Bendix Aviation Corp.

118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All drivers, helpers, warehousemen, and furniture finishers working at and out of the Employer's plant at Washington, D. C., excluding salesmen, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Bendix Aviation Corporation, Pioneer-Central Division and Dis- trict Lodge No. 102, International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L., Petitioner Bendix Aviation Corporation , Pioneer-Central Division and Inter- national Association of Tool Craftsmen, Local No. 1, NIUC, 'Petitioner. Cases Nos. 18-RC-0473 axed 18-RC-2497. Septem- ber 20,1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before 11j almar Storlie, 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 these cases, 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 IAM has separately represented the employees in the Em- ployer's toolroom department No. 1980. It now seeks to add to this existing unit the, employees of the model making experimental de- =partment No. 2000. The NIUC requests an election limited to the toolroom employees 2 The IAM-anal the Employer,contend the Board i The IAM, Petitioner in Case No . 18-RC-2473, declined to stipulate that the NIUC, Petitioner in Case No. 18-RC-2497, is a labor organization, Upon the record in this case, and the Board's recent determinations in J. I. Case Company, 112 NLRB '796; International Harvester Company, Farmall Works, 111 NLRB 606 ; and Frideo-Calculating l icchin-e Co., Inc, et al., 110 NLRB 1618, we find the International Association of Tool '-Craftsinen, Local No.-1, NIUC, is a labor organization within the 'meaning of the Act. 2 1n-its petition the-'NIUC requested severance of a daft unit of tool- and die-makers. At the hearing, however, the NIUC amended its petition to request - all nonsalaried 'ein- .ployees in the Employer's toolroom department. Accordingly, we deem the unit sought .by tile,NSUC'to-be a departmental one, essentially coextensive with the unit that has been ,represented by the -IAM. 114 'I LRB No. 28. BENDIX AVIATION CORPORATION 119) should order an election in a single voting group consisting of both the.toolroom and the model shop employees. All the toolroom employees, except the four tool grinders, work in the Employer's toolroom area, maintain tools and dies, make new tools, dies, jigs, and fixtures. As noted above, the JAM has, for a number of years, been the collective-bargaining representative of these, toolroom, employees 3 The model shop employees make component parts of assemblies, subassemblies, jigs, and fixtures from stock by means. of handwork and the operation of precision machine tools similar to those used in the toolroom. The model shop employees have no bargaining history. The employees of both groups have like training backgrounds and experience, require and use the same knowledge of mathematics and blueprint reading, and work with practically the same tools and in- struments. The toolmakers and the modelmakers also receive com- parable wages. On the other hand, there is no appreciable inter- change of employees between the toolroom and the model shop, their work areas are physically separated, and they are separately super- vised. We find, accordingly, that the employees in the toolroom department No. 1980 comprise a group with a separate bargaining history which may, if they so desire, be an appropriate unit for the purposes of col- lective bargaining.4 We find also that the model shop employees have sufficient common interest with the toolroom employees to be added appropriately to the existing toolroom unit.' On the other hand, as the model shop employees constitute a cohesive and well-defined re- sidual tool and die group with separate supervision and working space they may constitute a separate appropriate bargaining units Accord- ingly, we find that the model shop employees may, if they so desire, be separately represented, or be represented in one unit with the tool- room department employees.' Tool grinders: The Employer and the IAM would include the four tool grinders in the same unit with toolroom employees. The NIUC questions the propriety of including the tool grinders in such a unit. The grinders work in tool crib department No. 1981,, physically sepa- rate from the toolroom. Nevertheless, they work under the direct disciplinary supervision of the toolroom foreman, and the tool crib foreman exercises only a "watchful eye" over them. Moreover, the 3 The parties stipulated at the hearing; that the IAM was the certified bargaining repre- sentative for the toolroom group ; however, the Board's records reveal no such•certification. e See Spaulding Fiber Co , Inc., 111 NLRB 237 ; Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 108 NLRB 556; John Deere Planter, Works of Deere & Company, 107 NLRB 1497. 5 A P. Controls Coi poration, 108 NLRB 593, General Electric Company, 101 NLRB 1341. 9 See International Harvester Company, 82 NLRB 185. 7 In any event, the unrepresented model shop employees are entitled to a separate self-determination election. The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134. 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tool, grinders have historically been included in one bargaining' unit with the toolroom department employees. In these circumstances, and' as the Board 'has held that tool grinders may properly be in- cluded in a unit of toolroom employees,8 we shall include them in the toolroom voting group. Model shop inspectors: The Employer contends, contrary to the IAM, that the model shop inspectors should not be included in a single bargaining unit with the employees of the modelmaking experimental department No. 2000. - The inspectors are assigned to the model shop by the Employers inspection department and are subject to the super- vision of both the model shop foreman and the Employer's chief in- spector. The model shop foreman is the direct supervisor of the inspec- tors and can effectively recommend their discharge. The inspectors are included with other nonsalaried employees on the "Model Shop Hourly Rate Schedule," and the record indicates they are permanently assigned to work in, the model shop. Upon these facts and the record generally, we find that the model shop inspectors have interests and working conditions closely allied with those of the model shop em- ployees, and we shall include them in the model shop voting group? In view of the foregoing, we shall direct elections in the following groups of employees at the Employer's Pioneer-Central Division, Davenport, Iowa, excluding from each voting group the employees in the other voting group, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act : (a) All classifications of nonsalaried employees in toolroom depart- ment No. 1980 including tool grinders. (b), All classifications of nonsalaried employees in modelmaking experimental department No. 2000 including model shop inspectors. If a majority of the employees in each of the voting groups cast their ballots for the IAM, the employees in the two groups will be taken to have indicated their desire to be represented in a combined toolroom and model shop unit and the Regional Director conducting the elections is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the IAM for the combined unit, which the Board under the circum- stances finds to be appropriate. If a majority of the employees in either of the voting groups select a representative not selected by,the other group, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con- stitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conduct- ing the elections shall issue a certification of representatives to the union chosen by that group which the Board in such circumstances finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority of the employees in either group selects no union, the Re- John Deere Planter Works of Deere & Company, supra. J. I. Case Company,' 80 NLRB 217. SOLO CUP COMPANY 121 gional Director is instructed to issue a certification of results of election showing no representative has been selected. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Elections. Solo Cup Company and International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sul- phite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. L. Case No. 17-CA-765. September 01, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER On May 12, 1955, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, and rec- ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at- tached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that these allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re- port, and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-, mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications and. additions : 1. We- agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act in terminating for a period of 4 days the employment of Westmoreland, Bradley, Palmer, and War- den because they had engaged in protected concerted activities.' On June 16, 1954, these employees, together with the other cup inspection workers on the 4 to 12 p. in. shift, had shut down their machines, as they had agreed to do in advance, and walked off the job for a period of about 1 hour for the purpose of obtaining from the Respondent an explanation "to their satisfaction" for what they believed to be the arbitrary discharge of 2 of their coworkers that day, and to argue against such discharges. There is specific unrefuted testimony that 1 See Standard Coal Products Co., Inc., 110 NLRB 412; Rugcrofters of Puerto Moo, Inc., 107 NLRB 256 , 262, Ace Handle Corporation, 100 NLRB 1279-80, 1290 114 NLRB No. 31.