Menasco Manufacturing Co.

604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. In its Decision and Direction of Election, the Board found the following unit appropriate : All leadburners and leadburner apprentices at the Employer's Toms River, New Jersey, plant, excluding all office and clerical employees, professional employees, all other employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. No evidence was introduced at the hearing that the Employer em- ployed leadburner helpers. Accordingly, the unit finding did not spe- cifically include or exclude leadburner helpers. It now appears, how- ever, as a result of the Regional Director's investigation of the issues raised by the challenges, as set forth in his report, that two employees, Joseph Geiges and Benjamin Iski, are leadburner helpers who would be included in the unit under the American Potash rule on which the unit finding herein was based.2 As the Board stated in the American Potash case, "In our opinion a true craft unit consists of a distinct and homogeneous group of skilled journeymen, working as such, together with their apprentices and/or helpers." [Emphasis supplied.] We find, therefore, that Geiges and Iski are included in the appropriate unit, and we adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that the challenges to their ballots be overruled. [The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Fourth Region shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Board, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count the ballots, cast in the election held herein on December 3, 1954, of Joseph Geiges and Benjamin Iski, and thereafter prepare and serve upon the parties to this proceeding a revised tally of ballots.] CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Direction. 2 See Amerscan Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. MENASCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY and DAvm J. CATROW, PETI- TIONER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , LOCAL 758, A. F. L. Case No. 21-RD-228. February 10,1955 Decision and Order Upon a petition for decertification duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Irving Helbling, 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 the case, the Board finds : 111 NLRB No. 96. - MENASCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 605 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union is no longer the representative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the employees designated in the petition. The Union is a labor organization currently recognized by the Em- ployer as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees desig, nated in the petition. 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 Petitioner requests that a decertification election be held for a technical group consisting of eight tool designers at the Employer's aircraft parts manufacturing plant, in Burbank, California. The Union contends that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that the tool designers are already in an established production and maintenance unit and do not constitute an appropriate unit. The Employer takes a neutral position on this issue. The Employer's production and maintenance employees have been represented by the Union since the Board's certification on April 2, 1941.' Although the tool designers are not specifically named in the Board's unit description, it appears that they have been covered by the series of contracts which the Employer and the Union have executed for the production and maintenance employees. The eight tool designers comprise a separate department and are lo- cated in a building which houses no production employees. While the Employer does not require tool designers to have a formal education in tool design, knowledge of mathematics and skill in draftsmanship are-the usual prerequisites for employment as tool designers with the Employer. The tool designers are engaged in designing jigs, fixtures, and specialized tools for the use of production employees. In connec- tion with their work, the tool designers analyze engineering blueprints and other engineering shop data which are prepared by engineering and tool processing employees. The tool designers then rough in a design and run a check print which goes to the supervisor of the ap- propriate production department for approval. The tool designers thereupon make a final drawing complete with specifications as to material, tolerances, and dimensions. Ocassionally, they confer with toolmakers and tool inspectors regarding problems that arise in the manufacture of tools which the tool designers have designed. In Campbell Soup Company,' the Board recently decided, in the absence of any statutory provision for decertification of part of an 1 30 NLRB 126 2 111 NLRB 234. 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD existing bargaining unit or policy considerations to the contrary, not to permit the severance of craft units in decertification cases in the face of an established bargaining history on a broader basis. Similarly, for reasons more fully set forth in the Campbell Soup decision, we shall no longer permit the severance of technical employees in decerti- fication proceedings.' Assuming, therefore, without deciding, that the tool designers are technical employees, we find that the existing bar- gaining unit of production and maintenance employees is the appro- priate unit. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the instant petition. ,[The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision and Order. 3 Cf , among others , Ciba Products ' Corporation, 109 NLRB 873 , wherein the Board allowed the decertification of technical employees from an existing production and main- tenance unit. To the extent that this and like cases are inconsistent with the instant decision , they are hereby overruled. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, FARMALL WORKS and INTER- NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICUL- TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, AND ITS FE LOCAL 109, UAW-CIO, PETITIONER INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, FARMALL WORKS and INTER- NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICUL- TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, AND ITS FE LOCAL 109, UAW-CIO, PETITIONER INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, FARMALL WORKS and INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TOOL CRAFTSMEN, LOCAL No. 1, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 13-RC-3910,13-RC-3911, and 13-RC-3977. February 14,1955 Supplemental Decision and Direction of Elections On December 7, 1954, the Board issued its Decision in this proceed- ing, directing an election in Case No. 13-RC-3911 and reserving for further consideration the appropriate unit issues involved in Cases Nos. 13-RC-3190 and 13-RC-3977. Having duly considered the mat- ter the Board now makes the following finding : As noted in the earlier Decision, International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, and its FE Local 109, UAW-CIO, herein called Local 109, UAW-CIO, in Case No. 13-RC-3910, seeks to represent a unit of all employees in departments 19, 27, and 57. This unit is consistent with a previously established machinist multidepartmental unit. In Case 111 NLRB No. 103.