Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp.

THE ELECTRONICS AND INSTRUMENTATION DIVISION 917 time .2 Accordingly, we find that the current contract of the Em- ployer and the Intervenor is a bar to the Operating Engineers' petition and we shall therefore dismiss the petition. For the reason stated below, we shall also dismiss the Teamsters' petition .3 [The Board dismissed the petitions.] a Mervin Wave Clip company, 114 NLRB 157; Natona Mills, Inc., supra. Cf. Gibson Refrigerator Company, Division of Hupp Corporation, 117 NLRB 561, wherein the Board held that a contract signed after the filing of a petition did not constitute a-bar, as the terms of the agreement provided that it was not to take effect until 3 months after the parties agreed to the terms of the contract. 3 We find no merit in the contention that the Employer did not have a representative group of employees in the mine operation on January 2, 1957, at the time the Employer and Intervenor agreed to the terms of the contract, as the record shows that as of December 13, 1956, there were 26 employees in 16 job classifications and that by April 4, 1957, the time of hearing when a full complement was reached, there were 49 employees in 23 job classifications. See Cyclone Sales, Inc., 115 NLRB 431, footnote 1; Decker Clothes, Inc., 83 NLRB 484. The Electronics and Instrumentation Division of Baldwin-Lima- Hamilton Corporation and International Association of Ma- chinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-4857. July 31, 1957 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 Thomas E. McDonald, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. 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 employees 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 Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of machine shop em- ployees at the Employer's Waltham, Massachusetts, plant. It is also willing to represent other employees in the plant whose skills duplicate those of machine shop employees. The Intervenor, International Union of United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, seeks to represent the machine shop employees, as an appropriate departmental unit. The Employer 118 NLRB No. 115. 918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contends that only a production and maintenance unit is appropriate. There is no valid history of collective bargaining at the plant.' The Waltham plant began operations in September 1956, as a con- solidation of the instrumentation and electronics work previously carried out by the Employer at four different locations. The plant is engaged in the manufacture of small wire strain gages and varied types of complex instruments and apparatus used in measuring, testing, and recording. Approximately 450 production and maintenance workers are employed in 10 departments, each of which is separately supervised. The machine shop is described in the Employer's organization chart as department 05, and its foreman reports directly to the assistant director of manufacturing for the plant. It employs about 140 em- ployees in the following job classifications-instrumentmaker, tool- maker, machinist specialist-cutter grinder, machinist specialist-hori- zontal boring mill, machinist specialist-surface grinder, machinist specialist, sheet metal machinist, machinists A, B, and C, assembler- erector, and operators A and B. The first three of these classifications are the only jobs in the plant assigned to labor grade 2, the highest of the 10 grades presently used. Except for three employees classified as instrument maker (but at a lower labor grade) in another depart- ment, there is no duplication of machine shop jobs elsewhere in the plant. However, a few employees in other departments are occasion- ally required to use some hand tools and the simpler machine tools. The machine shop consists of two contiguous areas located at one end of the single plant building, and is separated from other production areas by an aisle. The machine shop employees fabricate the metal parts used in the equipment and apparatus manufactured at the plant, using customary precision hand tools and such machine tools as lathes, drill presses, milling machines, grinders, shapers, boring machines, and honing machines. Certain heavy testing machines, requiring the fitting of irregular parts and individual adjustments, are also assembled in the machine shop. Because of the large number of different types of ap- paratus manufactured at the plant, it appears that much of the work of the more highly skilled employees is nonrepetitive in nature. There is no formal apprenticeship or job progression program at the plant, but the on-the-job training acquired in many of the lower graded machinist jobs qualifies the occupants for bidding on the more highly skilled jobs as they open up. Of the 13 job classifications in the machine shop, 4 require at least 5 years' experience in the machinist ' The Employer has negotiated with employee representatives chosen by each of the de- partments , on wages and working conditions , but such negotiations have never been formal- ized by a written , signed bargaining agreement. The bargaining committee has not sought to intervene in these proceedings. THE ELECTRONICS AND INSTRUMENTATION DIVISION 919 or related trades, and 3 require at least 3 years of related experience. The. jobs of Operators A and B and assembler-erector require only ability to operate a single machine tool and to make occasional setups on the machine. The Petitioner, in effect, contends the unit it has requested is a machinist craft unit. It is clear from the record, however, that Op- erators A and B and the assembler-erectors, comprising about 35 of the 140 employees in the machine shop, do not exercise the craft skills of machinists and are not in the ordinary line of progression to the Machinist A, B, and C classifications which require the ability to perform standard operations on a large number of machine tools. In view of the fact that a substantial proportion of machine shop employees do not exercise craft skills and are not in the direct line of progression to craftsmen's jobs, we find that the proposed unit is not strictly a craft unit .2 However, the Petitioner's unit request also encompasses a departmental unit. Although a majority of the ma- chine shop employees are directly engaged in production work there are a number of skilled individuals in classifications such as instru- mentmaker, toolmaker, and machinist specialist-cutter grinder who perform the more specialized functions of making and repairing tools, dies, jigs and fixtures, and working on experimental models. The major function of the machine shop, the fabrication of parts by the use of metal working machinery, is not duplicated elsewhere in the plant. Under the plantwide job-posting system in effect at the plant, there have been some permanent transfers of employees between the machine shop and other departments, and there are occasional tem- porary assignments of lathe operators from the machine shop depart- ment to the assembly calibration department. However, when such temporary assignments are made, the employees remain subject to the supervision of their own foreman. The machine shop department is a separate, functionally distinct department. Most of its employees are skilled machinists. It is the kind of department which, the Board has held, may constitute a separate appropriate unit.' We so find in this case. We find without merit the Employer's contention that the unit requested by the Petitioner is based on extent of organization, and must therefore be found inappropriate under Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act. Our finding that a departmental unit of machine shop em- ployees is appropriate is supported by factors wholly unrelated to the Petitioner's or Intervenor's extent of organization, whereas Section 9 (c) (5) only precludes the Board from giving controlling weight to extent of organization 4 2 St. Louis Car Company, 108 NLRB 1388. 3 General Refractories Company, 117 NLRB 81 ; Cessna Aircraft Company, 114 NLRB 1191 ; American Bemberg, 111 NLRB 963 , 967; and Kinnear Manufacturing Company, 109 NLRB 948. 1 Kwikset Locks, 116 NLRB 1648, 920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer's plant at Waltham, Massachusetts, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees of the Employer's machine shop department (depart- ment 05), excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Local 1422, International Longshoremen's Association, Independ- ent and Charleston Stevedoring Company, James Doran Com- pany, Inc., R. F. Kamradt Stevedoring Company, Inc., Palmetto Stevedoring Company, Inc. International Longshoremen's Association (Independent) and Charleston Stevedoring Company, James Doran Company, Inc., R. F. Kamradt Stevedoring Company, Inc., Palmetto Steve- doring Company, Inc. Cases Nos. 11-CC-11 and 11-CC-1?. August 1, 1957 DECISION AND ORDER Upon charges and amended charges filed by the Charleston Steve- doring Company, James Doran Company, Inc., R. F. Kamradt Steve- doring Company, Inc., and Palmetto Stevedoring Company, Inc., sometimes collectively referred to as the Charging Parties, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, issued a consolidated complaint on January 3, 1957, alleging that the Respondents, Local 1422, International Longshoremen's Association, Independent, and International Longshoremen's Association, Inde- pendent, had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act. Copies of the consolidated complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondents. Thereafter, on March 25, 1957, the parties entered into a stipulation setting forth an agreed statement of facts. The stipulation provided that the parties thereby waive their rights to a hearing, to the filing of an answer, to a Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report and the filing of exceptions thereto, to the making of proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the issuance of a proposed order by the Board. The stipulation further provided that the stipulation, to- gether with the charges, amended charges, order consolidating cases and notice of hearing, complaint, and affidavits of service of said charges, amended charges, order consolidating cases and notice of 118 NLRB No. 109.