W.C. Hamilton and Sons

W. C. HAMILTON AND SONS 627 W. C. HAMILTON AND SONS and DISTRICT # 1, INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner. Cases Nos . 4-RC-1822, 4-RC-1823, 4-RC-1824, 4-RC-1825, 4-RC-1826, 4-RC-1827, 4-RC-1828, 4-RC-1829, 4-RC-1830, 4-RC-1831, 4-RC-1832, and 4-RC-1833. May 4, 1953 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before William Naimark, 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, t the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations -involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean= ing 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 at the Employer's Miquon, Pennsylvania, plant, 12 alleged craft units composed of blacksmiths; boiler 'repairmen; brick- layers; carpenters and safety men; painters; tinsmiths or coppersmiths; welders; powerhouse engineers and firemen; pipefitters; electricians; millwrights and riggers; machinists, beltmen, roll and knife grinders; and their respective helpers and apprentices, if any. In the alternative, the Petitioner requests a single maintenance department unit of these em- ployees, excluding laborers. The Employer, which is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of high-grade writing and printing papers, has been bargaining for 16 years with the Intervenor, Industrial Union of Paper Makers, on the basis of a single unit of all production and maintenance employees. Relying on this history, the Intervenor and the Employer take the position that the only appropriate unit is the traditional production and main- tenance unit. Under Board policy, the Petitioner's alternative unit consisting of all employees in the maintenance depart- ment, excluding laborers, would be inappropriate in view of the bargaining history for the broader unit. L However, such bargaining history does not preclude the possibility that the craft units sought by the Petitioner may be appropriate. S The Employer contends that the alleged craft units sought are inappropriate for the following reasons : (1) The integra- tion of its operations resulting from the fact that it does not have a pulp mill and as evidenced by the interchange between t The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and the Em- ployer's brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. t The Kroger Co., 103 NLRB 218; Hudson Pulp & Paper Corporation, 94 NLRB 1018 and cases cited therein. 3 Footnote 2, supra 6 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD production and maintenance employees; and (2) the employees involved herein are not craftsmen. According to the Employer, its operations are more integrated than those of the majority of paper plants because the latter have pulp mills which cause a greater number of maintenance problems and require a more specialized maintenance force. The Board has held that operations in typical paper plants do not present the kind of integration that precludes craft sever- ance.' Although the instant plant is smaller than most paper plants, we find nothing in the present record that would justify the conclusion that maintenance work is so inextricably inter- woven with production as to render inappropriate true craft units of maintenance employees. 5 Nor do we find persuasive the Employer's assertion that the close integration of the maintenance department with production is demonstrated by the fact that production workers acting only in the capacity of helpers perform maintenance work on Sunday or plant shutdown days and during the vacation week shutdowns. So common in the industry is the practice of using mixed teams of production and maintenance employees for shutdown work that it has been urged frequently as evidence of the highly integrated nature of the industry. 6 We have consistently re- jected this contention upon' the ground that in normal oper- ations craft lines are adhered to in the assignment of main- tenance work and such occasional commingling does not destroy the homogeneity of the craft groups.' Moreover, this record clearly reveals that at no other times is there any form of interchange between the alleged craftsmen and other employees. In support of its position that the employees sought by the Petitioner are not craftsmen, the Employer points to the fact (a) that a certain amount of maintenance work is performed by outside contractors; (b) that a large number of its present maintenance force consists of former production workers; and (c) that it has no formal apprentice-training program. As to (a), the fact that outside contractors do some maintenance work does not preclude a finding of craft status for the groups of employees sought here because the record discloses that, with the exceptions which will be noted, these employees per- form the customary duties of their particular craft. 6 Regarding (b), as all the transfers from production to maintenance work have been on the helper level, we find that they have had no appreciable effect in destroying the identity of the separate employee groups.9 As to (c), although the Employer does not have a formal apprenticeship program, it does maintain what is tantamount to an on-the-job training program for some of the craft groups herein. We have found such a program an 4International Paper Company, Southern Craft Division, 94 NLRB 483. SCrown Zellerbach Corporation, 96 NLRB 378. 6National Container Corporation of Wisconsin, 97 NLRB 1009. ' See Sinclair Rubber, Inc., 96 NLRB 220. 8 Chase Candy Company, 88 NLRB 27. 9The Kroger Co., footnote 2, supra; Globe Steel Tubes Co., 101 NLRB 772. W. C. HAMILTON AND SONS 629 acceptable substitute for more formalized apprenticeship plans. 10 Moreover, it is also clear that a number of the em- ployees involved had attained journeyman status before they were hired by the Employer. 11 We turn now to a consideration of the specific unit requests of the Petitioner. Blacksmiths: There is conflicting evidence in the record as to whether the blacksmith is a craftsman entitled to separate representation. However, we find it unnecessary to resolve this issue because it is clear that there is only one black- smith and he presently does not have a helper. In accordance with well-settled Board practice of not holding an election where a single employee is involved, we shall not establish a separate voting group for the blacksmith. 12 Boiler repairmen: The Petitioner seeks a unit of a boiler repairman, Richard Brown, and his helper who are supervised by the assistant engineer. The boiler repairman makes re- pairs to equipment in the boiler and powerplant such as stopping steam leaks, and repairing compressors and water pumps. He occasionally fabricates small tanks and works from rough sketches, but does not fabricate, assemble, or repair boiler tanks. Nor does he cut plates to size and shape them with a power shears or acetylene burner. The parties apparently agree that he is not a boilermaker. In our opinion, the record in this case, with particular reference to the duties of the boiler repairman, does not support a finding that he is a skilled craftsman and therefore there is no basis for severing the boiler repairman and his helper from the prqduc- tion and maintenance unit. Bricklayers: There is one bricklayer and his helper who are supervised by the assistant engineer. They perform all minor brick patch work, fit metal sleeves in brick walls, pour small sections of concrete floor, mix cement and mortar for small jobs, and make small foundations. Apparently they are not able to lay bricks in a satisfactory manner. They also insulate pipes with asbestos and felt. We do not believe that on this record a finding can be made that the bricklayer and his helper constitute a skilled craft group and conclude that there is no justification for severing them from the exist- ing production and maintenance unit. Carpenters and safety men: The Employer classifies one employee as a carpenter. He works in a separate shop and utilizes the usual carpentry tools such as power planers and saws. He works from rough drafts and sketches. His duties consist of making small size screen forms, wooden beater paddles for the beater machines or mixers, crates or boxes, repairing wooden floors, building rough forms, scaffolds, and storage bins, rebuilding work benches, and building and re- pairing doors. We believe that this carpenter is a skilled 10 Globe Steel Tubes Co., footnote 9. supra ; National Container Corporation of Wisconsin, footnote 6. supra 11 The Kroger Co.. footnote 2. supra 12 Johns- Manville Products Corporation. 98 NLRB 748. 283230 0 - 54 - 41 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD craftsman performing the usual maintenance duties of his trade. 13 The Employer classifies another employee as a safety man. The Petitioner contends that this classification is incorrect because the particular employee is, in fact, a carpenter. The record discloses that the safety man was hired as a journey- man carpenter and works out of the carpenter shop. When he is in the shop he does the same type of work as the carpenter and uses the same machines. Also, when the carpenter is away for any reason, the safety man takes his place. Accord- ing to the testimony of the safety man, he spends 80 percept of his time working with wood and about 20 percent with metal. Although he only occasionally works from blueprints, he does work from rough sketches. His duties consist of floor patching, building floors, steps, platforms, footwalks, roll boxes, rough forms, office partitions, and wooden doors, and repairing un- safe wood or metal parts, metal or wood fire doors, and guards . Although the Employer contends that the safety man is not performing skilled carpentry work, its chief engineer testified that his interests are most closely allied with those of the carpenter. In our opinion, this record clearly supports the conclusion that the safety man is a skilled craftsman performing the duties of the carpenter's trade. Accordingly, we find that the employees classified as carpenter and safety man may con- stitute a separate bargaining unit, if they so desire. 14 Painters: There is one painter, who was a journeyman when hired by the Employer, and his helper. They are supervised by the chief engineer . They perform all the painting required throughout the plant. The helper is being trained by the painter. While the latter does certain noncraft jobs for the Employer, he works as a painter most of the time and as such is engaged in work requiring craft skills. We find that the painter and his helper constitute a distinct craft group entitled to separate representation.15 Accordingly, we shall establish a separate voting group for them. Tinsmiths or coppersmiths: There is one tinsmith and his helper who are supervised by the master mechanic. The tinsmith served an apprenticeship of 4 years and has been a tinsmith with the Employer for 2 years. The tinsmith and his helper have a separate area in the plant for their equipment which includes a bending brake, a rolling machine, and a work bench with a vise. The tinsmith's duties consist of wrapping connections and leaks in copper pipe, replacing parts on pipe such as gaskets, making gaskets, installing copper pipelines, boxes, and trays, running copper pipelines to pumps, making some of the parts used, repairing gates of elevators and cars, patching roofs, and planning some sheet-metal maintenance work from sketches. He uses rimming tools and power shears. Occasionally the tinsmith is called upon to clean filters and 19Hudson Pulp&Paper Corporation , footnote 2, supr. 14Rheem Manufacturing Company , Wedgewood Divisions 100 NLRB 684. 15 The Kroger Co., footnote 2, supra W. C. HAMILTON AND SONS 631 traps. It is apparent that the tinsmith has skills conforming to those generally found in the sheet-metal trade. We find, therefore, that the tinsmith with his helper constitute a distinct craft group entitled to separate representation, if they so desire. 16 Accordingly, we shall establish a separate voting group for them. Welders: There are two welders who were hired by the Employer as welders. One works primarily out of the machine shop and is supervised by the master mechanic. He does all gas welding and cutting as well as some electric welding. He was trained by the Employer in electric welding. He welds guards, broken castings, brackets, bearings, does brazing, and makes bearings out of pipe. The other welder works out of the powerhouse and goes throughout the plant wherever there is welding to be done. He is supervised by the assistant engineer. He does principally electrical weld- ing, although he can do gas welding. He welds low-pressure steampipes, tanks, and patches. Both welders operate similar types of equipment and perform similar types of work. We believe that these welders are skilled craftsmen. Despite the difference in their supervision, their work is not so sharply differentiated as to preclude their representation in a single unit. 17 We shall establish a separate voting group for them. Powerhouse engineers and firemen: There are 4 engineers, 4 firemen, and 4 firemen helpers under the supervision of the assistant engineer. The engineers work in the turbine room. They operate steam turbine pumps, electric generators, and the switchboard; and control all electric distribution from the power station : The firemen and their helpers work primarily in the boil erholisThey control the steam genera- tion of the entire plant; the regulation of all fuel-burning equipment , and handle the boilers , boiler pumps, compressors, and all boiler auxilia ries : They train their helpers and it takes about 4 years fora fielper to become a fireman. We find that the engineers, firemen, and firemen helpers represent a distinct, hdmogeneous, and functionally coherent group, despite `their separate location, who may, if they so desire, constitute a §eparate bargaining unit. 18 Accordingly, we shall establish a separate voting group for them. Pipefitters: There are 4 pipefitters and 4 helpers under the direction of a leaderman. They perform the usual skilled work of pipefitters such as fitting all steel; stainless steel, or brass pipe in the plant, except for new installations. They repair valves and ritri new lines. They measure to locate the position of pipe from drawings. They lay out their work and fabricate some of the materials which they use. They utilize the customary tools of their trade such as power pipe-cutting machines, threading tools, chain tongs, squares, levels, pro- 16 Globe Steel Tubes Co., footnote 9, supra IT National Container Corporation of Wisconsin, footnote 6, supra. 18 Globe Steel Tubes Co., footnote 9, supra. 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tractors, and dividers. Their helpers are trained by them for a period of 4 years before they can become pipefitters. We find that the pipefitters and helpers constitute a skilled craft group entitled to separate representation, if they so desire. 19 We shall therefore establish a separate voting group for them. Electricians: There are 7 electricians and 2 helpers under the direction of a leaderman who have their own separate electrical shop in which they do some of their repair work. They take care of any new electrical installations, repair powerlines, handle all electrical equipment, change electrical fixtures, insulate motors, pull cables, do transformer work, wire switchboard controllers, repair and install circuit breakers, charge batteries, inspect and repair some of the Employer's elevators, maintain generators and make minor repairs on them. They do not rewind motors, but take them apart to ascertain if they can be saved. They inspect and oil the air-conditioning equipment. They must be familiar with all the latest and modern electrical controls. The helpers are trained on the job to become electricians and it takes at least 4 years of such training. The electricians use the usual tools of their trade such as pocket tools, voltage testers, and fuse pullers. The record as a whole reveals that the unit sought by the Petitioner is substantially a traditional craft group of elec- tricians of a type which the Board has established on numerous occasions in separate craft units for the purposes of col- lective bargaining when they so desire it. m Accordingly, we shall establish a separate voting group for them. Millwrights or riggers: Although the parties are in dispute as to the precise number of millwrights, millwright helpers, and riggers, they agree that there are at least 6 employees classified as millwrights, 6 helpers, and 1 rigger under the supervision of the master mechanic. Moreover, the record clearly reveals that the duties of the riggers and mill- wrights are identical. The millwrights erect and dismantle machines and install new or repaired parts. They take care of all breakdowns of machinery and are equipped to make necessary repairs on any machine. They align parts of the paper machines, but not the entire machines. The latter type work, when necessary, is performed by an outside con- tractor. They adjust the plant machinery and are responsible for its being in good running order. They use some of the machines of the machinists such as lathes, drill presses, and planers. It takes 4 years of on-the-job training for a mill- wright helper to become a millwright. 19 Hudson Pulp &Paper Corporation , footnote 2, supra. 20 Chase Candy Company, footnote 8, supra; Globe Steel Tubes Co., footnote 9, supra W. C. HAMILTON AND SONS 633 We believe that the millwrights or riggersn and the mill- wright helpers constitute a skilled craft group entitled to sepa- rate representation, if they so desire- n We shall, therefore, establish a separate voting group for them. The Petitioner contends that Howard Staneruck is a mill- wright, Frank Heleniak is a rigger, and Charles Blank is a millwright helper. The Employer asserts that Staneruck and Heleniak are boiler repairmen and Blank is a pump repair- man. We are unable on this record to determine the status of these employees because of the lack of clarity as to their duties. As the evidence in this case is insufficient to enable us to make definite findings at this time, we shall make no final determinations with respect to these individuals, but shall permit them to vote in the millwright voting group subject to challenge. n Machinists, beltmen, roll and knife grinders: The Employer has three machinists who were hired as journeymen and are supervised by the master mechanic. Two of the machinists work both in the machine shop and out in the plant. The third works almost always in the shop. The machinists are highly skilled and use the customary precision hand and machine tools, including micrometers, calipers, surface gauges, shapers, lathes, planers, and drill presses, and perform the traditional work of the machinist's trade. They work from blue- prints and are frequently required to work to close tolerances. They fabricate and repair parts of the production machines. We find that the machinists constitute a skilled group of craft employees of the type to whom we have customarily accorded separate representation. 39 We shall, therefore, establish a separate voting group for the machinists. There is one beltman whom the Petitioner would include, and the Employer contends should be excluded, from the machin- ist voting group . The beltman' s principal duties are to inspect and repair rubber and leather belts used to drive machinery or convey material . The beltman also does some knife grind- ing. He spends a large portion of his time working throughout the production area of the plant. The record indicates that he performs his work apart from the machinists and does not share their working quarters. As this employee works in- dependently from the machinists, we find that he has dif- ferent interests and should be excluded from the machinist group.25 There are two roll grinders whom the Petitioner would in- clude, but the Employer contends should be excluded, from n The Board does not generally find riggers to be craftsmen. National Aniline Division. Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation, 102 NLRB 129. However, as indicated above, the record discloses that the employee herein classified as a rigger is, in fact, a millwright and per- forms the duties of a millwright. ttCampbell Soup Company, 98 NLRB 741; Johns -Manville Products Corporation, footnote 12, supra; Hudson Pulp &Paper Corporation4 footnote 2. supra l3See Sigman Food Stores, 88 NLRB 1332; Electric Auto-Lite Company, 87 NLRB 129. UGlobe Steel Tubes Co.. footnote 9, supra Johns-Manville Products Corporation, footnote 12, supra; Crown Zellerbach Corporation, footnote 5, supra. 25Campbell Soup Company, footnote 22, supra 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the machinist voting group. The roll grinders grind all stone, rubber, and chilled iron rolls on a special machine located in a separate room. They have to know how to use micrometers, squares, and levels, and how to measure to close tolerances. Although the work appears to require skill, the Employer states that it takes only 4 months to learn the job. The roll grinders are not qualified to do machinists' work and do not interchange with machinists. In view of the fact that the roll grinders are not machinists, are separately located, and can perform only one of the many functions of a qualified machinist, we find they are not ap- propriately a part of a craft group of machinists. Accordingly, we shall exclude the roll grinders from the machinist voting group.26 There is one knife grinder whom the Petitioner would include, but the Employer contends should be excluded from the machin- ist voting group. The knife grinder giinds cutter and trimmer knives on a special machine. He does not operate any other machine. He is not a machinist. His job is not skilled and is learned in about a month. For substantially the same reasons for which we have excluded the roll grinders, we shall exclude the knife grinder from the machinist voting group.n In view of the foregoing, we shall direct that separate elec- tions be conducted among the following groups of employees in the maintenance department of the Employer's Miquon, Pennsylvania, plant, including in each group all leadermen and helpers working in each craft, but excluding all other em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act: 1 . All carpenters and safety men. 2. All painters. 3. All tinsmiths or coppersmiths. 4. All welders. 5. All powerhouse engineers and firemen. 6. All pipefitters. 7. All electricians. 8. All millwrights and riggers. 9. All machinists. If a majority in any group votes for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director is `instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit which the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. If a majority in any group votes for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain a part of the existing bar- gaining unit and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of the results of the election to that effect. 2e West Virginia Pulp & Paper Company, 89 NLRB 815. 27 International Paper Company , 94 NLRB 483. W. C. HAMILTON AND SONS 635 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed in Cases Nos. 4-RC-1822, 4-RC-1823, and 4-RC-1824 be, and they hereby are, dismissed. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] Member Peterson, dissenting: The decision of my colleagues in this case granting sever- ance of various craft groups from the long-established plant- wide unit is completely in accord with present Board policy, with which I have not heretofore expressed disagreement. However, I have become increasingly concerned that in readily permitting craft severance the Board is giving too little weight or consideration to other pertinent factors which militate against such action. This growing apprehension has caused me to reexamine and reevaluate our policy, and I have been impelled to the conclusion it should be revised. In my opinion the purposes of the Act would be better effectuated if labor organizations seeking to carve out a craft or other small group from a more inclusive unit were required to come for- ward with evidence demonstrating that on balance the special interests of the- smaller segment justify fragmentizing the existing,-unit and disrupting a bargaining relationship that has functioned effectively for a substantial number of years. In this case, I am convinced the Petitioner has not .shown why any of the 9 craft groups should be severed, particularly in view of the Employer's 16-year history of bargaining with the Intervenor on a plantwide unit basis. Accordingly, I would grant the Employer's motion to dismiss the petitions. The precise issue between parties as to whether, and if so under what conditions, a craft group may be severed from an existing production and maintenance unit for the purpose of collective bargaining is not novel. Indeed, it is a question which has plagued the Board from its earliest days. Resolu- tion of the issue has seldom been easy, because of the sharply conflicting considerations which so frequently arise. On the one hand, the interests of stability and certainty in labor relations favor adherence to existing patterns; on the other hand, the cohesiveness and special interests of a group of craftsmen often indicate the propriety of a unit limited to members of such a group." Thus, the Board must decide in each such case whether maintenance of industrial stability, which is a principal objective of the Act, or preservation of the freedom of craftsmen to be separately represented, which is an equally important concept, is to prevail. In an endeavor to strike a balance between these diametri- cally opposed considerations, the Board over the years gradually evolved a policy .of looking to certain criteria--none of which standing alone was necessarily conclusive--in determining 'Food Machinery Corporation, 72 NLRB 483. 6 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD whether a craft group was to be severed from an established production and maintenance unit. The factors considered were: 1. The history of collective bargaining (e.g. American Can Company, 13 NLRB 1225). 2. The history, extent, and type of organization of employees in other plants of the same employer, or of other employers in the same industry (e.g. Food Machinery Corporation, 72 NLRB 483). 3. The relationship between the unit or units proposed and the employer's organization, management, and operation of the plant (integration) (e.g. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., 74 NLRB 918). 4. Maintenance of identity as a craft group throughout the period of bargaining on a more comprehensive basis (e.g. United States Potash Company, N.S.L., 63 NLRB 1379) as indicated by: (a) Protesting inclusion in the existing unit. (b) Refraining from participation in the activities of the union representing the unit. (c) Seeking to obtain recognition from the employer as a se arate bargaining unit. (d) Being accorded special treatment by the production and maintenance union. ( e) Being neglected by the production and maintenance union. 5. Whether the petitioning union had obtained membership among the craft employees prior to the establishment of the broader unit (e.g. Remington Rand, Inc., 62 NLRB 1419). 6. Whether consideration had been given to the merits of a craft unit at the time the production and maintenance unit was established (e.g. Packard Motor Car Company, 63 NLRB 317). (a) Whether there had been prior craft elections. 7. Whether the petitioning craft union had rigidly adhered to its traditional craft lines--refused to admit to membership, or avoided seeking to represent, employees who did not meet the qualifications of the craft (e.g. General Electric Company, Lynn River Works and Everett Plant, 58 NLRB 57). While all the above-mentioned criteria were, at one time or another, viewed as important by the Board in reaching a determination, the most enduring and to me the most per- suasive ones were the existence, or lack, of established craft units in the industry involved and the duration of the bar- gaining history on the broader basis at the plant of the particular employer. Subsequent to the passage of the amended Act, the Board was called upon in the National Tube case 29 to determine the effect of Section 9 (b) (2) 71 upon its discretionary powers with respect to craft severance. After an exhaustive analysis of the section 2 76 NLRB 1199. Section 9 (b) (2) states that the Board "shall not ... decide that any craft unit is in- appropriate . . . on the ground that a different unit has been established by a prior Board determination, unless a majority of the employees in the proposed craft unit vote against separate representation." W. C. HAMILTON AND SONS 637 and its legislative history, the Board reached the conclusion that, while it was precluded from deciding that any craft unit was inappropriate on the sole ground that a different unit had been established by a prior Board determination, it could and would continue to consider all the factors which had been used in the past in deciding a craft severance question. However, despite the conclusion that Section 9 (b) (2) did not Interdict the application of the Board's earlier policy, sub- sequent decisions have either eschewed reference to the criteria upon which the policy was based or in summary fashion found them not to be a deterrent to craft severance . " Only in those relatively few industries where the prevailing bargaining pattern was one of industrial units,32 or where the work per- formed by the employees involved was a regular and indispen- sable segment of, and was inextricably integrated with, the production process," has severance been denied. Thus, almost any distinguishable craft group of employees is permitted to split off under the present policy and there are only about four industries and the few "assemblyline" plants which are now relatively immune from craft severance. In my opinion , the same cogent reasons for attempting to maintain a fine balance between the opposing concepts of stability in bargaining relationships and giving craftsmen an opportunity to be separately represented exist today as in the past. However, my view of present Board policy is that in our endeavor to safeguard freedom of choice we have tended almost completely to disregard stability in bargaining. I think it is fair to say that our liberal craft-severance policy in recent years has encouraged the filing of petitions which appear to have no more foundation than some imagined or exaggerated dissatisfaction among a group of workmen whose long-term interests are best served by remaining part of the overall unit . Moreover , it seems to me our policy inevitably tends to stimulate unnecessary " raiding " tactics by rival unions, a form of internecine warfare deplored by responsible leaders of labor and industry alike. The Board recognized early that of necessity no hard and fast rule could be laid down in advance as an absolute guide in determining when one or the other of the conflicting considera- tions to which I have referred was to prevail." Yet, the basis of the present policy apparently is the application of just such a rule. I do not believe that by this method the Board can, or should , attempt to relieve itself of the fundamental obligation under the amended Act, as under the original Act, to make the ultimate determination in severance cases. Moreover , the instant case is especially illustrative of the great need for a change in present policy in the direction of 311 shall not burden this opinion with innumerable citations on the point, lfut. as an example, refer to the host of cases granting severance and containing the language: "notwithstanding bargaining history on a more comprehensive basis." UBasic steel (76 NLRB 1199); basic aluminum (89 NLRB 804); wet milling (80 NLRB 362); lumber (87 NLRB 1076). "For example. Ford Motor Company, Maywood Plant, 78 NLRB 887. SSee General Electric Company, 58 NLRB 57. 6 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD giving considerable weight to some, if not all, of the factors previously mentioned. Thus, it is now well settled Board law, as indicated in the majority opinion, that severance will be denied where a departmental unit limited to maintenance employees is sought, with certain possible exceptions not rele- vant here,' upon the ground that such a unit embraces essentially a multicraft grouping of employees with varying skills which lacks homogeneity and cohesiveness.36 Although the Petitioner is quite willing to represent a unit of main- tenance employees, awareness of the foregoing Board principle undoubtedly impelled the filing of its 12 petitions for separate craft units, 7 of which consist of 2 employees each and the largest one of approximately 15 employees. Because there is only 1 Petitioner here it would seem most likely that if the Petitioner wins the 9 separate craft elections now being directed it would attempt to bargain for all the maintenance em- ployees involved as a single unit, thereby accomplishing exactly what Board precedent is apparently designed to prevent. As I have stated, there has beena 16-year bargaining history on a production and maintenance basis, and the plant involved is more highly integrated than is customary in the industry, because the Employer does not have a pulp mill and therefore does not require a very large and highly skilled maintenance force. There is no evidence that the proposed craft groups maintained their identity as such during the period of bar- gaining on a more comprehensive basis nor that the Peti- tioner had obtained membership among the craft employees prior to the establishment of the broader unit. So far as appears, the craft groups have been fairly represented, and the peti- tioning IAM does not seek only machinists and related crafts. Thus, all the important criteria adverse to severance happen to be present in this case. I do not suggest, however, that it is possible or desirable to spell out exactly what combination of factors will result in granting or denying severance. If that were possible, the standard of measurement could be written into the Rules, although the statute commands that the Board "shall decide in each case . . . the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining." But I do suggest that in reaching a determination in a particular craft-severance case the Board again, as in the past, place great emphasis on the bargaining history. Thus, where, as here, the history has been very long, stable, and harmonious andis coupled with other factors formerly deemed persuasive, I wouldbe disposed to find it controlling and deny craft severance. Chairman Herzog took ng part in the consideration of the above Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections. - 5For example, craft nucleus cases --Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 101 NLRB 441. ffi See footnote 2, supra.