Grand River Chemical Division of Deere & Co.

770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions. The majority disposes of this allegation by finding that the affidavit relating to Selph is merely cumulative and the one as to the store manager merits no further inquiry because the statement attrib- uted to him is similar to the one made by Selph and found noncoercive. In my opinion, the majority's abrupt treatment of these exceptions is wrong. The basis for finding Selph's luncheon statement noncoercive was that it was merely an expression of personal opinion by a super- visor in the context of a general discussion. There is a complete ab- sence of any evidence as to the circumstances under which the state- ments attributed to Selph and the store manager in the aforemen- tioned affidavits were made. Nevertheless, the majority finds that those statements, even if made, were noncoercive because they are sim- ilar to Selph's luncheon remark. The fallacy in this reasoning is ap- parent on its face. For these reasons I cannot accept the Regional Director's recommendations and would direct a hearing to resolve the material issues of fact raised by the Petitioner's exceptions relating to the alleged coercive statements made by Supervisor Selph and the store manager. GRAND RIVER CHEMICAL DIVISION OF DEERE & COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-1525. February X3,1955 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 Marvin L. Smith, Jr., 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 Employer is a subsidiary of Deere & Company engaged in the manufacture of such products as anhydrous ammonia and urea and various types of fertilizers at Pryor, Oklahoma. It is a new operation which has been in the process of construction for the past year and a half. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all operating and maintenance em- ployees. Approximately 98 employees are in the unit sought by the Pe- titioner, representing approximately 85 percent of the anticipated full 111 NLRB No. 121. GRAND RIVER CHEMICAL DIVISION OF DEERE & COMPANY 771 complement of employees; and the Employer anticipates no new job classifications. The intervening International Chemical Workers Union, AFL, hereafter called the Chemical Workers, and the Employer agree that the unit sought by the Petitioner is appropriate. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 584, AFL, here- after referred to as the IBEW, intervened to seek all employees in the electrical maintenance department: and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus- try, Local Union 205, hereafter referred to as the Pipefitters, inter- vened to seek a craft unit of pipefitters, plumbers, and pipe welders. Although the Petitioner, the Chemical Workers, and the Employer agreed as to the operating and maintenance unit and to the exclusion of office janitors, evidence was taken at the hearing as to their duties. The two office janitors perform the usual janitorial duties in the ad- ministration building. Plant janitors perform similar duties in the production and maintenance building. The office janitors are under the supervision of the office manager, while the plant janitors are under the supervision of the maintenance and operating superintend- ent. All janitors receive comparable rates of pay and receive the same fringe benefits as the production and maintenance employees. We find, as the Board has in the past,' that the nature of the work per- formed by the office janitors allies them with production and main- tenance employees, and we shall include them in the operating and maintenance unit hereinafter found appropriate. The Pipefitters seeks a unit of pipefitters and welders, contending that 2 employees, Boone and Shipman, in the mechanical maintenance department, 2 welders, Logan and Sisson, in the machine shop, and a helper, Carroll Caldwell, comprise a craft group doing predomi- nantly pipefitting, plumbing, and welding. The mechanical maintenance division, under the supervision of a mechanical supervisor, has as.its primary function overhauling, dis- mantling, adjusting, and making general repairs on plant equipment, and as a secondary function, general mechanical work in connection with repair and maintenance. The approximately 17 employees in this department or division are classified as mechanics A and B, and helpers. Both Boone and Shipman, although classified as class A mechanics, are admittedly trained in pipefitting and plumbing, and as they are most proficient in that type of work are usually assigned such duties. They also do other work, such as that usually performed by boilermakers, as well as mechanical work. The evidence shows that all 17 employees in the mechanical maintenance division work interchangeably on mechanical repair, pipefitting, and general labor. As Boone and Shipman both work straight day shifts and .the other United States Gypsum Company, 109 NLRB 1402. 344056-55-vol 111-50 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8 mechanics rotate shifts, the mechanics A on the other 2 shifts neces- sarily do any pipefitting repair on their shifts. The helpers do not rotate but work on the day shift. One helper, Caldwell, is sought by the Pipefitters. For the past several weeks he has been helping Ship- man clean tank cars (boilermaking work) and prior to that did general repair work as a helper for plumbing and pipefitting, as well as some mechanical repair. All class A mechanics receive the same $2.20 per hour, subject to shift differentials. And the same is true of class B mechanics who receive $1.80 per hour. The base rate paid to these mechanics is equal to the rate paid production employees. Although the Employer concedes that the mechanics are skilled em- ployees and that two of the employees requested by the Pipefitters are members of that organization, he stated that they were employed primarily because of their mechanical background. Evidence in the record discloses that the Employer in some part of the plant uses Italian fittings, i. e., pipefittings and nipples that have been cut to the Italian specifications. All of the mechanics repair and replace this pipe which is under high pressure. The Employer stated that those employees who had worked as pipefitters had had no experience with this type of pipe, and it was necessary for them to take proper precautions and learn to handle it. The Employer maintains no ap- prenticeship program and the record does not show the experience or training of Boone and Shipman. The two welders sought by the Pipefitters work in the machine shop with other qualified welders and machinists under the direct supervi- sion of the machine shop foreman, where they do all types of weld- ing-that which is normally done by boilermakers and ironworkers as well as pipe welding. The machine shop, in addition to being a regular machine shop, is a pipe fabricating and welding shop as well. Logan and Sisson, the two welders sought by the Pipefitters, are sub- ject to. the call of the mechanical supervisor when there arises a need for a welder; and when working out in the operating area, they work under the supervision of the mechanical supervisor. On this record we are unable to find that the employees sought by the Pipefitters are craftsmen who exercise the gamut of skills char- acteristic to their craft or that their skills or interests differ from those of other employees in the plant. We find the unit sought by the Pipefitters does not constitute an appropriate unit on a craft or any other basis. The IBEW seeks a unit of all employees in the electrical mainte- nance department consisting of electricians, instrumentmen, and help- ers. The Petitioner and the Employer contend that this unit is in- appropriate because of the overlapping of duties of all employees, and further, because instrument repairmen are not electricians and are not usually represented by the IBEW. FRANCONIA PAPER MILLS, INC. 773 The instrument department and the electrical department are lo- cated in a building separate from other maintenance departments. There are 1 class A and 1 class B maintenance electricians and a helper in the electrical department under the direct supervision of an elec- trical supervisor. In the instrument department are 2 instrument repairmen and a helper under the direct supervision of an instrument supervisor who reports to the electrical supervisor. The record does not disclose the training or experience of either the maintenance elec- tricians or the instrument repairmen. In performing their electrical work, the maintenance electricians also do certain related, nonelectrical work, such as the digging of holes in concrete floors to place electrical outlets and the patching of linoleum damaged during the removal of outlets. In addition, they maintain a large air-conditioner, and in doing so may remove a sheave or install a new belt. At the present time there is sufficient electrical installation and repair work to keep the electricians busy. However, when full production is attained, the electrical supervisor testified, such work might level off and the Employer would use these employees in the instrument department or at odd jobs rather than lay them off. The instrumentmen check and repair electrical and pneumatic in- struments. They use electrical and,other precision testing apparatus, such as chronometers for testing pressure, in their work. On this record, we find that the IBEWT has not presented evidence to establish that either the electricians or the instrumentmen are crafts- men exercising true craft skills. We therefore find that they do not constitute an appropriate craft unit. As an electrical department is not the traditional type of departmental unit considered appropriate by the Board, we further find that the unit sought by the IBE«r does not constitute an appropriate unit on a departmental basis. Upon the entire record in this case, we find that the following em- ployees of the Employer at its operation located at Pryor, Oklahoma, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All operating and maintenance employees including the janitors, but excluding all guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] FRANCONIA PAPER MILLS, INC. and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-7159. February 23, 1955 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 Arthur Younger, hearing offi- 111 NLRB No. 125.