General Dynamics

CONVAIR (POMONA) 41 2(d), and 2(e) of the Board's Order of October 31, 1955, insofar as they relate to Eugene Piasek, excepting only those portions of para- graphs 2(b) and 2(d) of the said Order pertaining to an offer of reinstatement. MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Recommendation. Convair (Pomona), a Division of Convair, a Division of General Dynamics 1 and Associated Tool and Die Makers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-5174. November 7, 1958 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 Ben Grodsky, 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 Bean and Fanning]. 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 2 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 sever from the existing production and maintenance unit at the Employer's missile plant at Pomona, Cali- fornia, a unit of employees in the tool manufacturing department (department 42) together with the tooling inspectors in the inspection department (department 27). In the alternative, the Petitioner requests a craft unit of all tool- and die-makers, toolroom machinists and grinders, and tooling inspectors. In the event the Board finds inappropriate both the units requested, the Petitioner expressed its willingness to represent any combination of these units deemed appro- The name of the Employer appears as described at the hearing. The Petitioner was recently organized by a group of employees to deal with employers concerning wages and working conditions of tool- and die-makers and toolroom machinists, grinders , and inspectors , exclusively. We therefore find, contrary to the Intervenor, International Association of Machinists , District 120, Guided Missile Lodge No. 1254, AFL-CIO, that the Petitioner is a labor organization which meets the traditional union test for the purpose of severing the employees involved herein . Cessna Aircraft Company, 114 NLRB 1191. 122 NLRB No. 4. 42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD priate. The Employer and Intervenor contend that the units requested are inappropriate. All tools for use in the production of missiles are made in the tool manufacturing department, department 42. Department 42 is sepa- rately located. It is separately supervised by its own foreman, who is responsible to the chief of manufacturing engineering; the latter is also in charge of department 24, tool operation, planning, design, and engineering, as well as department 8, manufacturing planning. Em- ployed in department 42 are tool- and die-makers A and B, boring mill horizontal machinists, grinder operators, grinders tooling, heat treaters steel, jig borer machinists, lathe machinists, layout men ma- chinists tool, milling machine machinists, planer machinists, shaper machinists, and grinders tool and cutter A and B. These employees work to close tolerances from designs and blueprints and are engaged directly in the manufacture of parts of, or the assembly of, tools. There are some transfers in and out of department 42, but interchange with employees of other departments is infrequent. Although other- wise idle men and,/or machines are occasionally used for producing the Employer's end products, no department 42 employees are engaged in frequent or full-time production work. There are 13 inspectors, all of whom are assigned to department 27. One works in department 4, shipping and receiving, where he inspects purchased tools; 1 works in department 31, the experimental factory, where he inspects experimental tools; 2 work in the gauge laboratory and are responsible for the quality and calibration of all gauge equip- ment in the plant, including department 42; and the remaining 9 inspectors inspect tools made in department 42. Although some in- spectors were formerly tool- and die-makers, others were not; previous experience as a tool- and die-maker is not a requirement. The record does not reveal the place occupied by the inspection department in the administrative organization nor its supervisory structure. The Employer also has a department 31, called the experimental factory. Employees assigned to this department are engaged in what the Employer refers to as "mandatory" tooling, or the manufacture of experimental tools for prototype or testing purposes. Department 31 employees use the same machines and employ the same skills as department 42 employees, and are classified as tool- and die-makers A, boring mill horizontal machinists, grinders tooling, heat treaters steel, jig borer machinists, lathe machinists, milling machine machinists, shaper machinists, and grinders tool and cutter. The record does not reveal the supervisory structure or the administrative organization of department 31. On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the Petitioner's primary unit request, for employees in departments 42 and 27, is inappropriate on a departmental basis, as it includes inspectors who are not shown CONVAIR (POMONA) 43 to be toolmakers, are not assigned to the toolrooms, and are not engaged in tool manufacturing. Nor could a unit confined to the employees assigned to department 42, who manufacture tools for pro- duction, be considered a functionally distinct group, as it would exclude the employees of department 31 who perform the closely related, if not identical, function of manufacturing tools used for experimental purposes. The alleged craft unit requested by the Peti- tioner is also inappropriate as, apart from any other considerations, it does not include all employees in the plant with comparable skills.' However, although tool manufacturing and the experimental factory are separate departments for administrative purposes, employees in both groups, as indicated above, are engaged in the function of fabricating tools. In these circumstances, we find that all employees of department 42, tool manufacturing, and department 31, experi- mental factory, together constitute a functionally distinct and homogeneous departmental group who may, if the employees therein so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit.4 The fact that there are employees with similar classifications in other departments, and that there are transfers of employees to and from the departments in the unit found appropriate, does not render the unit inappropriate, in view of the facts that no other departmental groups are engaged in the manufacture of tools, and that there is little interchange of employees between these and other departments in the plant.' Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be held in the follow- ing voting group at the Employer's Pomona, California, missile plant: e All employees in the tool manufacturing department (depart- ment 42) ' and the experimental factory (department 31), excluding 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 be represented in a separate unit and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed 3 Thus, the record establishes that there are numerous classifications of machinists in the plant who would not be included in this unit . See American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418, 1423. 4 See Hoe Light, Inc., 109 NLRB 1013. We find no merit in the contention of Inter- venor that the Employer 's operations are of such an integrated nature as to preclude the severance of an otherwise appropriate departmental unit . See American Potash & Chemi- cal Corporation, supra, 1422 . Convair, A Division of General Dynamics Corporation, Case No . 16-RC-2279 , unpublished, relied on by the Employer , in which the Board denied severance of a toolroom unit, is inapposite because there , contrary to the situation here, a substantial number of toolroom employees were engaged in full-time production work. G Warner Electric Brake & Clutch Company, 111 NLRB 268. 6 We are administratively satisfied the Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest in this voting group. 7 The record is not clear as to whether the sweepers , welders , saw operator, and ex- pediter, whom the Petitioner would exclude , are assigned to, and work under , the foreman of either department 42 or department 31, and should therefore be included in the voting group . These categories may therefore vote subject to challenge. g The record does not indicate whether the leadmen in departments 42 and 31 possess supervisory authority , thus requiring their exclusion. They may therefore vote subject to challenge. 44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in that event to issue a certification of representative to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. If, however, a majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indi- cated their desire to remain a part of the existing production and maintenance unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Antonio Santisteban & Co., Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 24-CA-843. November 12, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER On June 27, 1958, Trial Examiner David London issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. 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 Bean and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudical 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 this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Antonio Santisteban & Co., Inc., Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1 We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that Pilar, a union organizer, could not have met separately with employee Petra and with employees Rafaela and Efigenia during the lunch period on March 6, 1957. The record shows that Pilar met with Petra a few minutes after 11:30 a.m. outside the plant ; that Pilar met with the other two employees at a restaurant near the plant between 12 :20 p.m . and 12 :30 p.m.; and that the lunch period ran from 11: 30 a.m. to 1 p.m. 122 NLRB No. 12.