B grade. It takes from 2 to 3 years for a class B employee to obtain a class A grade. The record further indicates that class A employees, if qualified, may advance further in the metallurgical department. The Employer testified that he considers class A employees as skilled employees. Although combustion control employees are upgraded as they gain experience or show aptitude, there is no formal appren- ticeship program for these employees. The rates of pay of all combus- tion control division employees range from $1.35 to $2.10 per hour. The top pay rates compare favorably with the hourly rates paid to various craft employees in the plant. However, there are only a few employees in the combustion control division who are paid $2.10 per hour. The working hours of the metallurgical and forge shop are substantially the same. All employees throughout the plant receive the same benefits. 7 The combustion control division also includes some engineer trainees whom the Petitioner would exclude from the unit sought and who are apparently newly employed college gradu- ate engineers They are placed by the Employer in the combustion control division for about 6 months to learn the practical aspects of forging in line with the Employer's policy of developing metallurgical and mechanical engineers for special assignments. LADISH Co. 163: The combustion control employees report for work to the metal- lurgical department proper, where their lockers and washroom fa- cilities are located. They also report to the metallurgical department during the course of a specific forging, should they require any interpretation or clarification of the specifications which are set forth by the metallurgical department for each forging operation.. As part of their responsibility to see- that the precise heating and_ cooling cycles and other standards as set forth by these specifications. are met, they are required to keep a record history of each forging- which is sent to the metallurgical department. In the course of the above duties, the combustion control employees, unlike forge shop employees, do not handle any of the material or equipment used in, snaking forgings. Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, we are satisfied that although- some of the combustion control employees are skilled, none of them exercises or possesses any of the skills pertaining to a true or recog-- nized craft .8 Rather it is clear from the job descriptions and educa- tional requirements of these employees that their work is primarily technical in nature and that they are, therefore, technical employees with interests related to those of other technical employees employed in the metallurgical department .9 Accordingly, we find no merit to the Petitioner's contention that the combustion control employees. constitute an appropriate unit because the group has a sufficient nucleus- of craft employees. Nor do the employees in question constitute an. appropriate unit of technical employees, as they appear to be but a segment of a larger group of technical employees in the. metallurgical department 10 As the combustion control employees, are neither craftsmen nor do they otherwise constitute a distinct and homogeneous group, with interests different from those of other employees, suck as we have recognized may be separately represented, we find that they do not constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.- As stated above, the Petitioner in the alternative requests that the combustion control employees be included in its existing unit. In view of the fact that the combustion control employees are technical em- ployees whose duties and interests are distinct from those of the employees currently represented by the Petitioner,,and the fact that the Cf. Abbotts Dairies, Inc., 97 NLRB No . 2, and cases cited therein ; The Flexible Com- pany, 85 NLRB 536. 9 The existence of other technical employees in the metallurgical department is indicated by the names of the other divisions in the metallurgical department. 11 The Monarch Machine Tool Co., 98 NLRB 1243 (Members Houston and Styles, dissent- ing). See also The De Laval Separator Company, 97 NLRB 544; F. IT. Sickles Company, 81 NLRB 390. u Thus, the only basis for establishment of the proposed unit, that we can perceive, is the extent of the Petitioner's organization among these employees . The Act, however, precludes a finding on this basis alone. Pacific Gas t Electric Company, 91 NLRB 617. 227200-53-vol. 100--12 1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -combustion control division is functionally related to the metallurgical -department as a whole which includes other technical employees, we find no basis for permitting the Petitioner to add the combustion control employees to its existing unit 12 As we have found that the combustion control employees neither may constitute a separate unit nor be included in the Petitioner's .existing unit, we shall dismiss -the petition. Order Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition herein be and it hereby is, dismissed. u See Monsanto Chemical Company , 89 NLRB 1478. THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. and UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 5-RC-1073. July 14,1952 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 Louis Aronin, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free -from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson.] 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 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.' 1 The Respondent contends that the Petitioner-an International Union-is not entitled to maintain this proceeding unless all of its Local Unions, and particularly those whose officers were present at the hearing, are found to be in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. We find no merit in this contention , as we are satisfied upon the record that the International , which has achieved compliance , is the real party in interest in this proceeding, and is therefore entitled to maintain the proceeding in its own behalf without regard to the compliance status of its locals . Cf. Tin Processing Corp., 80 NLRB 1369, 1371 . We shall , accordingly, deny the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition. 100 NLRB No. 33.