Local 1, Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

LOCAL 1, INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS 581 (d) Additional copies of the attached notice shall be signed by Respondent's authorized representative, and forthwith returned to the aforesaid Regional Director for posting by Machnick Construction Co., Inc., said employer being willing, at its business offices and construction projects, where notices to its employees are customarily posted. (e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.13 ' In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision. shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 106, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERAT- ING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF MACHNICK CON- STRUCTION CO., INC. Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Machnick Construction Co., Inc., or any other employer, to discharge, demote, deny employment to, or otherwise discriminate against Raymond J. Dahoda because he is not a member of this union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce Raymond J. Dahoda, or any other employee, in the exercise of his rights guaranteed by Sec- tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL notify Machnick Construction Co., Inc., in writing, that we have no objection to, and we will not interfere with, its employment of Raymond J. Dahoda in the capacity of and as an operating engineer, whether he is a mem- ber of this union or not. WE WILL notify Raymond J. Dahoda that we have no objection to his em- ployment by Machnick Construction Co., Inc., in the capacity of and as an operating engineer, whether he is a member of this union or not, and that here- after we will not unlawfully infringe upon any right guaranteed to him by Sec- tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL make whole Raymond J. Dahoda for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. LOCAL 106, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York, Telephone No. TL 6-1782, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Local Union No. 1, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and McDonnell Aircraft Corporation and District No. 9, International Association of Machinists, AFL- CIO. Case No. 11-CD-157. April 1, 1964 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act follow- ing charges filed by McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, herein called the 146 NLRB No. 73. 582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employer, alleging that Local Union No. 1, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent, had threatened to strike the Employer with an object of forcing or re- quiring the Employer to assign particular work to members of the Re- spondent rather than to members of District No. 9, International As- sociation of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein called the TAM. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Joseph H. Solien between October 29 and November 12, 1963. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer, the Respondent, and the TAM have filed briefs herein which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 1 makes the following findings : 1. The business of the Employer The Employer is a Maryland corporation with its principal office and place of business at Lambert Field, St. Louis County, Missouri, where it is engaged in the manufacture of aircraft, missiles, space ve- hicles, and supporting devices. The Employer annually ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its St. Louis County estab- lishment to customers located outside the State of Missouri, and has supplied goods valued in excess of $1,000,000 for the national defense. 2. The labor organizations involved Respondent and the TAM are labor organizations within the mean- ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The dispute The Work at Issue The work in dispute is the electrical wiring and repair of the ceramic hot-form die, an item of production tooling, utilized in the production process to shape or form metallic parts of airplanes and other products of the Employer. The Basic Facts In 1941, the TAM was certified as bargaining representative of all the Employer's production and maintenance employees and it con- tinued to represent that unit until 1948 when Respondent was certified, pursuant to a craft severance election, as bargaining representative of 'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three -member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning. and Brown]. LOCAL 1, INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS 583 a unit of maintenance and construction electricians. At the time of the latter certification, the Employer was not engaged in the fabrica- tion of the ceramic hot-form die, hereinafter referred to as CHFD. The nature of the Employer's business has changed radically in recent years and the Employer is now engaged not only in the production of supersonic aircraft and missiles, but also in the development and manu- facture of space vehicles, missiles, and ground support equipment. The CHFD is an item of production tooling developed by the Em- ployer to meet certain product specifications in the production process and is the evolutionary outgrowth of a long period of experimentation with various other types of hot-forming dies. Its development was made possible because of the recent availability of a new ceramic ma- terial known as "glass rock." When the CHFD was in the experimental and testing stages and there were neither blueprints nor wiring diagrams available, main- tenance electricians were assigned the task of inserting heating ele- ment wires in the dies under the direction of a senior tool designer, while tool-and-die makers and other employees of the tooling depart- ment who are also represented by the IAM performed the remainder of the work. When the CHFD became a regular item of production tool- ing, the maintenance electricians continued to install the wiring, which is one of the last stages in its fabrication. This assignment continued until February 1963, when the Employer assigned the work to tool- and-die makers represented by the IAM. Respondent protested this assignment and threatened strike action. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that the CHFD, as an item of production tooling, should, logically, and in the interest of efficiency, be fabri- cated in its entirety in the tooling department so as to eliminate dual- ity of both supervision and union work jurisdiction with their consequent delays and disruption of production schedules; that the tool-and-die makers, to whom the work is now assigned, possess the necessary skills to perform the task, which is very simple; and that the disputed work is part of a production process which is unrelated to the maintenance of the plant electrical system and the plant elec- trical equipment which is the responsibility of employees represented by the Respondent. The IAM joins in the Employer's contentions. The Respondent questions the Employer's motivation in reassign- ing the work in, dispute to the tool-and-die makers. It contends that its members have traditionally performed electrical work on not only the CHFD but on many other items of production tooling on which they still perform the electrical work such as the wiring of jigs and fixtures, compression molds, punchpress dies, and hot-form dies in 584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD general, and that tool-and-die makers do not possess the skills needed to do electrical wiring. Applicability of the Statute The charge, which was duly investigated by the Regional Director, -alleges a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (B) of the Act. We are satis- fied on the basis of'the record evidence that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of that section has been committed. We therefore find that a jurisdictional dispute exists and that it is prop- erly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. Merits of the Dispute 'Section 10 (k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of disputed work, after giving due consideration to various relevant factors. The following factors bearing on the merits of the =dispute are asserted in support of the claims of the parties herein : 1. Historical development The CHFD, as indicated above, was developed by the Employer as the evolutionary outgrowth of a long process of experimentation with other types of hot-form dies. It appears that throughout the period of experimentation with other types of dies, and in the developmental stages of the CHFD itself, the electrical wiring was performed by maintenance electricians working under the direction of tool design- ers. Eventually, however, the CHFD became a standard and recur- ring item of production tooling. Uncontradicted testimony indicates that the work of wiring the CHFD is presently 'a simple task which may be performed effectively by employees who can distinguish colors and follow an uncomplicated wiring diagram. The assignment of the disputed work to the IAM reflects'the Employer's judgment, which is supported by the record, that standardization of the CHFD at its present level of development no longer requires the superior electrical skills and 'abilities of the maintenance electricians. 2. Collective-bargaining agreements Both of the contending unions claim the disputed work on the basis of their respective collective 'bargaining agreements with the Em- ployer. Neither agreement, however, refers specifically to the partic- ular work in question. In fact, the work assignment and job de- scription portions of both contracts antedate -the development of the CHFD. The recognition clause of the IAM contract embraces the LOCAL 1 , INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS 585 category of tool-and-die maker and the job description for that cate- gory, which is made a part of the contract, reads: Plan, construct, alter or repair tools such as dies (e.g., hydro- press, form and compound), tools (e.g., Kellar templates, drill- plates and bars) gauges ... . The job description contained in Respondent's current contract provides : Employees covered hereunder shall install, maintain, repair, re- place and care for the entire plant electrical system and plant electrical equipment including refrigeration, air conditioning and the maintenance and operation of cranes from cabs, and includ- ing the power supply apparatus which requires adjustment and minor replacement and/or modification necessary to obtain de- sired engineering results of tests. It appears from the foregoing that while neither contract treats specifically of the CHFD, the IAM contract does treat generally of the construction and repair of form dies. 3. Skills and work involved Wiring of the CHFD, as noted above, is not a difficult or complex 'operation at the present time, although a knowledge of electricity and the peculiar skills of a trained electrician appear to have been required when the die was in its early stages of development. The operation, in its present form, consists of threading colored wires through holes in the ceramic body of the die in accordance with a wiring diagram. Record testimony indicates' that it is a relatively simple tack which requires neither special training nor prolonged instruction. Both contending groups possess the skills requisite to performthe disputed work. 4. Efficiency of operation The record indicates that the work in dispute, one of the last opera- tions performed in connection with production of a CHFD, was, prior to its assignment to the tool-and-die makers, the only produc- tion operation on the die performed by employees outside of the tooling department. Prior to the assignment in dispute, electrical wiring of the die was done by maintenance electricians who are neither ,employed in nor under the supervision of the tooling department. Rather, they are employed in the plant engineering department and are supervised by the plant engineer and his subordinate supervisors who are concerned with maintenance activities in the plant. 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD . Testimony at the hearing disclosed that, when maintenance elec- tricians were performing the wiring of the CHFD, serious delays of from 2 or 3 days to a week resulted from waiting to have them assigned to the job by their department; that they were often called away from the job before it was completed in order to handle maintenance work elsewhere in the plant; and that when they arrived in the tooling department to wire the CHFD, the maintenance electricians had to study the drawings to familiarize themselves with the distribution of the electrodes in the die. It appears that the wiring of the CHFD is more efficiently performed by one department as a continuous operation. Merits of the Dispute Upon consideration of all pertinent factors in the record we shall assign the work in dispute to the tool-and-die makers represented by the IAM. They are as skilled in the performance of the work as the maintenance electricians who compete for it and their efficiency in performing the integrated task of wiring and repairing the CHFD upon completion of their earlier operations in its fabrication, in it sequential operation under their own supervisors and within the same department, is superior to that demonstrated by the maintenance electricians. The Employer has awarded the work to the tool-and- die makers and desires to retain those employees in this work. This assignment is consistent with the terms of the IAM contract. We shall, therefore, determine the dispute by deciding that tool- and-die makers rather than maintenance electricians are entitled to perform the work in question. Our present determination is limited to the particular dispute which gave rise to this proceeding.' In making this determination we are assigning the disputed work to tool- and-die makers represented by the IAM but not to the IAM or -its members. We find that Respondent is not and was not entitled by means pro- scribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act to force or require the Employer to assign the disputed work to maintenance electricians rather than to tool-and-die makers. Determination of Dispute Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following determination of dispute, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act : 1. Tool-and-die makers of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, cur- rently represented by District No. 9, International Association of 2 There is no warrant for broadening the scope of this proceeding, as urged by the JAM and the Employer, to encompass the entire area of production tooling. SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 587 Machinists, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of wiring and repairing the ceramic hot-form die used in the fabrication of metal parts for aircraft and missiles. 2. Local Union No. 1, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act to force or require the Employer to assign the above work to maintenance electricians. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute, Local Union No. 1, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to maintenance electricians rather than to tool-and-die makers. Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc. and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Ind. and Jerome Wiezycki. Cases Nos. 7-CA-4169, 7-CA-4209, 7-CA-4227, 7-CA-4227(2), and 7-CA- 4227(4). April 2, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On November 15, 1963, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommeding that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a sup- porting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem- bers Leedom and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and, brief, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' conclusions,' and 'recommendations. i The Respondent has excepted to the credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner. It is the Board's established policy, however, not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolu- tions with respect to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3). 2 The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent discriminatorily dis- charged employees Ecker, Nieman , Burnell, and Wiezycki in violation of Section 8(a) (3) 146 NLRB No. 78.