Dalmo Victor Co.

DALMO VICTOR COMPANY 1095 ure within the scope of the existing certified unit. Loews, Inc., 127 NLRB 976; General Electric Company, 120 NLRB 199. The Union also seeks clarification of the certified unit to include the coders. It contends that they were excluded from the unit in the prior consent-election case only because the Union relied upon the Employer's erroneous representation that the coders were technical employees. The classification of coders was in existence prior to the consent election in 1957. They did not vote in the election and have never been represented by any union. No effort was made by the Union to represent these employees until approximately 3 years after the Board certified the office clerical unit. The contract executed pur- suant to the certification did not include coders. We find, in view of the above and the entire record, that a motion for clarification is not the proper method for adding the excluded classification to the exist- ing unit, and that a representation petition is necessary seeking an election among the coders. We therefore deny the Union's motion for clarification as to the coders. General Electric Company, 119 NLRB 1233; Kiekhaefer Corporation, 119 NLRB 1097. In view of the above findings, we shall dismiss the Employer's peti- tion since it seeks only a segment of the employees in the existing unit, and therefore does not raise a question concerning representation within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. In addition, we hereby grant the Union's motion to clarify the certification of Office Employees International Union, Local 212, in Case No. 3-RC-1897 to include in the unit the employees in the data processing department. [The Board dismissed the petition.] Dalmo Victor Company and Tool and Die Craftsmen, National Independent Union Council,' Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC- 4489. August 18, 1961 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 M. C. Dempster, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Mem- bers Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning]. ' The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing. 132 NLRB No. 68. 1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 2 involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The Intervenor contends that the employees sought by the Peti- tioner are covered by an existing collective-bargaining agreement which constitutes a bar to the present petition. The Employer took no position on this issue, but requested Board determination. The Employer had been represented by California Metal Trades Association for collective-bargaining purposes since at least 1957, and the Intervenor has represented the employees of the Association mem- bers. The latest contract between the Association and the Intervenor expired on April 1, 1961. Contrary to its prior practice, the Em- ployer did not give the Association a power of attorney to negotiate a new contract on its behalf. Instead, on January 25, 1961, the Em- ployer and the Intervenor signed a separate memorandum of agree- ment in which they agreed to extend the terms of the existing associa- tionwide contract until a new contract was executed by the Intervenor and the Association. The memorandum also provided that, effective April 1, 1961, the Employer would be bound by any changes in wages, hours, working conditions, and employee benefits in the new Intervenor-Association contract, provided that these conditions or benefits were equal to or exceeded the contract provisions already in effect; otherwise, the conditions established by the old contract would be continued. At the close of the hearing on April 3, 1961, the Asso- ciation and the Intervenor had not yet reached a new agreement. The Intervenor did not specify which contract it alleges to be a bar, but we find there is no contract bar to this proceeding. The Em- ployer was bound by the Association contract on January 27, 1961, when the petition herein was filed, but, as the petition was timely filed between 150 and 60 days before the expiration date of this con- tract, we find that it is not a bar.' Furthermore, the memorandum of agreement between the Employer and the Intervenor, which has no fixed duration and whose terms are subject to change, is a temporary stopgap measure which the Board holds not to be a bar.' Accord- ingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning 2 International Association of Machinists was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contract interest. The Intervenor and the Employer failed to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organization As it exists for the purpose of bargaining with employers on behalf of its members , we find that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. See Friden Calculating Machine Co, Inc, et at, 110 NLRB 1618. 8 Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995. 4 Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers , 121 NLRB 990, 993 DALMO VICTOR COMPANY 1097 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 severance of tool and die makers, tool and die apprentices, tool and die machinists, and their leadmen,and work- ing foremen from a production and maintenance unit of employees of the Employer represented by the Intervenor. The Employer, which is engaged in the research and development of radar antennas and other electro-mechanical equipment, and the Intervenor contend that the unit is inappropriate because the skills and duties of those sought to be severed are the same as others in the production unit.' The tool and die makers, who have the equivalent of a 4-year apprenticeship, perform intricate functions on jigs, fixtures, models, and instruments, and are able to work without detailed instructions. Accordingly, we find that they are skilled craftsmen of the type to whom the Board customarily grants severance. The tool and die apprentices work in close proximity to the tool and die makers, are subject to a State- indentured apprenticeship program, and'are in the direct line of pro- gression to tool and die makers. Accordingly, we shall include them in the voting group with the tool and die makers. The tool and die machinists, who work in the same partitioned area under the same supervisor as tool and die makers, operate many different types of ma- chines, and produce parts without the aid of dies, fixtures, and jigs. They are included in three prior consent elections for severance of tool and die makers, none of which resulted in severance. In contrast, journeymen and maintenance machinists, who are not sought, work in the production area, perform repetitive tasks on one machine, and do not have, or exercise, the same degree of skill as the tool and die mach- inists. Accordingly, we shall include the tool and die machinists, but not the journeymen and maintenance machinists, in the voting group.' Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer may constitute,a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All tool and die makers, tool and die apprentices, tool and die machinists, and their leadmen and working foremen, at the Employer's Belmont, California, plant, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, watch- men, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. 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 in- structed to issue a certificate of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit described in paragraph numbered 4, which the Board, under None of the parties contends that the unit sought is inappropriate because it is limited to employees of the instant Employer. 6 See Friden Calculating Machine Co ., supra 1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority do not vote for the Petitioner, these employees shall remain a part of the existing unit and the Re- gional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Bugle Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc.; Industrial Laundry Corporation ; National Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc.; Standard Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc.; and Atlas Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc.' and Local 285, AFL-CIO, Laun- dry & Dry Cleaning International Union and Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 355, International Brotherhood ,of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioners. Cases Nos. 5-RC-3182 and 5-RC-3202. August 18, 1961 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 2 before Robert K. Knadler, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. 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. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section '9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 3 i The name of the Employer is amended to conform with the evidence and our findings therein. 2 The cases were consolidated for hearing by order of the Regional Director dated August 5, 1960. 8 The Employer's motion to dismiss on the grounds of inadequate showing of interest and extent of organization is denied. The sufficiency of a Petitioner' s showing of interest is an administrative matter not subject to litigation Moreover, we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner's showing is inadequate 0 D. Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516. The extent of organization contention is rendered moot by the Board's unit findings herein. 132 NLRB No. 104.