Reynolds Metals Co.

812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain a part of the existing plantwide unit of production and maintenance employees, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of re- sults of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPEN- TERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, LOCAL UNION No. 109, PE- TITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-.787. November 8, 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 John S. Patton, hear- ing 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. 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 appropriate unit : The Petitioner, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of 'America, AFL, Local Union No. 109, seeks a unit of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Sheffield, Alabama, parts division plant. The Employer agrees -with -this unit. contention. The Aluminum Workers and the Trades Council contend that separate units of production employees and maintenance employees, which they presently represent, are appropriate. The I. A. M. agrees that a production and maintenance unit is appropriate, but is willing to, participate in any election ordered by the Board. Between 1945 and early 1950 the parts division plant, then known as the reynalite division, produced metal laths and corrugated roof- ing for civilian consumption. In early 1950, the plant was placed on a standby basis. It remained inoperative until the summer of 'International Association of Machinists, AFL, Lodge No 1189, hereinafter. refereed to as the I. A. M. was allowed to intervene on the basis of a showing of interest Alu- minum Workers International Union, Local Union 200-210, hereinafter referred to as the Aluminum Workers, and Muscle Shoals Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL, hereinafter referred to as the Trades Council, intervened on the basis of current con- tractual interests. 110 NLRB No. 130. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY 813 1952 when 90 to 95 percent of its equipment was changed and it was reopened to handle highly classified defense work of a research and experimental nature. From its reopening to the present time, the most important work of the parts division plant has been the pro- duction of a highly secret object. This object, which for security reasons was referred to at the hearing as the "THING," is custom- made by employees who are required to have 2 years' experience in comparable work and the ability to read blueprints. In addition to they production of the "THING," there is also an impact division in the plant which is in the nature of a pilot plant operation. The impact division has been set up to determine whether certain parts can be produced by an impact process. The production work in the pilot plant operation is performed by skilled press operators and their helpers. The plant also has maintenance employees who perform the usual maintenance duties under the direct supervision of a main- tenance superintendent. Many of these employees were hired because they possessed a particular craft skill. From 1945 to 1948 the Petitioner was the representative of all em- ployees at the plant who were grouped together in a production and maintenance unit. However, although the Petitioner was the recog- nized representative for all the employees during this period, the maintenance employees maintained their membership in their respec- tive craft unions and the Trades Council actually bargained for them. In 1948 the Board found separate production and maintenance units to be appropriate and certified the Aluminum Workers and the Trades Council as bargaining representatives, respectively, for the employees in these separate units.' The Aluminum Workers have continued to represent the production employees, and the Trades Council the main- tenance employees, from that time to the present.3 When the plant was reopened in 1952, the Aluminum Workers and the Trades Council again executed contracts covering the two separate units. However, these contracts specifically excluded all employees engaged in experi- mental and research work. As a result, the employees who were hired to work on the "THING" have never been included in a bargaining unit and have remained unrepresented to the present time. These employees who constitute two-thirds of the plant's working force are labeled technicians and technician trainees by the Employer to dis- tinguish them from the employees who are included in the present production and maintenance units. s Reynolds Metals Company, Reynallte Division, 79 NLRB 1266 . The Board estab- lished the units pursuant to the agreement of the parties , including the Petitioner in this case The Petitioner and the Aluminum Workers were on the ballot in the production unit; only the Trades Council was on the ballot in the maintenance unit. 3 During the period 1950 to 1952, the parties continued to negotiate although the plant was inoperative and on a standby basis 814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At the present time, there are 21 employees in the production unit represented by the Aluminum Workers. These employees are classi- fied as: stamping process operator, stamping process helper, stamping process inspector, packer, cranemen (general), dolly operator, stock- man, laborer, and janitor. In the maintenance unit, there are now 36 employees who are represented by the Trades Council. A breakdown of this unit by job classification is as follows : 3 electricians , 2 steam- fitters, 3 carpenters, 2 ironworkers, 1 truckdriver, 2 material handlers, 1 engineer, 2 boilerhouse attendants, 10 millwrights, 2 painters, and 8 laborers. There are now at the plant 111 technicians and technician trainees, 2 storage department employees, and 2 receiving clerks who- are unrepresented. The storage department employees, who are hourly paid, have apparently been excluded from representation because neither the Aluminum Workers nor the Trades Council wished to rep- resent them; the receiving clerks have been excluded because they are salaried. Aside from the fact that electricians operate the overhead crane and ironworkers pack and ship the "THING," there has been no inter- change of personnel or work assignments between employees in the production unit and those in the maintenance unit or the "technician" group. The plant's capital equipment is not set aside for the exclusive use of any group, but is shared by all employees. All employees in the plant receive the same fringe benefits which include group insur- ance, pensions, and overtime pay. Further, employees in the produc- tion unit and the technician group are immediately supervised by- engineers, while those in the maintenance unit are directed by a main- tenance superintendent. All employees are subject to the same overal supervision, as the plant's operations are directed by a project man- ager, a plant superintendent, and a plant engineer. From the foregoing it is clear that the unit sought by the Petitioner may be appropriate. As it includes all employees at the Sheffield, Alabama, plant, it is the customary production and maintenance unit. On the other hand, there is a history of separate collective bargaining for employees in a production unit and in a maintenance unit. It is clear from the record that production work is performed at the plant by specific employees. In like manner, maintenance duties are han- dled by individuals who possess certain skills and who are subject to separate supervision . Further, the employees in the two groups are not interchanged and their work assignments seldom overlap. Thus, the division of the employees into separate units has been along the usual production and maintenance lines and consequently separate production and maintenance units as urged by the Aluminum Work- ers and the Trades Council may also be appropriate . However, it is apparent that the technicians and the technician trainees cannot con- tinue to be excluded from the production group . Although they have REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY 815', been designated as technicians by the Employer, they do not use inde- pendent judgment nor do they exercise a high degree of specialized skill. Rather, they perform production work and have interests in common with other production employees. Under these circumstances we find that the technicians and technician trainees are production employees and not technicians as normally designated by the Board 4 Consequently, these employees are appropriately a part of the production group.' It is the practice of the Board when faced, as in this case, with the equal propriety of broader and smaller units to "Globe" 6 the employ- ees before making a final unit determination. Accordingly, we shall direct separate elections among the following groups of employees at the Employer's Sheffield, Alabama, parts division plant. (1) All production employees including technicians, technician trainees, storage department employees, stamping process operators and helpers, stamping process inspectors, packers, cranemen (gen- eral),? dolly operators, stockmen, laborers performing production work, and receiving clerks,' but excluding office clerical and profes- sional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) All maintenance employees including electricians, steamfitters, carpenters, ironworkers, truckdrivers, material handlers, boilerhouse engineers, boilerhouse attendants, painters, millwrights, laborers, and janitors,' but excluding office clerical and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in voting group (1) select the Alumi- num Workers, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con- stitute a separate bargaining unit. In a majority of the employees in voting group (2) select the Trades Council they will likewise be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit. The Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue certifications of representatives to the labor organizations so selected by a majority of the employees in each group for such units, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. 4 Gerber Plastic Company, 108 NLRB 403. ' H Cf. The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134, which is distinguishable from the instant case. In that case there existed a basic appropriate unit, and the issue was whether to "Globe" a group of unrepresented fringe employees ; here the production employees now repre- sented by the Aluminum workers do not, by themselves , constitute an appropriate unit. 6 See The Globe Machine and Stampting Co , 3 NLRB 294. 7 The electrician who operates the crane is properly within the production group as he only performs production duties. 9 As the interests of the receiving clerks are similar to those of the production em- ployees, we find, contrary to the Petitioner 's contention , that the mere fact they are salaried employees does not afford sufficient basis for their exclusion. 6 Inasmuch as janitors perform maintenance duties, we find that they are properly a part of the maintenance group, notwithstanding the fact that they have previously been included in the production unit. 816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD If a majority of the employees in voting group (1) do not vote for the Aluminum Workers and the majority of the employees in voting group (2) do not vote for the Trades Council, all these employees will be grouped together in a single production and maintenance unit and their votes shall be pooled to determine the majority representative of such unit.10 The Regional Director conducting the election is in- structed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organiza- tion selected by a majority of the employees in the pooled group, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be a single production and maintenance unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 10 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner : the votes for the Aluminum Workers and the Trades Council shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against the union seeking to represent the more comprehensive unit ; all other votes are to be accorded their face value whether for representation by the Petitioner or the I. A. M., or for no union. BUFFALO ARMS, INC., DIVISION OF FRONTIER INDUSTRIES, INC. and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 3-CA-757. November 9, .195.E Decision and Order On September 23, 1954, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his Intermediate Report 1 in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain un- fair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby af- firmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the ex- ceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.2 Order Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Buffalo Arms, 1 The Intermediate Report contains a misstatement, which, however, does not affect the Trial Examiner's ultimate conclusions. Accordingly, we note the following corrections : page 819, par. 5 "that during 1953 the Respondent purchased materials valued in excess of $1,000,000 which were shipped across State lines" should read "in excess of $1,000,000 of which 50 percent were shipped across State lines." 2 Respondent's request to present oral argument is denied for the reason that in the Board's opinion the record and briefs adequately present the position of the parties. 110 NLRB No. 136.