General Electric Co.

100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lithographic skills. The Board has repeatedly held that employees engaged in the lithographic process, such as that involved here, form a cohesive unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining' The Employer also contends that the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Pittsburgh Plate Glass,' precludes the Board from finding a unit less extensive that a plantwide unit in view of the high degree of integration of its operations. Aside from the fact that the instant case unlike the cited case does ont involve severance, the Board has decided with all due respect to the opinion of the court in that case, to adhere to its decision in American Potash and Chemical Corporation.° Moreover, we find the degree of inte- gration in the instant case to be comparable to that found in other cases in which we have established a lithographic production unit.' In view of the foregoing, we find the unit sought by the Petitioner, including the roll warehouseman, to be an appropriate unit for pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Accordingly, we shall direct an election among all lithographic production employees at the Em- ployer's Lebanon, Indiana, plant including lithocomposers, strippers, camera operators, platemakers, lithopressmen, rotary pressmen, rotary pressman helpers, and roll warehousemen, excluding all other employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 'Ad-Press Corporation, 119 NLRB 564; McCall Corporation, 118 NLRB 1332; Holden Business Forma Company, supra. 5N.L.R.B. V. Pittsburgh Plate (Masi Company, 270 F. 2d 167 (C.A. 4), cert. denied 361 U.S. 943. 6 Moreover, the doctrine in this case is not strictly applicable to the instant case as the unit sought here is neither n craft nor a departmental unit within the meaning of this case. 7 See, for example, Ace Folding Box Corporation, 124 NLRB 23; N.L.R.B. v. Weyer- haeuser Company, successor to Ace Folding Box Corporation, 276 F. 2d 865 (C.A. 7). General Electric Company and Kentucky Skilled Craft Guild, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-3463. April 12, 1961 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CLARIFICATION OF CERTIFICATION On December 14,1959, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election i in the above-entitled proceeding in which it found that a group of tool and die mold makers, leadmen, and apprentices "spe- cializing" in tool- and die-making could be severed from the existing 1125'NLRB 718. 131 NLRB No. 19. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 101 unit of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Appliance Park, Kentucky, plant,2 and, accordingly, directed a self- determination election. On January 8, 1960, an election was held, which Petitioner won.' On January 18, 1960, the Petitioner was cer- tified as the exclusive bargaining representative of all "tool and die mold makers, tool and die leadmen and apprentices, specializing in the [sic] tool and die making." 4 Following the election, the Employer, on January 15, 1960, filed a motion asking that the Board amend its description of the unit to determine with greater particularity the unit placement of the ap- prentices employed by it. This motion was not opposed by either the Petitioner or the Intervenor. It appearing to the Board that the Em- ployer's motion was in effect a motion for clarification of the certifi- cation, and it further appearing that the said motion raised substan- tial and material issues of fact, on August 1, 1960, the Board issued an order remanding the proceeding to the Regional Director for the Ninth Region for the purpose of holding a hearing on the issues raised in the Employer's motion .5 The hearing was held on December 5 and 6, 1960, before Arthur P. West, hearing officer, and all parties appeared and participated. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds : The Employer contends that all of the apprentices in its apprentice- ship training program should be excluded from the tool and die craft unit represented by the Petitioner. The Intervenor agrees. The Petitioner contends, on the other hand, that all of the apprentices should be included in its craft unit. The Employer conducts training programs at various of its plants to meet the needs of each plant. Its training program at Appliance Park was established in February 1953, shortly after the plant's com- pletion, with the specific aim of meeting the plant's needs for tool and die craftsmen. 2 This overall unit was and is represented by Intervenor , International Union, Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, and its Local Union 761. 8 As the votes of the apprentices were not determinative of the results of the election, their ballots, which were challenged by the Employer , were not opened * On November 10, 1960, the Petitioner and the Employer signed a collective-bargaining agreement The agreement is not now applicable to the apprentices , but with the under- standing that their inclusion is subject to the Board 's determination of the Employer's motions. 5In view of the remand order , another Employer motion, filed postcertification, which raised the same issues , was denied. 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Each apprentice signed an apprentice agreement with the Employer as a "tool and die" apprentice for a term of 6,800 hours (32/5 years). The agreement provided that the apprentice would diligently per- form his duties and the Employer agreed that it would cause to be carefully and skillfully taught to the apprentice the tool and die craft and give the apprentice a certificate of apprenticeship at the comple- tion of the prescribed course. In April 1960, after the election and certification herein, the Employer unilaterally modified its apprentice agree,,i.:;.t so that it read, and now reads, that apprentices enroll as apprentices in the "General Electric Apprentice Training Program," and the Employer agrees they will be taught techniques in "more than one" of the following subjects: general maintenance; drafting; lab- oratory w,.rk of various kinds; sample making; and tool and die work. However, the Employer admits that the aims and the specific content of the course have remained the same since the course's inception, and at least one of its prime aims, according to the testimony of the Em- ployer's director of the training program, is to train apprentices in the basic necessities and requirements of the lowest grade journeymen tool and die classification.6 The apprentices were first trained in the plant's central toolroom, to which were also assigned the tool and die craftsmen. However, in September 1953, an area was equipped to serve as an apprentice train- ing room because the central toolroom was abolished.' The training room is equipped with benches and various tools, machines, and other equipment of varying complexity, such as: milling machines; engine, turret, and other lathes ; grinding machines of various kinds ; saws ; and drill presses. All of these pieces of equipment are tools of tool and die craftsmen. All of the apprentices in the program receive the same basic train- ing and on-the-job experience! They are first taught basic skills in the training room. They return to the training room from time to time but also are rotated for 3-month assignments in such sections of the plant as the various toolrooms, where the tool and die craftsmen work, the maintenance and model shops, the planning and wage rate section, and the drafting section. They spend a total of about 11/2 years in the training room and the remainder of the 32/5-year program in such 3-month assignments. 8 The record indicates that this training program apparently satisfied the requirements of the Employer's 1955 and earlier agreements with the Veterans Administration to train veteran-apprentices in the tool and die craft 7 The tool and die craftsmen were assigned to toolrooms in the various buildings of the plant. 8 The original Decision and Order herein recited that apprentices during the first 2 years of the program received academic training only, and that at the end of this period certain apprentices were "designated" to receive specialized tool and die training, while other apprentices were "designated" to receive other types of training Such recitals were based upon the testimony of the director of the training program In the instant proceed- ing, the game witness admits that his prior testimony in this connection was in error, and our findings herein are based on his present testimony. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 103 The areas of their training include 1,500 hours on the grinding, turning, facing, drilling, threading, and knurling of tools ; about 1,100 hours on various grinding operations; 600 hours on filing, fitting, assembly, layout, sheet metal model building, scraping, and related operations; 300 hours on large machines such as planers, boring mills, and vertical and horizontal job bores; and the remaining 2,400 hours in such areas as drafting, the use of shapers, and drilling and drill press operation. In addition, their training specifically includes the making of new dies, which are intended for actual use in the plant, and for which the training room apprentices must bid against the Employer's own tool- and die-makers and against outside contractors.' The apprentices also have the right to bid for orders for tools, jigs, and fixtures in the same manner. In addition to the above on-the-job training, all apprentices take courses at the plant and at, or through, the University of Louisville, in such subjects as mechanical drawing, blueprint reading, trigonometry, engineering English, analytic geometry, and physics. The record shows that all but 18 of the 151 successful graduates of the course received diplomas upon graduation attesting to their com- pletion of an apprenticeship program in the tool- and die-maker craft, and, as the Employer admits and the record makes clear, all graduates receiving such certificates are qualified to perform all the necessary duties of the lowest grade journeyman tool and die classification. In addition, the 18 graduates noted above who did not receive the tool and die diploma nevertheless received the same basic training program as the other apprentices and all of the evidence indicates that they, too, received training adequate for the tool and die craft.1° 9 The Board's Decision and Order which recited that all dies were made by outside contractors was based upon testimony by witnesses for the Employer But an Employer witness in the instant proceeding admits that such prior testimony was in error and that, while most dies are made by outside contractors , some are made in the plant to These 18 graduates received drafting diplomas , rather than tool and die diplomas The Employer estimates that 3 of the approximately 17 apprentices enrolled at the time of the hearing also will receive drafting diplomas The record indicates that drafting diplomas are awarded under the following circum- stances : Some of the apprentices may be found to be more skilled in drafting after they have received drafting training as part of the standard program and to be more interested in this field . Too, the Employer's projected needs at the time may be for more employees with greater drafting experience than afforded by the standard course Therefore, some of the apprentices receive more training in drafting than do others And, apparently, such apprentices are the ones given drafting diplomas rather than tool and die diplomas, though the Employer does not, or cannot, specify , nor can we determine even after a close study of exhibits indicating the training received by each of the apprentices, which specific apprentices will receive drafting diplomas or why some of the graduates received drafting diplomas and others tool and die diplomas We are convinced on this record that the drafting diplomas merely denote , at most, that the recipients thereof secured some additional training in drafting . Such specialization in a certain division of work does not destroy apprentice craft status if it is given after an apprentices has served an adequate period of apprenticeship and within the framework of a training program which in fact trains all apprentices within the program for the tool and die craft See, Danaher , "Apprenticeship Practice in the United States," Stanford University Press, Business Research Series No. 3 at p 43 ( pamphlet 1945 ). Moreover, none of the parties urges that these apprentices be accorded different treatment than the others 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A majority of the apprentice graduates have been assigned upon graduation to the various tool and die shops where the employees who comprise the unit represented by Petitioner work.li It is clear on the above facts, which demonstrate the predominant emphasis of the program on training tool- and die-makers, that the Employer's apprenticeship training program basically is a tool and die apprenticeship program and that its graduates are in fact qualified journeyman tool- and die-makers. It therefore follows that the in- terests of the apprentices lie with the tool and die craftsmen for whose trade they are being trained, and that, as the Petitioner contends, they should be included in the tool and die craft unit.12 Nevertheless, the Employer and the Intervenor argue for their exclusion from the unit because, they allege, none of the apprentices can be said to be special- izing in tool- and die-making as they receive broad training which enables them to work in other classifications than tool and die upon graduation. We find no merit in this contention. Here it is clear, and admitted by the Employer, that the apprentices are being trained to perform the necessary duties of one craft, the tool- and die-maker craft. The very purpose of an adequate apprenticeship program is to broadly train apprentices in their craft so that they may practice it in any industry or company or advance into executive or managerial responsibilities.11 Therefore, the contention that the apprentices are being broadly trained and that the Employer may utilize their skills and knowledge in other than tool- and die-making classifications does not negate the fact that their interests while apprentices lie with the tool and die craftsmen. We also find no merit in the further contention of the Employer and the Intervenor that the apprentices should be excluded because specific apprentices may not go into tool and die classifications upon their graduation and because even those apprentices who do go into such classifications are not "designated" for such work until gradua- tion. The issue here is whether the apprentices are tool and die ap- prentices, not whether they will eventually be employed in tool- and die-maker classifications. For it is self-evident that the exigencies "The record indicates that 77 of the 151 apprentice graduates were assigned immedi- ately upon graduation to the tool`and die shops . In addition, 23 graduates were assigned upon graduation to the model ( sample ) shops. As to the 'skills exercised in the model (sample ) shop, Employer witnesses at the instant hearing testified that their skills are similar to those exercised by tool- and die-makers , and an Employer witness testified at the prior hearing that tool- and die-makers "in 99 percent of the cases" could qualify into samplemakers' work after some further training , though the reverse is not true. It is apparent, therefore , that the apprentice graduates assigned to the model shops exercise some of the tool and die skills acquired by them during the training program. The record also indicates that some apprentice graduates may be, and are, assigned to the tool and die shops from time to time in spite of initial assignments elsewhere Further, of the 126 graduates still employed at Appliance Park, 53 are employed in tool- and die-maker classifications and an additional 16 are employed in model ( sample ) maker classifications 12 See American Potash & Chemical Corp , 107 NLRB 1418, at 1423, 1426. 11 See Patterson and Hedges , "Educating for Industry," at pp. 12, 112, 136 (1946) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 105 of an employer's business or other factors present at the time of gradu- ation will determine in large measure the disposition an employer makes of the skills acquired by its apprentices.14 But such contingen- cies cannot change the community of interests which these apprentices share with tool and die craftsmen while the apprentices are being trained for their craft. In any event, it is again emphasized that the majority of the Employer's trainees have been assigned upon gradua- tion to classifications falling within the tool and die unit. The Employer further contends that the apprentices' needs would best be served by their exclusion from the tool and die unit until and unless they graduate and actually are placed into the tool and die classifications.15 We disagree. The Petitioner now represents the tool and die craftsmen. As such representative, it has a legitimate interest in the apprentices to the tool and die craft. Further, it is a labor organization established and existing to meet the special needs of this craft and is equipped to represent the apprentices in seeing that they are adequately and fairly dealt with while in the process of gaining journeyman skills. And the apprentices themselves are interested both in the working conditions of the journeymen for whose craft they are being trained and in their own working conditions and level of training."' For the reasons given above, we find, accordingly, that all of the Employer's apprentices should be included in the Petitioner's tool and die craft unit, and we shall amend the certification accordingly. [The Board certified Kentucky Skilled Craft Guild as the collective- bargaining representative of the employees in a unit of tool and die mold makers, tool and die leadmen and all apprentices at the Em- ployer's Appliance Park, Louisville, Kentucky, plant, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.] 's For example , an employer through error may enroll more apprentices than it will later need Or its needs may change because of changed business conditions, or because of the availability of journeymen tool- and die -makers through other sources Or an employer may decide that it can better utilize the skills and knowledge which its appren- tices acquire during the training period in other than strictly tool and die classifications 15 The Employer in support of this argument points to its collective-bargaining agree- ment with Petitioner which , it alleges, would have the effect of keeping apprentice pro- gram graduates out of the tool and die unit because of its contracting size without passing upon its interpretation , we note that Petitioner contradicts such interpretation and that the instrument by its terms is not applicable to apprentices In any event, we are of the opinion that it is the parties' function through the collective-bargaining process, not the Board 's to determine such matters as seniority is Though the Employer urges that a decision which includes the apprentices in the tool and die unit will have a "tremendous impact" on the training program itself and on the future of the apprentices , its arguments in this connection do not make clear why this result should follow . In any event , while conceivably our finding herein may lead to possible changes in the operation and organization of the Employer's training pro- gram , such considerations cannot militate against our determination that the apprentice- ship program as functioning at present essentially is an apprenticeship program to the tool- and die makers' craft group represented by the Petitioner As such, the apprentices enrolled herein must be regarded as a proper part of the Petitioner 's Craft unit for pur- poses of representation and collective bargaining.