Traylor Engineering & Manufacturing Co.

334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive of the employees of the Employer in the powerhouse unit in Case- No. 9-RC-2126, and International Union of Electrical, Radio, and: Machine Workers, CIO, in the production and maintenance unit in Cases Nos. 9-RC-2141,2142, and 2149.] MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above- Supplemental Decision and Certifications of Representatives. TRAYLOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY and PATTERN" MAKERS LEAGUE OF NORTH AMERICA, EASTON ASSOCIATION, PETI- TIONER. Case No. 4-RC-2461. October 13, 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 William Naimark,. 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. The Intervenor, United Steelworkers of America, CIO, which has been the certified bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees, including the employees sought herein, as- serted at the hearing that its current contract was a bar to an election among the employees sought by the Petitioner. The Petitioner con- tends that its petition, filed August 2, 1954, is timely. The recently expired contract of the Intervenor was dated August 4, 1952, and was effective until August 31, 1954. It is this contract that the Intervenor claims as a bar. The contract contained no auto- matic renewal clause, but did provide that 60 days prior to August. 31, 1954, the parties should meet for the purpose of negotiating a new agreement. Such new agreement had been reached, effective August 31, 1954, and terminating October 31, 1957, but had not been signed as of the date of the hearing, August 27, 1954. We find no merit to the claim of the Intervenor. The 1952 agree- ment is no bar as it expired on August 31, 1954, and the new agree- ment is no bar as the petition was filed before August 31, 1954, the effective date of the contract, which was never executed. Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 110 NLRB No. 47. TRAYLOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 335, 4. The Petitioner seeks to sever patternmakers and their apprentices from a production and maintenance unit. The Intervenor contends. that exclusion of the pattern tender and pattern storage men renders, the unit sought inappropriate. The Employer took no position. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of heavy mining and chemical machinery at Allentown, Pennsylvania, employing approxi- mately 250 employees. The pattern shop is an enclosed area adjoin- ing the offices on one side and the pattern storage room on another. There are 8 patternmakers, but no apprentices, a handyman, a pattern tender, and 2 pattern storage men working in the pattern shop and under the supervision of the pattern shop foreman. All are paid at an hourly rate, punch the same time clock, and share the same locker space. Of the 8 patternmakers, 4 started and completed their ap- prenticeship with the Employer and received certification of com- pletion. The patternmakers perform the usual tasks of their craft, and exercise the customary skills of journeyman patternmakers. On the above facts, and the record as a whole, we find that the patternmakers are craftsmen. The Petitioner has traditionally rep- resented employees in the patternmakers' craft. We therefore find that the patternmakers may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit. The pattern storage men carry patterns from the foundry and the. pattern storage room into and out of the pattern shop. The pattern tender assists in lifting large patterns and works with the pattern storage men. The handyman puts handles in hammers, cuts wedges for the foundry, and sweeps the shop. None of these employees alters, repairs, or makes patterns, and no showing is made that they are skilled employees or may progress to journeyman patternmakers. In its decision in the American Potash 1 case, the Board held that in the establishment of a true craft unit, all employees who may work in association with the craft, but not in direct line of progression in the craft, would be excluded. Therefore, we shall exclude the pattern tender, the pattern storage men, and the handyman from the proposed craft unit. Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be conducted in the, following group of employees of the Employer at its plant at Allen- town, Pennsylvania : All patternmakers and their apprentices, excluding the pattern, tender, the pattern storage men, and the handyman in the pattern shop, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in this voting group select the, Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con- stitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conduct- s American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, in such circum- stances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing. On the other hand, if a majority of the employees in this voting group vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain a part of the existing production and mainte- nance unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certifica- tion of results to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] VENUS DIE ENGINEERING COMPANY 1 and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO),2 PETITIONER VENUS DIE ENGINEERING COMPANY and DETROIT DIE SINKERS LODGE No. 110, INTERNATIONAL DIE SINKERS CONFERENCE (INDEPENDENT), PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 7-RC-0478 and 7-RC-2521. October 13,1954 Decision and Direction of Election Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Bernard Gott- fried, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.3 Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. Venus Die Engineering Company, herein called Venus, is a Michigan corporation engaged in the manufacture of dies and other tool work. During the last fiscal year, its purchases totaled about $37,600, about one-half of which were from out of the State, while its total sales of $239,368 were all made locally within the State. Practically all of the sales were made to the Vulcan Forging Com- pany, herein called Vulcan, also a Michigan corporation, which forges connecting rods from the dies produced by Venus. Vulcan, in turn, annually sells approximately $500,000 worth of its products to the Ford Motor Company, its sole customer. Venus contends that the Board should not assert jurisdiction over it because its operations, which are almost entirely local in character, are separate and independent from those of Vulcan. On the other 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. a The name of the Petitioner in Case No. 7-RC-2478 appears as amended at the hearing. 3 We find no merit in the Employer's contention that the record does not show that the Petitioners herein are in compliance . Compliance is a matter for administrative deter- mination by the Board and is not litigible in this proceeding. Moreover , we are adminis- tratively satisfied that both Petitioners herein are in compliance. 110 NLRB No. 49.