General Electric Co.

718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Electric Company and Kentucky Skilled Craft Guild,' Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-3463. December 14, 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 Arthur P. West, hearing officer.2 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 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 4 3. The Petitioner filed the petition herein for an election among the Employer's tool and die makers at its Appliance Park, Louisville, Kentucky, plant. The Intervenor contends that its national agree- ment with the Employer, considered alone or in conjunction with its most recent local supplemental agreement, bars this proceeding. The Employer urges, among other things, that the local supplemental agreement is sufficient to preclude a present determination of repre- sentatives. We find no merit in these contentions. On August 25, 1955, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into a national agreement covering the plant involved herein, as well as a number of other plants of the Employer located in different parts of the United States. The expiration date of the agreement is October 1, 1960.5 The recognition clause in this agreement acknowledges that the Intervenor was acting for itself and on behalf of each of the listed IUE locals currently certified as collective-bargaining repre- sentatives and such other IUE locals as may. subsequently be certified as collective-bargaining representatives of the Employer's employees. Local 761 is listed in the agreement as the certified collective- 'The Petitioner 's name appears as amended at the hearing. f After the hearing, the International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, was per- mitted to file a brief anvicus, which has been considered . The Employer and the Intervenor, International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, and its Local Union 761 have requested oral argument. The amicu8 joins in this request. As the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties and the IAM, the request for oral argument is hereby denied. 3 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's and the Intervenor's motions to dismiss the petition. For reasons stated hereinafter in the text, these motions are hereby denied. 4 The Intervenor and its Local Union 761 are parties to agreements covering an existing production and maintenance unit at the Employer 's Appliance Park plant. 6 A separate pension and insurance agreement was also executed in 1955. 125 NLRB No. 91. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 719 bargaining representative of a unit of production and maintenance employees at the Appliance Park plant, although the International is the certified representative. The national agreement, which is a 68-page document, together with a detailed wage agreement executed at the same time, contain clauses settling such terms and conditions of employment as wages, hours of -work, holiday and overtime pay provisions, seniority, vacation, and grievance procedure. The national agreement also provides in article XI that written agreements covering layoff and rehiring procedures, and the determination of "total length of continuous service," shall be negotiated locally, Accordingly, pursuant to article XI, Local 761 and the Appliance Park management entered into a local supple- mental agreement on March 17, 1958, which made certain changes in the layoff and rehiring procedures prescribed in a prior supplemental agreement. The 1958 supplemental agreement further provided for its termination on October 1, 1960, on proper notice. On October 14, 1958, the Petitioner filed its petition herein. As it is clear from the foregoing that the petition was filed after the expiration of the first 2 years of the term of the national agreement, we find that this agreement cannot bar this proceeding.' With respect to the 1958 supplemental agreement, we find that this agreement also may not serve as a bar. As indicated above, the national agreement embodies the basic terms and conditions of employment. The supple- mental agreement merely prescribes a few terms relating to layoff and recall procedures designed to conform with local conditions.' As the supplemental agreement does not constitute an independent agreement separate and apart from the national agreement,8 Nye find that the supplemental agreement does not preclude a present determination of representatives.9 Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning 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 tool and die makers, and appren- tices specializing in tool and die making,1° from an existing production 8 Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers , 121 NLRB 990 ; cf. The Steck Company, 122 NLRB 12 . Contrary to the Employer's contention , the Board is not precluded from applying its contract-bar principles to agreements executed before the Pacific Coast decision. Nor do we find it necessary to consider , as the Employer urges us to do, the validity of the Board 's decision in American Seating Co., 106 NLRB 250, which is not involved in this proceeding. 7 Pillsbury Mills, Inc., 92 NLRB 172. 8 Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB 1160. 8 For this reason, Independent Paper Stock Company, Case No. 20-RC-3636 (unpub- lished), is plainly distinguishable from the present case. Unlike the agreement in the Independent Paper Stock case, the Appliance Park agreement was executed as a supple- ment to a national agreement and was applicable to only one plant of the many different plants covered by the national agreement . The supplemental agreement here is not an "amendment" to the national agreement. 10 The unit request appears as amended at the hearing. 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and maintenance unit at the Employer's Appliance Park, Louisville, plant. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the petition should be dismissed because the proposed unit is inappropriate, and because the Petitioner is not an organization traditionally represent- ing employees sought to be represented herein within the meaning of the American Potash decision." The Employer manufactures its entire line of major appliances, excepting television receivers, at the 1,000-acre Appliance Park. Manufacturing operations are conducted in six buildings, four of which constitute separate departments. All of the employees at the Park enjoy the same benefits and miscellaneous services. The employees sought by the Petitioner are the only employees classified by the Employer as "tool, die and mold makers" and as "leader-tool and die complicated." They make component parts, re- vise and maintain the actual tools and dies, and repair jigs and fixtures.12 They do not handle mechanical faults, although it is some- times difficult to decide which is tool and die work and which me- chanical. The tool, die, and mold makers are required to be fully trained in tool and die skills before being hired. The Employer con- ducts a 4-year apprenticeship program, with most of the apprentices graduating as tool and die makers. All transfers into the tool and die group are permanent promotions. Transfers out of the group occur when a newly promoted employee cannot do the work," or because of reductions in force. All of the tool and die moldmakers, except for six in building #5, are permanently assigned to toolrooms in the various buildings and work under the supervision of a tool and die foreman or a toolroom foreman. They may be assigned temporarily to the production floor where the production foreman specifies the particular job which has to be done. However, they remain at all times under the supervision of their own foreman who directs the manner in which they perform their work. There is a half-hour differential in shift-starting time for all tool and die makers. Six tool and die moldmakers are permanently assigned to the build- ing #5 production floor. Most of the repairs are completed on the floor, although some complicated repairs are performed in the tool and die section of the building #5 toolroom. These six employees work with three tool and die leaders.14 All of them work under a n American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. 12 All new dies are made by outside contractors. 12 For example, six die setup men were promoted into the building #5 toolroom but after 2 weeks were returned to the production floor. 14 The leaders also work with several die setup men. The Petitioner and the Intervenor agree that the die setup men should not be included in a tool and die unit . They also agree that the following employees , who work in other sections of the various toolrooms , should be excluded : Machinists, samplemakers, tool inspectors , tool and die welders, cleanup people, crib attendants , and material movers (jitney operators ). The Employer does not GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 721 foreman who is trained in tool and die making, but who reports to the production superintendent. The Intervenor and the Employer contend, however, that the Peti- tioner is a newly formed organization and therefore does not meet the traditional union test under American Potash to qualify to seek severance herein. We do not agree. The evidence shows that the Petitioner was recently organized by a group of the Employer's em- ployees at the Appliance Park plant for the purpose of representing and bargaining for tool and die makers and apprentices exclusively. In these circumstances, and for the reasons set forth in Friden Calcu- lating," we find that the Petitioner is qualified to seek severance herein. We find that the tool and die moldmakers and tool and die leaders possess and exercise true craft skills and may be severed from the established production and maintenance unit if the employees so desire. The fact that the Employer's production operations are highly integrated,ls and that all employees enjoy similar working conditions," is insufficient to deprive the tool and die moldmakers of the separate representation to which their craft status and special interests entitle them. The question remains as to the inclusion of apprentices in the unit. The Petitioner contends that the apprentices specializing in tool and die making should be included in the proposed unit. The Intervenor agrees. The Employer, however, contends that all of the apprentices should be either excluded or included. The Employer conducts a 4-year apprenticeship program. The ap- prentices receive extensive academic training during their first 2 years, many of the courses not directly relating to tool and die work. At the end of this initial period, the Employer determines which apprentices, at the end of a further 2-year period, will receive certifi- cates attesting to their completion of a training program in tool and die making. At the time of the hearing 20 apprentices were still within the first 2 years of the training program. Of the 60 appren- tices who were beyond the first 2 years, 58 were to receive tool and die certificates. A witness for the Employer testified that approximately 50 of these 58 apprentices will in fact work in tool and die making upon their graduation, the remaining 8 going into the sample room. As it appears that the apprentices who are designated to go into tool and die making at the end of the first 2 years of the program have a reasonable prospect of continuing as tool and die moldmakers after the completion of the full apprenticeship program, we shall include them in the unit. However, should it appear at the time of the election object. we agree with the Petitioner and the Intervenor that these employees should not be included. ' Friden Calculating Machine Co ., Inc., et al., 110 NLRB 1618. 16 American Potash d Chemical Corporation, supra. 27B. I. Au Pont de Nemours and Company (Pompton Lakes Works ), 117 NLRB 849. 722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that any of these apprentices have been designated for work outside this craft, they shall not be eligible to vote. On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record, we believe that the tool and die moldmakers, tool and die leaders, and their appren- tices may, if they so desire, constitute a separate unit. Accordingly, we shall direct an election in a voting group of tool and die mold- makers, tool and die leadmen,18 and apprentices specializing in tool and die making at the Employer's Appliance Park, Louisville, Ken- tucky, plant, but excluding all other employees, guards, 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 instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for this unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appro- priate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority do not vote for the Petitioner, these employees shall remain a part of the broader unit and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Is The parties stipulate that the leadmen are not supervisors. Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated i and International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, District Lodge No. 67, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-.663. December 14, 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 Thomas J. Walsh, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed? On July 20, 1959, the Board granted the request of the Employer for oral argument. The Board also invited a number of organizations to file briefs. Briefs were filed by Petitioner and by the Employer and briefs amici curiae were filed by Technical Engineers Associa- tion, American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO, and by Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, General Electric Com 1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. f We hereby grant the motion by Intervenor International Union of Electrical, Radio and Ifachine Workers, AFL--CIO, to withdraw from this proceeding. 125 NLRB No. 90.