AVCO Manufacturing Corp.

CROSLEY & BENDIX HOME APPLIANCES DIVISION 245 part to effect a consolidation of the separate units so as to extinguish the rights of the warehouse employees to select and change their bar- gaining representative at appropriate intervals. We find rather an intent by the contracting parties to preserve the identity and scope of the unit established by the Board.ll Accordingly, we find that all warehouse employees at the Employer's Haines Building plant at Elk- hart, Indiana, excluding office clerical employees, professional em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] n Cf. American Can Company, 109 NLRB 1284. Crosley & Bendix Home Appliances Division, AVCO Manufactur- ing Corporation ' and International Union, International Asso- ciation of Tool Craftsmen N. I. U. C. (National Independent Union Council), Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-1227. January 27, 1956 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 Bruce Gillis, Jr., hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The Intervenor contends that its contract, which covers, among others, the employees petitioned for, is a bar to this proceeding. The Intervenor signed a contract with the Employer on March 30, 1954, retroactively effective from March 22,1954, to and including December 317 1955, and containing a 60-day, automatic renewal clause. On Octo- ber 14, 1955, the Intervenor and the Employer signed a new contract effective from October 3, 1955, to and including September 30, 1956, which new contract expressly superseded the March 1954 contract. This contract also contained a 60-day automatic renewal clause. The Petitioner requested recognition of the Employer as bargaining repre- The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing. Local 1127, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, intervened upon the basis of its contractual interest. 115 NLRB No. 39. 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sentative of the employees involved on October 24, 1955, and filed its petition on October 31, 1955. It is clear that the October 1955 contract was a premature extension of the March 1954 contract. As the peti- tion was filed before the automatic renewal date of the original con- tract, we find that the petition was timely and that the October 1955 contract is not a bar.3 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. 4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing production and maintenance unit, essentially a departmental unit 4 of the Employer's toolroom employees of whom a substantial number are craftsmen. The Employer, contrary to the Petitioner, contends that the cutter grinders should be included in the requested toolroom unit. The Intervenor contends that the Petitioner is precluded from representing the re- quested unit on the ground that the Petitioner is not a traditional union for the purposes of bargaining for such a unit. The toolroom (department 565) employees make, repair, and main- tain dies, gauges, jigs, fixtures, and certain special machines. They have their own separate supervision and do not interchange with em- ployees of other departments. The cutter grinders whom the Employer would include in the tool- room unit constitute a separate department (department 553) which is located in a building apart from the toolroom, is under separate supervision, and the employees of which do not interchange with any of the toolroom employees. As distinguished from cutter grinders, who routinely sharpen commercial production tools such as drills and saws, the toolroom grinders work at close tolerance on dies, jigs, and gauges. The fact that the cutter grinders of the cutter grinder de- partment have the same classification code number as the toolroom grinders in the toolroom department does not militate against the appropriateness of a department unit of toolroom employees.' We find no merit in the Employer's contention. The Board has already found that the same Petitioner here in- volved is a traditional union for purposes of representing the type of unit it here seeks." Accordingly, we find no merit in the Intervenor's contention to the contrary. In view of the foregoing, we find that the toolroom employees in department 565 may constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- 3 Kennedy Van Sawn Manufacturing h Engineering Corporation, 108 NLRB 1662. 4 Although the Petitioner emphasizes for severance purposes the craft character of the toolroom employees, we do not interpret that to mean that it seeks craft tool employees on a plantwide basis. 5 See General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Muncie Division (Forge Plant), 114 NLRB 231. O International Harvester Company, Farmall Works, 111 NLRB 606. The Board will take official notice of its decision. BREMAN STEEL COMPANY 247 f ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act' However, we shall make no unit determination with respect to the toolroom employees but shall di- rect an election in the following voting group : All toolroom employees 8 (department 565) of the Employer at its Richmond, Indiana, plant, excluding all other employees and super- visors 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 appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is in- structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for voting group described above, which the Board, under such cir- cumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargain- ing. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 7 International Harvester Company, Farman Works, supra. Although the Petitioner desires to exclude the laborer-sweeper and the cutoff operator who are assigned to the toolroom , we find that they may not appropriately be excluded from a departmental unit. Accordingly, they are included in the voting group. M. W. Breman, d/b/a Breman Steel Company and Breman Iron & Metal Company and Shopmen's Local Union 616 of The Inter- national Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-3184. Jan- uary 7',1956 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On August 19, 1955, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon a consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region among certain employees of the Employer. Upon the comple- tion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which shows that, of 63 votes cast, 31 were for the Petitioner, 31 against, and 1 ballot was challenged. The challenged ballot is thus sufficient to affect the results of the election. On August 25, 1955, the Employer filed timely objections to the election. After investigation of the aforesaid objections, the Regional Director issued his report on objections on September 16, 1955. In his report, the Regional Director found no merit in the Employer's ob- jections and recommended that they be overruled, that the challenged 115 NLRB No. 38.