Kennecott Copper Corp.

582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Kennecott Copper Corporation 1 and International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge #1563. Cases Nos. 33-RC-31, 33- RC-32, 33-RC-33, 33-RC-34, 33-RC-35, 33-RC-36, and 33-RC- 39.2 June 12, 1960 ORDER DENYING MOTION On August 31, 1948, following an election pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, the Board certified the Inter- national Association of Machinists as the collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the Employer's employees in a unit including all churn- drillers, helpers, shovel runners, oilers, hoistmen, crane operators (locomotive and clamshell), stationary compressormen, and bulldozers at Santa Rita, New Mexico, and all shovel runners at Hurley, New Mexico, excluding supervisors. On February 28, 1962, the Union 3 filed a motion for clarification of the above unit, alleging that certain employees have been assigned to the work of operating hoists in a recently established skip haulage system, and requesting that the Board clarify the above unit to include these employees. Thereafter, on March 7, 1962, the Employer filed a response in opposition to the motion to clarify, contending that it does not presently have employees with the job titles of hoistmen, and that the production work of the recently established skip haulage sys- tem has been assigned to Local 890 of the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, the collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the residual unit of production and maintenance em- ployees. On March 23, the Board issued an order referring the mat- ter to the Regional Director of the Twenty-eighth Region directing that a hearing be held for the purpose of taking testimony with respect to the issues raised by the motion to clarify. Accordingly, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Dennie Gooch, on April 10, 1962. At the hearing, International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, and Local 890, International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, intervened. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. i Since the certification issued the Employer's name has changed to Kennecott Copper Corporation, Chino Mines Division. 2 The motion was filed stating Case No. 33-RC-34; however our records show the unit for which clarification is sought is also covered by these cases numbers. 8 The instant motion was filed by International Association of Machinists , Local Lodge ## 1563. The certification involved runs to an International Association of Machinists, however, it appears that Local Lodge ## 1563 filed said petition in conjunction with and on behalf of International Association of Machinists. 137 NLRB No. 71. KENNECOTT COPPER CORPORATION 583 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 McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. At the hearing, the Union contended that employees called skip operators perform duties in conjunction with a newly instituted skip haulage system which parallel the duties of hoistmen covered by their certification. The Employer and the Intervenors contend that the skip operators' work is not that of hoistmen but similar to the duties of the skip tender and eager, categories included in the Intervenors' residual unit of production and maintenance employees. Until about 1952 the Employer operated two vertical shaft under- ground zinc mines. A skip haulage system was used to transport per- sonnel and ore material. At the bottom of the system there was either- a skip tender who loaded the material into the skips through the use of an air-activated gate, or a eager who placed an ore car in the cage. The skips or cages were then transported to the surface on a hoist operated by a hoistman who, in response to signals from the skip tenders or eager, activated electric- or air-power-driven equipment and then through the manipulation of a brake controlled the ascent or descent including the rate of speed and where the skip or cage was to- stop. The hoistman was also responsible for the minor adjustment of the clutches in his equipment. Under the present system, in a copper mining operation, the skip operator, the category in question, handles the loading of the skips by pushing buttons on a control panel. He then moves the skip up an incline by pushing another button which activates an electric motor and electronic devices programed to automatically activate a double- drum hoist and to cause the skip to move at a predetermined speed and to stop at a predetermined point. The skip operator does not handle any of the adjustments to the system. We agree with the Employer and the Intervenors that the skip opertors are not properly includible in the Union's unit as hoistmen, as the record does not show that the skip operators perform duties similar to those of the hoistmen in the former operation.' Accord- ingly, we shall dismiss the motion. [The Board denied the motion of the International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge $1563, to clarify the certification issued in Cases Nos. 33-RC-31, 33-RC-32, 33-RC-33, 33-RC-34, 33-RC-35,. 33-RC-36, and 33-RC-39.] 'Cf. The Purdy Compay, 123 NLRB 1630