Borg-Warner Corp.

912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD our employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement . The appropriate unit is: All production and maintenance employees including salesmen-drivers and helpers, checker, special events department employees , and advertising depart- ment employees, but excluding outside solicitors, office clerical employees, pro- fessional employees, guards , and supervisors as defined in the Act. MIAMI COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. D/B/A KEY WEST COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO., Employer. 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 Resident Office, Room 104, 1200 SW First Street , Miami, Florida, 33135, Telephone No. 377-1114, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Ingersoll Products , Division ( Chicago Works) of the Borg- Warner Corporation and District No. 8, International Associa- tion of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 13-RC- 2736,13-RC-2737,13-RC-,0738, 13-RC-2739,13-RC-2740,13-RC- 2741, and 13-RC-4354. January 12, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CLARIFY BARGAINING UNITS On November 20, 1952, following an election conducted pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election,' the Board certified United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America , Local 139, here- inafter referred to as the UE , as the collective -bargaining represent- ative for all electricians and their helpers, and International Associa- tion of Machinists , District No. 8, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the IAM, as the collective-bargaining representative for mill- wrights, welders, carpenters, sheet metal workers, machine shop employees, and certain other related personnel . The UE certifica- tion was broadened in 1955 to include all production and mainte- nance employees. Thereafter, on September 8, 1964, the IAM filed a motion to clarify the units previously certified . The Employer and the UE were served with copies of the aforesaid motion and filed responses in opposition. None of the parties requested a hearing on the disposi- tion of the motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins]. 1 Issued October 20, 1952 . (Not published in NLRB volumes) 150 NLRB No. 78. LOCAL 34, INT'L MOLDERS & ALLIED WORKERS UNION 913 In its motion, the IAM requests the Board to clarify its 1952 cer- tification by determining "which bargaining unit shall perform the work of machining discs in the Machine Shop," and by directing the Employer "to assign the work in dispute to the Machinists." This work had originally been performed by a machinist working in the machine shop, but was then assigned by the Employer to a member of the UE when the old mill was shut down and a new one set up in the production area. When the Employer later sold the new machine and transferred the job back to the machine shop, it con- tinued to employ a member of the UE to perform the operation. It is this assignment of work which the IAM is seeking to change in its present motion. As stated, the expressed purpose of the IAM's motion is to have the Board assign work presently being done by a member of the UE unit to a member of the IAM unit. In The Gas Service Company case,2 the Board said : ... work assignment disputes are not properly matters for con- sideration and resolution in a representation proceeding. As the Board has said, its sole function in representation proceed- ings is to ascertain and certify the name of the bargaining rep- resentative, if any, that has been designated by the employees in the appropriate unit. It is not the Board's responsibility in representation proceedings to decide whether employees in the bargaining unit are entitled to do any particular work or whether an employer has properly reassigned work from em- ployees in the bargaining unit to other employees. As the motion does not raise a question concerning representation, we shall dismiss it. [The Board denied the motion to clarify bargaining units.] 2140 NLRB 445, 447. Local #34, International Molders and Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO [Malleable Iron Range Company ] and Daniel Gar- czynski. Case No. 30-CB-7 (formerly 13-CB-1576). January 12, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On July 20, 1964, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in his attached Decision. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed 150 NLRB No. 84.