J. I. Case Co.

796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. The final argument of the Employers is that if the employees involved in the unprotected activities are ordered reinstated and per- mitted to vote, an equivalent number of employees should be dropped from the voting lists. We find this contention to be without merit. The Board permits all employees to participate in a representation election who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election. We see no reason for prohibiting some employees, who otherwise would be eligible to vote, from the privilege of exercising their franchise rights simply because other employees discriminatorily discharged are ordered reinstated. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] J. I. Case Company and International Association of Tool Crafts- men, Local No. 1, National Independent Union Council, Peti- tioner. Case No. 18-RC-9430. May 18,1955 -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 Ray C. Jenkins, 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 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 contended at the hearing that its contract exe- cuted March 22, 1954, covering the employees petitioned for, bars an election at this time. However, that contract, effective until March 22, 1955, contains a 60-day automatic renewal clause. The Petitioner requested recognition on January 19, 1955, prior to the January 21, 1955, Mill-B date,2 and filed this petition on January 24, 1955, well within the 10-day rule set forth in the General Electric X-Ray case.' We therefore find that the petition was timely and the contract is not a bar. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 1 The motion of the Intervenor, International Association of Machinists , District 102, AFL, for oral argument is denied as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. See Mill B, Inc., 40 NLRB 346. See General Electric X-Ray Corporation, 67 NLRB 997. 112 NLRB No. 104. J. I. CASE COMPANY 797 4. The petition , as amended at the hearing, requests an election in a unit of all employees in toolroom department 84, including tool- and die-makers, tool- and die-inspectors, toolroom machinists, tool- and die-heat treaters , tool- and die-welders, tool crib attendant , and laborer (sawman) ; or, in the alternative , a craft unit composed of all the above-named employees except the tool crib attendant and the laborer. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that both these units are inappropriate because they do not include the machine repairmen in department 85. In a previous case involving this plant, 79 NLRB 1070, the Board found a tool- and die-makers' unit was entitled to representation sep- arate from the production and maintenance employees if they so de- sired, as a traditional craft group . After an election, the Intervenor was certified on June 10, 1949, to represent the separate unit. There- after, in a subsequent case, 105 NLRB 638, the Board found that the machine repairmen in department 85 were entitled to separate repre- sentation, rejecting the Employer's contention that such a unit was inappropriate because it did not include the tool- and die-makers. After an election , the Intervenor was certified on July 23, 1953, to represent department 85. In March 1954 the Intervenor and the Employer executed a written contract covering both departments 84 and 85 in one combined unit. As stated above, the Petitioner now wishes to sever department 84 or, in the alternative , a tool- and die- makers' craft unit. The function of toolroom department 84 is to manufacture and repair tools, dies, and jigs. The function of department 85 is to repair and rebuild production machines. Employees in the latter depart- ment are designated as machine repairmen or oilers. Both depart- ments, along with certain electricians and various storage and supply cribs and their attendants, are located within the same area in the center of the plant floor. The area is enclosed by a railing , and there is no physical separation of operations within this enclosure. There is no interchange of employees between the toolroom and machine re- pairmen, but several repairmen frequently use all machines assigned to the toolroom except those machines assigned permanently to one employee. Since October 1954, departments 84 and 85 have not been separately supervised; one foreman supervises all manufacturing of tools and dies, and another supervises repair of both production machines and dies. It is clear, on the facts before us, particularly the absence of separate location and supervision , that departments 84 and 85 are separate in name only, while they actually function as a single organizational unit. We therefore find that toolroom department 84 is not a func- 798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tionally distinct departmental unit and consequently is not appro- priate for severance purposes 4 As to the alternate request for a craft unit, the Employer's job description for tool- and die-makers A requires that they construct, alter, and repair a wide variety of complex dies, fixtures, jigs, and tools to precise and exacting tolerances; and set up and operate various power and machine tools such as mills, drills, grinders, and jig bores. The duties of tool- and die-makers B and C and toolroom machinists are of a similar nature but progressively less difficult. The tool- and die-inspectors are classified as tool- and die-makers. Machine repairmen A in department 85 are required to maintain and repair precision and automatic metal-cutting production and serv- ice machines throughout the plant, and to make, repair, and replace parts for electrical, hydraulic, and mechanical equipment. The duties of repairmen B and C are also similar but progressively less difficult. The current contract provides the same pay rate for tool- and die- makers A, B, and C as for machine repairmen A, B, and C, respec- tively. The Employer has no apprentice program for either classi- fication. As stated above, there is no interchange between the two groups. It is clear from the description of the duties performed by the tool- and die-makers and toolroom machinists that, as the Board has previ- ously found, they exercise the skills of the universally recognized tra- ditional tool- and die-makers' craft. We also find, in agreement with the Board's prior determination, that these employees have common interests in collective bargaining which are separate and distinct from those of the machine repairmen in department 85. Moreover, while the latter are highly skilled, they have essentially different skills and are not interchanged with the tool- and die-makers' craft group.' Accordingly, the employees in the tool- and die-makers' group may, if they so desire, be represented separately for purposes of collective bargaining. We further find, in accordance with the Board's prior determination in International Harvester Company, Farmali Works, 111 NLRB 606, and contrary to the contention of the Intervenor, that the Peti- tioner is qualified to seek severance of a tool- and die-makers' unit. 4 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418 51bid The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the Minneapolis Moline case, 108 NLItB3 1458, where the Board denied severance of a maintenance machine-shop unit because it did not include production machinist employees , is controlling We do not agree. That case did not involve toolroom employees , but two groups of machinists possessing identical skills some of whom worked on the end product and some of whom did maintenance work. In this case, while the tool- and die-makers and the machine repairmen axe both engaged in maintenance work , they exercise similar but essentially different skills J. I. CASE COMPANY 799 The Petitioner requests that the tool- and die-welder and tool- and die-heat treater be included in the craft group.' The Employer's job description for tool- and die-welder requires him to weld, by acetylene gas or electric arc process, braze, or solder a variety of die, fixture, gauge, jig, and tool details and elements, and weld broken, defective, or worn machine parts, in aluminum, brass, bronze, cast iron, and steel. He is assigned to the toolroom but works for both tool- and die-makers and machine repairmen. We, therefore, find that the tool- and die-welder exercises a high degree of skill and, as he is regularly assigned to the tool- and die-makers, we shall, in conformity with Board policy with regard to the unit placement of welders, include him in the voting group." The heat treater is required to anneal, carburize, draw, harden, normalize, or stress relieve die, fixture, gauge, jig, tool details, and equipment and machine repair parts. He is also assigned to the toolroom and works with both tool- and die- makers and machine repairmen. The record does not reveal, however, whether this employee is in the direct line of progression in the tool- and die-craft, and we shall accoidingiy permit hun to rote subject to challenge.' In view of the foregoing determinations, we shall direct an election among the following employees of the Employer's Bettendorf, Iowa, plant : All tool- and die-makers, toolroom machinists, tool- and die- inspectors, tool- and die-welder, and tool- and die-heat treater,9 exclud- ing all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit, which the Board finds, under the circumstances, to be appropriate for purposes of col- lective bargaining, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit. If a majority vote for the Intervenor, they will continue to be represented as a part of the existing unit and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRCIIAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. The Petitioner requested inclusion of the tool crib attendant and laborer (sawman) only if the depaitniental unit were found appropriate As we have found the departmental unit inappropriate, and as these employees do not possess trait skills and none of the paities requests theta inclusion in the craft group, we exclude them 7Clayton if Lambert Atanufaetusing Company, Ordnance Divtision, 111 NLRB 450. 6 See Friden Calculating Machine Co , Inc., et at., 110 NLRB 1618 9 Our inclusion of the heat treater in the voting gioup does not constitute a final deter- mination concerning his unit placement.