Intercontinental Engineering-Manufacturing Corp.

824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Intercontinental Engineering-Manufacturing Corporation and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 101, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Intercontinental Engineering-Manufacturing Corporation and District Lodge No. 71, International Association of Machin- ists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 17-RC-3461 and 17-RC- 3468. November 08, 1961 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS* Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Michael J. Lucero, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning 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. Petitioner Operating Engineers seeks a unit of all employees at the Employer's Kansas City, Missouri, plant, excluding truckdrivers and machinists. Petitioner Machinists seeks a unit composed of the machinists located in the Employer's machine shop. The Employer, however, contends that all of its employees, including both machinists and truckdrivers, constitute the only appropriate unit. There is no bargaining history affecting any of these employees. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and remanufacture of heavy industrial equipment and its components. Its plant is housed in three buildings. Building No. 1 contains a tractor assembly, dis- assembly, and remanufacture area and a storage area. Adjoining this .structure is building No. 2 which encloses an office area, a warehouse for spare parts, a repair area, the heating plant, and washrooms. Building No. 3 is located at a distance of 75 to 100 feet away from building No. 2 and houses a tractor repair unit, welding machinery, and the machine shop. There is no partition between the machine shop and the welding area. The Machinists seeks the six employees who work in the machine shop and who are classified as machinists. Though these employees *On December 22, 1961 , the Board amended the Decision and Direction of Elections to include employees of the Employer at its Parkville and Kansas City, Missouri , plants in the units found to be appropriate , in view of the fact that the Employer is in the process of moving its operations from its plant in Kansas City to a plant in Parkville , Missouri. 134 NLRB No. 93. INTERCONTINENTAL ENGINEERING MFG., CORP. 825 occasionally work in other areas of the plant, they spend approximate- ly 80 to 85 percent of the time in the machine shop where they operate various types of machine tools such as lathes, drill presses, and grind- ers and engage in other work associated with their trade. They are expected to keep to tolerance between one-thousandth and one ten- thousandth of an inch. Though the Employer does not maintain an apprenticeship program for any employees, those who work in the machine shop are advertised for, and hired in, as "machinists." If an employee proves unable to operate satisfactorily the shop equipment, he is discharged. In view of the.foregoing, we find that the machinists are craftsmen of the type which the Board has customarily held entitled to separate representation.' The Employer contends, in support of its position that a separate unit of machinists is not appropriate, that all employees including the machinists have the same employment benefits, that the machinists, as noted, occasionally work in other areas of the plant, and that the machinists are not separately supervised. It further points out that other employees in the plant can operate much of the machine shop equipment and frequently work in the machine shop when the work- load requires their help. Nevertheless, it is clear that the employees the Machinists seeks are the only employees in the plant that are hired in and classified as machinists and that no other employees regularly spend a substantial portion of their time working in the machine shop doing machinists' work. Under these circumstances, the factors relied on by the Employer do not preclude the separate representation of the machinists? Accordingly, we find no merit in the Employer's conten- tion. Consequently, and as the Operating Engineers does not seek to include the machinists in their plantwide unit, we find that the machinists constitute a separate appropriate unit.' As noted, the Operating Engineers seeks, over the Employer's ob- jection, to exclude from the plantwide unit the truckdrivers whom no union desires to represent separately. There are five truckdrivers. They are under general plant supervision and spend a small portion of their time working in the plant. However, 85 to 90 percent of their time is spent in making over-the-road deliveries throughout the United States. While so engaged, their hours of work and certain other con- ditions of employment are governed by I.C.C. regulations. However, the Board is presently reconsidering the problem of the unit placement of truckdrivers in plantwide units where, as here, a petitioner, con- trary to an employer, wishes them excluded and no union seeks to represent them separately. We can see no useful purpose in delaying the holding of an election here in the plantwide unit until that problem is resolved. Accordingly, we shall make at this time no final deter- Cf. Koppers Company, Inc., Chemical Division, Williams Plant, 117 NLRB 422, 427. a Cf. B. H. Hadley, Inc., 130 NLRB 1622. Cf. Balientine Packing Company, Inc., 132 NLRB 923. 826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD mination with respect to the unit placement of the drivers but permit them to vote subject to challenge in the election for unit (A) set, forth below. If the challenged ballots are determinative of the results or if the Operating Engineers is selected as the bargaining representative, the Board shall, sua sponte, when it has decided the proper unit placement of the truckdrivers, amend the unit accordingly' In view of the foregoing we find that the following employees of the Employer at its Kansas City, Missouri, plant constitute units appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining under Section 9(b) of the Act : (A) All employees excluding machine shop employees, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act; (B) All machinists 6 and machinists helpers, including the ma- chinist leadman, but excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] MEMBERS RODGERS and LEimoM concurring in part and dissenting in part: We agree with the majority that the machinists are craftsmen entitled to separate representation. However, for the reasons set forth in our dissenting opinion in the Ballentine case, supra, we would make no final unit determinations at this time with respect to the machinists but would provide for their inclusion in the overall unit should they fail to vote for separate representation. A production and mainte- nance unit that excludes certain unrepresented maintenance employees, such as the machinists, is an inappropriate unit and is plainly contrary to well-established Board precedent. Yet, if the machinists reject separate representation, the practical effect, deriving from the ma- jority position in the Ballentine case, will be a holding that such a partial production and maintenance unit is appropriate. As indicated, we did not subscribe to the Ballentine doctrine when it was announced. We do not subscribe to the present application of the doctrine, which results in an even further confusion of Board law with respect to bargaining units. As to the truckdrivers, the Board has long held that, where, as here, there is no agreement to exclude them and no union seeks to represent them separately, they must be included in a production and mainte- nance unit.' Nothing appears in this case warranting a departure from that policy. Consequently, unlike the majority, we would follow the established practice and include the drivers in the broader unit. 4 See Ben Pearson's Inc., 133 NLRB 636, footnote 5. s As we have found the requested unit appropriate on a craft basis, we have described the unit in terms of the craft classification involved, not in terms of the work area We have not, as requested by the Machinists Union included machinist apprentices in the unit as the record indicates there are no such employees 9 See, for example, National Welders Supply Company, Inc., 129 NLRB 514; Foremost Dairies, Inc., 118 NLRB 1424.