Lear, Inc.

LEAR, INC. 529 Inc.; or (3) to force or require Courter & Company , Midwest Piping Co., Inc., or any other employer or person to cease doing business with Con- solidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. ENTERPRISE ASSOCIATION OF STEAM, HOT WATER, HYDRAULIC, SPRINKLER, PNEUMATIC TUBE, ICE MACHINE AND GENERAL PIPEFITTERS OF NEW YORK AND VICINITY, LOCAL UNION No. 638 OF THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, Labor Organization. Dated----- -------------- By------------------------------------------- ( Representative ) ( Title) Dated----- -------------- By------------------------------------------- (MICHAEL T . DALY, Business Agent) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Lear, Inc. and International Association of Tool Craftsmen, N.I.U.C., Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-3975. August 17,1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTION On April 10, 1959, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election (123 NLRB 713) in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that "the toolroom, engineering experimental shop, and flexible shop employees comprise a functionally distinct and homogeneous depart- mental group who may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appro- priate unit." On May 4, 1959, the Board issued an order directing that the record be reopened and a further hearing be held, "restricted to consideration of the composition of the Employer's flexible shop to determine whether the employees included therein should be included within the unit which the Board found may be appropriate." There- after, on May 25, 1959, the Board issued a further order broadening the reopened hearing to include consideration of the applicability of the contract bar doctrine to the flexible shop. The record was reopened and a further hearing was held before James H. Wehrenberg, hearing officer, on May 26, 1959. The hearing officer's rulings made at the reopened 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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer and the Intervenor, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer- ica, (UAW), AFL-CIO, and its Local Union No. 330, moved to 124 NLRB No. 69. 525543-60--vol. 124-35 530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dismiss the petition upon the ground that the current collective- bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Intervenor bars an election in the unit which the Board found may be appropriate. Accordingly, pursuant to well-established Board policy, Ave have examined the union-security provision of the contract.' It provides : All employees (except probationary employees) on the payroll of the Company covered by this agreement shall, as a condition of continued employment, become and remain members of the Union in good standing for the term of this agreement, subject to the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (The Taft-Hartley Act). In the Keystone case,' the Board announced that it would "no longer treat as bars to elections contracts whose union security provisions do not expressly grant old, non-union member employees the statutory 30-day grace period within which they are not required to join the union. . . ." [Emphasis supplied.] Clearly, the provision in question does not expressly grant such a grace period to old, nonunion member employees. Accordingly, we find that the union-security clause, as written, removes the contract as a bar. The motion to dismiss is there- fore denied. 2. The Employer and the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition upon the further ground that neither the unit which the Board found may be appropriate, nor the alternative units sought by the Petitioner are appropriate. -Although reluctant to accept the flexible shop as part of the appropriate unit, the Petitioner asserts that it is willing to represent any unit found appropriate by the Board. We have considered the evidence adduced at the reopened hearing and find that it does not warrant a unit finding different from that contained in the original Decision and Direction of Election in this proceeding .3 On the contrary, the record of the reopened hearing lends further support to the earlier determination. In the original Decision and Direction of Election, the Board found that the engineering experimental shop and the flexible shop both pro- duce temporary tools and dies for use in prototype and preproduction work; that both shops engage in some short-run or nonrepetitive production of items requiring a high degree of skill; that the toolroom furnishes some tooling to both the experimental engineering and the flexible shops; and that the preproduction work of the flexible shop is generally in sequence with the initial prototype work of the engi- neering experimental shop. In addition, on the basis of the record 1 Argonne National Laboratory, 123 NLRB 375. 2 Keystone Coat, Apron & Towel Supply Company, 121 NLRB 880. 8 The Employer's contention, also made at the first hearing, that severance should be denied because of the integrated nature of the Employer 's operations is without merit. See Lear, Ino., 123 NLRB 713, footnote 3. LEAR, INC. 531 then before it, the Board found that, with the exception of the pre- cision machinist-O.D. & I.D. grinder, "the flexible shop's classifica- tions are identical to, and are interchangeable with, similarly desig- nated classifications in the engineering experimental shop." The enlarged record now indicates that the engineering experi- mental shop consists of 19 precision machinist-benchmen, 18 preci- sion machinist-lathe operators, 4 precision machinist-sheet metal op- erators, 6 experimental winders, 6 jig borer operators, 8 experimental model makers-electronic, 1 stock keeper, 1 precision welder, 1 pre- cision machinist-turret lathe operator, 1 precision machinist-gear cutter, 3 precision machinist-experimental grinders, and 1 stock selec- tor and mover. Of these 12 job classifications, 6-stock selector. and mover, precision machinist-henchman, precision machinist-lathe op- erator, precision machinist-gear cutter, experimental winder, and precision machinist-sheet metal-employing 49 of the engineering experimental shop's 69 employees, are also represented in the flexible shop. A seventh engineering experimental classification, jig borer operator, employing six employees, is substantially similar to the jig borer operator (flex shop) classification. Of the 114 employees in the flexible shop, 59 are employed in these 7 classifications as follows : 1 stock selector and mover, 21 precision machinist-lathe operators, 15 precision machinist-henchmen, 1 precision machinist-gear cutter, 6 precision machinist-sheet metal operators, 11 experimental winders; and 4 jig borer operators (flex shop). The remaining 55 flexible shop employees are distributed as follows : 2 buffers, 7 Bridgeport- Bullard operators, 2 precision machinist-engravers, 2 precision ma- chinists-O.D. & I.D. grinders, 7 electronic builders-preproduction, 5 electronic subassembly preproduction, 18 instrument builders-pre- production, and 12 electronic subassemblers-preproduction. In addition to the marked similarity in their respective classifica- tions, the supplemental record indicates that both the engineering ex- perimental shop and the flexible shop predominantly engage in experi- mental or prototype production. On occasion, these departments assist the product departments in manufacturing production items on an overflow basis. However, as indicated in the original decision, the usual sequence of production begins with the making of prototypes by the engineering experimental shop. The flexible shop then carries the development through a further preproduction stage, after which the item is ready for production on a large scale by the production departments. Finally, at the reopened hearing the Employer's assist- ant works manager testified that "there is no significant difference" between the duties and skills of the Employees in the engineering experimental shop and those of the flexible shop. In view of the entire record in this proceeding, we deny the motion to dismiss the petition and reaffirm the original Decision and Direc- 532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion of Election herein. We shall direct an election among the fol- lowing employees at the Employer's Grand Rapids, Michigan, plants.' All employees in the toolroom, the engineering experimental shop, and the flexible shop, including electronic model makers and the stock selector and mover, but excluding experimental shop inspectors, the toolroom and flexible shop general foreman, the toolroom foreman, the flexible shop foreman, the engineering experimental shop general foreman and foreman, office clerical employees, professional employ- ees, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have indi- cated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit described above, which the Board, under such circumstances finds to be appropriate. In the event a majority do not vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain part of the existing unit and the Regional Director will issue a certi- fication of results of election to such effect. [Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 4 The Regional Director is authorized to permit the withdrawal of the petition without prejudice, upon timely request of the Petitioner. Radio d Television Station WFLA (The Tribune Company ), 120 NLRB 903. Dade Drydock Corp., Petitioner and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America and its Local 7, AFL- CIO. Case No. 12-RM-17. August 17, 1959 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 Herbert N. Waterson, hearing officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. i The Union moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that ( a) the Regional Di- rector had no authority to order a hearing while the Union's appeal from the Regional Director's dismissal of its charges against the Employer was pending before the General Counsel in Case No. 12-CA-751, and (b ) the Employer's counsel at the hearing herein was employed by the Board 's Regional Office at the time the Regional Director dismissed the Union's charges in 'Case No . 12-CA-751. As to (a), the Regional Director 's 'dis- missal of the charges in Case No. 12-CA-751 on April 1, 1959 , disposed of those charges insofar as they affected the Regional Director 's authority to issue a notice of hearing in this representation case, even though the Unions' appeal to the General Counsel was pending at the time the hearing was held herein . See The Alliance Manufacturing Com- pany, 101 NLRB 112, footnote 4. Moreover, as indicated below , the General Counsel denied the appeal on June 27 , 1959. As to (b), Section 102.96 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, which governs practice before the Board by its former regional em- ployees, prohibits such practice only in connection with any case or proceeding which was pending in the Regional Office during the time of such employee's employment with the Board . As counsel's employment with the Regional Office terminated on March 23, 124 NLRB No. 61.