Lapp Insulator Co., Inc.

596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lapp Insulator Co., Inc. and Federal Labor Union No. 22485 and District No. 6, International Association of Machinists, AFL- CIO. Cases Nos. 3-R-210 and 3-RC-1164. December 23, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION By a motion to clarify collective-bargaining units filed with the Board on August 31, 1964, the Employer sought to ascertain whether the certification of District No. 6, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO (IAM), or that of Federal Labor Union No. 22485 (FLU) properly covered certain employees to be transferred to two newly constructed buildings. In support of their positions, each of the two unions filed documents with the Board, the FLU requesting a hearing. 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 Fanning and Jenkins]. The Board finds that the factual allegations in the Employer's motion are uncontested by any party, and that no purpose would be served by conducting a hearing. Accordingly, the Board finds : In 1940, the Employer conducted its entire operation in a single main plant building. That same year the hourly paid production and maintenance employees, in an election the results of which were certified by the Regional Director, designated the FLU to represent them in collective bargaining with the Employer. FLU and the Employer then reached an agreement containing the following rec- ognition clause : Article 1-The Company recognizes the Union as the sole collective-bargaining agent for its hourly employees during the term of this agreement. Expansion of the Employer's operations required the construction in 1952 of a machine shop building to which a number of the employees were transferred. On April 22, 1953, pursuant to a stipu- lation for certification upon consent election, the National Labor Relations Board certified the IAM as the representative of a machine shop unit, consisting of all the employees in the following unit : THE APPROPRIATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT-All Machine Shop employees presently employed in Departments 12, 15, 18, and 19 .... By the end of January 1965, the Employer expects to complete construction of two more buildings, the special grinding building 150 NLRB 53. LAPP INSULATOR CO., INC. 597 and the special bushing manufacture and grinding building. The Employer contemplates the transfer of employees to these new buildings from both the main plant and the machine shop. Whether the certification of the FLU or the IAM properly covers the proposed machine shop transferees is the question raised by the Employer in its request for clarification of the units.' These trans- ferees are now represented by the IAM and work in the machine shop in department 12. The transfer will divide them into two groups. The first group of 15 employees will move to the special grinding building where they will continue to grind porcelain and metal. The other four employees will be transferred to the special bushing manufacture and grinding building where they, too, will continue to perform grinding work similar to that which they per- formed in the machine shop. Separate collective-bargaining agreements were signed with the FLU and the IAM in June 1953 and again in 1955. Pursuant thereto, the FLU represented "production and maintenance employ- ees ... exclusive of all Machine Shop employees ... permanently assigned to ... the Machine Shop." On the other hand, the IAM represented "all employees permanently assigned in the ... Machine Shop or any addition thereto . ' .. regardless of any change in geo- graphical location or department number." Applying the above agreements, the FLU, IAM, and the Employer agreed in the past that two employees, classified in department 12, who were transferred from the machine shop to the main plant, there continuing to perform their grinding work, should remain in the IAM unit. Relying on the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements, the manner in which the parties have applied the agreements, and the scope of the appropriate unit as defined in IAM's 1952 certification, the Board concludes that IAM's certification properly covers those employees to be transferred from the machine shop. The crucial element in the Board's view is this: An employee who has trans- ferred out of the machine shop should continue to be covered by the TAM certification if he continues to do machine shop work. In the present case, after transferring to the new buildings, all former machine shop employees will be performing machine shop work, and not regular production or maintenance work. 1 The Employer asks for clarification of both "units ." We deem it unnecessary to clarify the FLU certification in view of the lack of conflict concerning the additional transferees. They are represented by the FLU and apparently will perform functions as inspectors , testers, and gaugers, and in packing , pugging, turning, kiln burning, and shipping. 598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the appropriate unit covered by the certification of District No. 6, International Association of Machin- ists, AFL-CIO, in Case No. 3-RC-1164, be, and it hereby is, clarified so as to include the following : (a) Those employees now classified in department 12, who are to be transferred from the machine shop to the special grinding building to perform the same work as they are now doing in the machine shop. (b) Those employees now classified in department 12, who are to be transferred from the machine shop to the special bushing manufacture and grinding building to perform the same work as they are now doing in the machine shop. Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated i and International Asso- ciation of Machinists, Ranger District No. 49, Petitioner. Case No. 28-RC-133. December 24, 1964 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 Hearing Officer J. W. Cherry. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2 Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 3 finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris- diction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9 (c) (1) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons. The Employer is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. It is engaged in the distribution of merchandise throughout the United States through a system of retail, mail-order, and catalog stores. The subject case concerns only the retail store in Thomas Mall, Phoenix, Arizona. 1 As amended at the hearing. 2 After the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director issued an order trans- ferring this case to the Board for decision. 8 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 Fanning and Brown]. 150 NLRB No. 56.