Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co.

878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices and thus to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will further be recommended that the Re- spondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Dis- tillery Workers of America, AFL-+CIO, and Gulf Bottlers Employees' Association, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. By contributing assistance and support to Gulf Bottlers Employees' Associa- tion, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) and (1) of the Act. 4. By discriminating against its employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment thereby discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of the Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. and Tool and Die Makers Lodge No. 113, International Association of Machinists, AFL- CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-7058. May 20, 1960 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 Hymen Bear, hearing officer- The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from pre- judicial 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 em- ployees of the Employer.' 3. On March 2, 19607 the Petitioner filed a petition seeking to sever a unit of all toolroom employees from an established production and maintenance unit. At the hearing on March 23, the Petitioner stated it was willing to include model shop employees in the unit, if the , United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America , and its Local 1114, inter- vened at the hearing. 127 NLRB No. 108. MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REGULATOR CO. 879. Board found that a unit of both groups constitutes a single appro- priate unit. The Intervenor has been the contractual bargaining representative. of the Employer's production and maintenance employees since 1945. After the expiration of their 1959 contract, the Employer and the, Intervenor executed a new contract on March 4, 1960, covering all production and maintenance employees, including those whom Peti-_ tioner would include in its unit. The Employer and Intervenor con- tend that the original unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate and that a combined unit of toolroom and model shop employees is barred by the. March 4 contract. They accordingly move for a dis- missal of the petition. However, as is indicated below, the unit sought by the Petitioner both in its original petition and by its alternate position taken at the hearing, is essentially one of employees engaged in the same craft, and the alternate unit requested by the Petitioner- did not so alter the nature of the original unit sought as to constitute a new petition or affect the timeliness of the original filing. In these circumstances, we find that the contract of March 4, 1960, is not a bar to an election in the broader unit .2 The motions to dismiss are there- fore denied. 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 Employer is engaged in the manufacture of general control devices and related products. Until about 1953, the Employer had a combined toolroom and model shop whose employees worked at a sin- gle location. Thereafter, a separate model shop was created in order- to eliminate administrative problems in the assignment of work. Upon its establishment, the model shop was manned by four employees from the toolroom. There are now 14 tool- and die-makers and one tool grinder in the toolroom. The tool- and die-makers are engaged in making tools, jigs, and fixtures, which work requires the reading of blueprints and the use of precision machines and measuring devices. They are skilled craftsmen. Under separate supervision, and about 100 feet from the toolroom, is the model shop which employs seven modelmakers. Their. duties are comparable to those of the tool- and die-makers and require identical skills. Both groups are paid the same hourly rate and enjoy the same benefits. The main distinction in the work of the two groups.. of employees is that the toolroom output is used for production pur- poses, whereas the model shop produces tools used for experimental purposes. Since the establishment of the separate model shop, em- ployees have transferred into it from the toolroom. 2International Harvester Company, Melrose Park Plant, 87 NLRB 1101; Westinghouse_ Electric Corporation, 115 NLRB 1420. ;880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record, we find that the toolroom and model shop employees comprise a functionally distinct and homogeneous depart- mental group who may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appro- priate Unit .3 As the Petitioner is a labor organization which has traditionally represented such employees, we shall permit the toolroom and model shop employees to determine whether they desire to be Tepresented'separately by the Petitioner. We shall therefore direct an election at this time among the follow- ing employees at the Employer's Morton Grove, Illinois, plant : All toolroom and model shop employees, excluding office clerical em-. -ployees, professional employees, guards, 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 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 that a majority do not vote for the Petitioner, these employees will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain part of the existing production and maintenance unit and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. '[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 3 See Bendix Aviation Corporation, 125 NLRB 380 ; A.P. Controls Corporation, 108 NLRB 593. Canal Street Hotel Corporation 1 and New Orleans Hotel Em- ployees Trades & Craft Council, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC-1996. May 20, 1960 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 John H. Immel, Jr., hearing .officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed? 'The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 2 On December 21, 1959, after the hearing in this case had been closed, the Board .ordered that the record be reopened and the proceeding be remanded to the Region for the purpose of adducing additional evidence to establish the legal jurisdiction of the Board. At the reopened hearing, the Employer stated that it would not voluntarily comply with a subpena which directed the Employer to produce records showing the amount of goods purchased during the preceding 12 months . The Employer filed a petition to revoke the subpena, which was denied by the hearing officer. The hearing officer then received in evidence letters from suppliers of the Employer which established that the Employer had purchased more than $50,000 worth of goods in 1959, which had been received by the 127 NLRB No. 105.