International Harvester Co.

640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act 4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act [Recommendations omitted from publication 1 International Harvester Company and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner International Harvester Company end Local 701, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,2 Petitioner. Cases Nos 13-RO-6588 and 13-RC-6604 December 8, 1959 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 Robert G Mayberry, 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 these cases to t three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Jenkins and Fannmgl. 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 certauu em- ployees of the Employer 3 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 $ercin called UAW z Herein called IBEW (Pattern Makers League of North America, Chicago Association (herein called Pattern Makers) and Chicago Journeymen Plumbers Vmou, Local 130 (herein called Local 130) both intervened on the basis of a showing of interest 4 The UAW moved to dismiss the petition of the IBE+ W on the ground that the UAW and the IBEW have signed an AFL-CIO no-raid agreement forbidding petitions In cases such as this In support of its motion, the UAW cites the decision of the United States Court of Appeals In United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO v Textile Workers Union of America (Personal Products Corp ), 258 F 2d 743 (C A 7), 1958 The motion is denied in accordance with the Board policy of processing representation proceedings without regard to whether they were filed in violation, of interunion no raid pacts North Amersean Aviation, Inc, 115 NLRB 1Q90 With refercxiice to the Textalq Workers case, the Board has recently reaffirmed its decision not to acquiesce in the opinion of the court of appeals, with due respect for the opinion of that court Cadnnun 4 Nsekel, Plating Liw esan of Great Lakes Indiistnes, lac„ 124 NLRB 343 125 NLRB No 79 INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 641 4. The Farm Equipment Research and Engineering Center of the International Harvester Company is located on a 474-acre tract just south of Hinsdale, Illinois. The Center, which has been in operation since February 1959, exists to furnish designs and blueprints of farm equipment to the Employer's various manufacturing plants. The Center was established to consolidate the Employer's research and engineering activities which had previously been carried on at a num- ber of the Employer's plants. The Employer's primary division for the design of farm tractors, the farm tractor engineering depart- ment, was completely transferred to the Center from the Tractor Works in Chicago. At the time the hearing began, there were about 1,200 employees at the Center of whom 398 were hourly rated shop and maintenance people. Approximately 60 of this group of 398 are in the maintenance department; the remainder are in the various shop departments. The Petitioner in Case No. 13-RC-6588 seeks a unit of all the hourly rated employees at the Center including all full-time motor vehicle drivers whether hourly or salaried. The Petitioner in Case No. 13-RC-6604 seeks a unit of all journeymen and apprentice electricians at the Center. The Pattern Makers seeks a unit of approximately 22 patternmakers who were moved to the Center from the Farm Tractor Engineering Department. Local 130 seeks a unit of all journeymen and apprentice plumbers and pipefitters at the Center. The Employer takes the position that there are three appropriate units. These are: (1) A unit of patternmakers; (2) a unit of the ap- proximately 60 maintenance department employees; and (3) a resid- ual unit of the remaining hourly rated employees (excluding the engine test setup men and heat treat employees). The Pattern Makers' request: The pattern shop is located in a separate area in the main shop building at the Center. The pattern shop employees were transferred to the Center as a group from the farm tractor engineering department where they were separately represented by the Pattern Makers League. They hold the same job descriptions and are paid the same wages as when they were at their former location. No party to the proceeding disputes the craft status of the patternmakers, and we find that they may constitute a separate appropriate unit.5 The IBETV petition: The electricians whom the IBEW seeks to represent as a craft unit are all located in the maintenance depart- ment at the Center. Most of these electricians came to the Center from the farm tractor engineering department where they were separately represented by the IBEW, and where, according to the testimony of two journeymen electricians, they performed a wide 6 See Beloit Eastern Corporation, 119 NLRB 1407 . The parties agreed that any pattern- maker unit should include the pattern checkers. 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD variety of tasks requiring electrical skills. However, when employees with electrician backgrounds were hired to work at the Center, they were told that they would be expected to perform maintenance work in areas outside of their specialty and that they would be given in- struction in trades in which they had little or no background. The record reveals a number of instances where employees with electrician backgrounds were assigned to nonelectrical jobs as part of their every- day work and not simply as an incident of their electrician duties. Although most assignments of employees outside of their principal trade have thus far demanded a relatively low degree of skill, the Employer indicated that as the Center reached full operation, these assignments would increase in scope and difficulty. The record also shows that the purely electrical work of employees with electrician backgrounds has generally been of a lower level of skill than the work required of these employees at the farm tractor engineering department. All maintenance department employees who would normally be considered journeyman electricians have been given the job descrip- tion MH-229-maintenance journeyman, a classification given all maintenance employees with a journeyman or equivalent background in some trade. Furthermore, the Employer has developed a mainte- nance journeyman apprentice course which is designed to train main- tenance employees in classification MH-229 to achieve sufficient proficiency in a number of trades to adequately handle all of the Employer's maintenance requirements at the Center. The Employer does not have any formal apprenticeship program at the Center for electricians as such. The employees in the maintenance department with electrician backgrounds are not separately supervised but are scattered among several different supervisors. They work in the same area as other maintenance department empolyees, work the same hours, are paid the same wage rates, and enjoy the same benefits and conditions of employment. On the record as a whole, we find that the employees in the maintenance department at the Center with electrician back- grounds do not constitute a distinct and homogeneous group of skilled journeymen craftsmen, working as such. Accordingly, we shall dis- miss the petition of the IBEW in Case No. 13-RC-6604.8 The Plumbers' request: The plumbers and pipefitters whom Local 130 seeks to represent as a craft unit are also located in the mainte- nance department and came to the Center from the farm tractor engi- neering department where they had a separate shop and were separately represented. The one journeyman plumber who testified stated that at the farm tractor engineering department he did only e See The American Brass Company, 120 NLRB 1276. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 643 plumbing work, but he was told he would have to do other kinds of work at the Center. The record indicates that he has performed electrician, carpenter, and millwright work at the Center, and the plumbing work he has done has been a relatively simple kind such as descaling the coils on an ice-cube machine, and servicing a jammed garbage dispose-all. As in the case of the electricians, all maintenance department em- ployees who would normally be considered journeymen plumbers and pipefitters have been placed in classification MH-229. Also like the electricians, they will be enrolled in the maintenance journeyman apprentice course since the Employer has no formal apprenticeship program for plumbers and pipefitters as such. The employees in the maintenance department with plumbing and pipefitting backgrounds are not separately supervised, work in the same area during similar hours, are paid the same wage rates as other maintenance employees, and enjoy similar benefits. We find that these employees are not required to exercise the gamut of skills characteristic of journeymen craftsmen and may not constitute an appropriate craft unit. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the request of Local 130.' The UAW petition: The UAW seeks to represent a trait of all hourly rated employees at the Center including all full-time drivers whether hourly rated or salaried. This unit would include all em- ployees in the maintenance department as well as hourly rated shop employees in the engineering shops and hourly rated employees in the laboratories. In accordance with Board policy, we find that such an overall unit may be appropriate. However, the UAW and the Employer are in disagreement over the unit placement of the cate- gories discussed below, all of which the UAW would include and the Employer would exclude. The engine test setup men: Four employees work in the south laboratory installing engines on Dynamometer test stands and making the necessary water, fuel, and exhaust connections for operating the engines. These employees were hourly rated until approximately a month before the hearing when they were reclassified to salaried. At the close of the hearing, the Employer agreed to reclassify them again to the category they held at the tractor works, and to shift them back to hourly rated. The record does not indicate that this job re- quires special training or educational background. We find that the engine test setup men have a sufficient community of interests with the other hourly rated employees to be included in the overall unit. The heat treat employees: Approximately seven employees work in the heat treat laboratory making analyses of materials being tested t See Dana Corporation, 122 NLRB 365; General Electric Company, 118 NLRB 637, 642. 644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR itELATIONS BOARD by the engineering materials research division. These employees were changed from hourly rated to salaried just before the hearing, although employees doing similar work at other plants of the Em- ployer are hourly rated. At the close of the hearing, the Employer stated that the heat treat employees would be returned to an hourly rated basis. The record does not reveal that these workers are tech- nical employees, and we shall include them in the overall unit. The drivers: The Employer has a small number of salaried truck and station wagon drivers at the Center. They drive company offi- cials, carry special mail between the general office and other places, and occasionally carry materials between plants. It is well-estab- lished Board policy that mere difference in method of payment and of remuneration is no basis for excluding employees from an appro- priate unit.' In view of the disagreement of the parties as to the unit placement of the drivers and the fact that no labor organization is seeking to represent them in a separate unit, we find the drivers sufficiently related to the other plant employees to warrant including them in the unit.9 We shall direct elections in the following voting groups at the Em- ployer's Hinsdale, Illinois, facility : (1) All patternmakers, including patterncheckers, but excluding all other hourly rated employees, office clerical employees, guards, professional and technical employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) All hourly rated employees, including all full-time motor vehicle drivers whether hourly rated or salaried, but excluding the employees in group (1), office clerical employees, guards, professional and technical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. If a majority of the employees in voting group (1) vote for the Pattern Makers, those employees will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election is hereby instructed to issue a certi- fication of representatives to the Pattern Makers for such unit, which the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for pur- poses of collective bargaining. And in that event, should a majority of the employees in voting group (2) select the UAW, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the UAW for such unit, which the Board, under the circumstances, 'finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. However, if a majority of the employees in voting group (1) do not vote for the Pattern Makers, such group will appropriately be included in the same unit with the employees in voting group (2) 8Tenaeo Aircraft Corporation , 121 NLRB 1085. 9 Channel Master Corporation, 114 NLRB 1486. DEARBORN OIL AND GAS CORPORATION, ETC 645 and their votes will be pooled with those in voting group (2) 10 If a majority of the employees in the pooled group select the UAW, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representa- tiVes to the ITAW for the pooled group which the Board, in such cir- cumstances, finds to be an appropriate unit for the purposes of col- lective bargaining [The Board dismissed the petition filed in Case No 13-RC-6604.) [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication ] 10 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner The votes for the Pattern Makers shall be counted as valid votes but neither for nor against the UAW all other other votes are to be accorded their face value; whether fol the UAW or for no union t ea`rhorn Oil and Gas Corporation, George C Schoonmaker and James W. McCuinmings, Partners, doing business as Diamond Operating Service, and George C. Schoonmaker, Trustee, do- ing business as North Stewart WAterliood 1 and Local 7-482, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO. Case No 35-CA466 December 9, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On April 3,1959, Trial Examiner Reeves R Hilton issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs 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 prejudicial error Was committed, The rulings are hereby affirmed The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case,2 and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu- sions, and recommendations with the modifications and corrections below We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Diamond violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act We do not agree with the Trial Exam- =Herein referred to as Dearborn, Diamond, and North Stewart, respectively i The request of Dearborn for oral argument is denied because the record, including the exceptions and briefs, adequately presents theissues and the positions of the parties 125 NLRB No 71 535828-60--vol 125-42