United Metal Trades Association

410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Metal Trades Association and Albina Engine & Machine Works, Inc. and Local Lodge #63, In- ternational Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 36-RC-2378 and 36-RC-2383 June 26, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing ' was held before E. G. Strumpf, Hearing Officer. Following the hearing, this case was trans- ferred to the National Labor Relations Board in Washington , D.C., pursuant to Section 102.67(h) of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure , Series 8, as amended . Subsequently , the Employer , the Peti- tioner, and the Intervenor filed briefs with the Board which have been duly considered. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error . They are hereby af- firmed. Upon the entire record in these cases , the Board finds: 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employers. 3. No question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of certain employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9(c)(I) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons: The Petitioner, in Case 36-RC-2378, seeks an election for a multiemployer bargaining unit' com- posed of all tool-and-die makers, machinists, spe- cialists, helpers, cleanup men, and apprentices em- ployed by the employer-members of the United Metal Trades Association (herein called the As- sociation).' In Case 36-RC-2383, the Petitioner seeks an election for a single employer bargaining unit, composed of the above -described employees employed by Albina Engine & Machine Works, Inc. (herein called Albina). These employees are cur- rently represented by the Intervenor, Metal Trades Council of Portland and Vicinity, AFL-CIO ( herein also called the Council), a multiunion bargaining council of which the Petitioner is a member,4 as part of a multiemployer and a single employer unit, respectively. The collective-bargaining history shows that, in 1941, the Association, of which Albina was then a member, voluntarily recognized the Council as the exclusive bargaining representative for all produc- tion and maintenance employees employed by the employer-members of the Association. Since that time, the Council, acting on behalf of its con- stituents or International and local unions , has ex- ecuted and maintained successive collective-bar- gaining agreements with the Association covering the multiemployer production and maintenance unit, but since 1948 Albina has adopted the as- sociation contract.5The actual negotiations which resulted in these successive contracts were negotiated by bargaining teams representing the Council and its constituent members, on the one hand, and the Association and its employer-mem- bers, on the other. The latest such bargaining agreement was executed for a 3-year term , effective from April 1, 1965, to April 1, 1968, and provided that 60 days' written notice be given, by either party to the other, of a desire to terminate or modi- fy the terms of the agreement . Pursuant to the notice requirement, the Petitioner gave written ' Without objection , the Metal Trades Council of Portland and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of its then current contracts with both Employers ' Alternatively , the Petitioner requests single employer units of machin- ists for each of the employer-members of the Association ' The Association is currently composed of the following nine employer- members. ( I ) American Pipe & Construction Co., Northwest Division, (2) Beall Pipe and Tank Corporation , ( 3) Gunderson Bros Engineering Corp ; (4) Harris Thermal Transfer Products . Inc , (5) King Bros, Inc , (6) Mc- Culloch & Sons, ( 7)Monarch Forge & Machine Works, Inc, (8) Northwest Marine Iron Works , and (9 ) Willamette Iron and Steel Com- pany ' The following International and local unions are members of, and par- ticipate in bargaining through, the Council. (I and 2 ) International As- sociation of Machinists, Local No 63 and Local No 1005 , ( 3) Interna- tional Brotherhood of Boilermakers and Blacksmiths , Local No 72, (4) In- ternational Brotherhood of Electricians , Local No 48; (5) International Hod Carriers and Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local No 296, (6 ) International Union of Operating Engineers , Local No 87, (7) Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Local No 10, (8) Sheet Metal Workers Industrial Union (Local No. 544), and (9) International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America s Although it withdrew as a member of the multiemployer Association in or about 1948 , Alhina continued to recognize and bargain with the Council as the exclusive representative of its production and maintenance em- ployees And, without participating in joint employer negotiations , Albina has continued to adopt as its contract , the bargaining agreement reached between the Association and the Council 172 NLRB No. 52 UNITED METAL TRADES ASSN. 411 notice, on January 15, 1968, to the Council, the Association, and Albina, respectively, of its desire and intent to withdraw from multiunion bargaining and to pursue a separate course of bargaining on a single union basis, with the Association and Albina. In its letter to the Council, the Petitioner expressly rescinded all the authority which it had previously delegated to the Council to represent it in joint bar- gaining with the Employers. Thereafter, by letter of January 17, 1968, the Petitioner also requested that the Employers (i.e., the Association and Albina) set a time and place to commence contract negotia- tions on a single union basis with the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of their respective machinist employees. The Association and Albina rejected the Petitioner's request for such bargaining and, subsequently, the Petitioner filed its petitions herein. Contentions of the Parties The Petitioner contends that it effectively withdrew from the multiunion bargaining Council by giving timely and unequivocal notice to the Council and the Employers of its intent and desire to pursue a separate course of bargaining with the Association and Albina. In support of its conten- tion , the Petitioner relies essentially upon The Evening News Association," in which the Board recognized that labor unions have an equal right with employers to withdraw from multiemployer bargaining units . The Petitioner further contends that the machinist employees whom it seeks to represent as separate craft units are distinct and homogeneous groups of skilled craftsmen and, therefore, constitute appropriate craft units for pur- poses of severance from the overall production and maintenance units. The Employers and the Inter- venor, on the other hand, contend that the petitions must be dismissed on the grounds that the units sought by the Petitioner are inappropriate for severance in light of the criteria established and ap- plied by the Board in recent craft severance cases.7 Thus, the Employers and Intervenor also contend that the Board 's decision in The Evening News As- sociation , supra, is inapposite to the essential issue herein, namely, whether the units which Petitioner seeks to sever are appropriate. Discussion Based upon our consideration of the record herein, we agree with the Employers' contention and find that, in the circumstances of this case, the employees sought by the Petitioner do not con- stitute appropriate bargaining units.8 We reach this finding for the following reasons: The Employers, operating as separate entities, are engaged in the manufacture of various types of heavy machine products. These products are characteristically welded and machined at various stages before being fabricated into final form. Where work is performed by members of the Peti- tioner, it is frequently performed in conjunction with members of other trades, particularly with members of International Brotherhood of Boiler- makers and Blacksmiths, Local No. 72. Thus, although members of the Petitioner are assigned to a separate work area in the plant, their work com- prises an essential and integral part of the total production process, and, in actuality, they are required to work closely with other employees. As noted above, the parties herein have negotiated and executed successive collective-bar- gaining agreements on a multiemployer-multiunion basis for some 27 years. Significantly, there has been no change in the composition or makeup of either the Association or the Council in over 20 years of their bargaining history.9 The recognition clause of the current Shop Work Agreement for 1965-1968 states that "[t]he employers recognize the unions collectively acting through the Portland Metal Trades Council as the sole bargaining agents for the production and maintenance employees classified herein who are employed by the em- ployers." The Petitioner has consistently taken an active part in the contract 'negotiations, and its representative has served both as president of the Council and as chairman of its negotiating commit- tee. In fact, Petitioner participated in the agree- ment to extend the expiring contract in 1968, after it gave notice of its desired withdrawal. 154 NLRB 1494, enfd. 372 F 2d 569 (C A 6) Aeierican Pipe and Construction Co, 169 NLRB 991, Mallincdrodt Chemical Words. Uranium Division. 162 NLRB 387. "In view of this finding, we deem it unnecessary to consider the Peti- tioner 's contention that it has a right , under our ruling in The Evening Neu•% Association, supra , to withdraw from multiumon bargaining in the same manner and to the same extent that employers may withdraw from mul- ticmployer bargaining In that case , the Board majority stated, p 1498 . in multiunwn bargaining , once a broad unit has been established by consent , one of the constituent unions could not generally change the unit by unilateral action." "This is generally but not always true One of the constituent unions could sever a segment of the broader unit, if it filed a petition with the Board at an appropriate time, and if the smaller unit were otherwise appropriate It is to that last point only, the appropriateness of the units requested to be severed , that this decision is addressed Y In addition to Albma, as noted in fn 5 above, only one other employer (Parman & Ellis ), and two labor organvations have withdrawn from the Association and the Council, respectively, in their 27-year history. These changes, however, apparently were consented to by all parties and oc- curred more than 20 years ago 412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Under the contract all employees enjoy the same benefits regardless of their union affiliation. Thus, there is a single "journeyman" pay rate applicable to all journeyman employees. Vacations are uniformly accrued by all employees although they are scheduled on a departmental, rather than plant- wide basis. Only the pension plans, to which the Employers contribute a uniform amount, are separately administered by each of the Council's af- filiated unions. The contract provides a uniform grievance-arbitration procedure for all employees, although the first three steps thereof are handled by a representative of the particular union involved. The record indicates that the machinists employed by the smaller members of the Association share most of the plant facilities, such as parking areas, entrances, vending machines, timeclocks, lunchrooms, restrooms, and locker rooms, with other employees. Only at Willamette, which is the largest of the Association's nine members, do the machinists have separate facilities within their own work areas. There is also a degree of overlapping supervision at each of the Employers' plants, with machinists and nonmachinists working under the same supervision. Field work, also, according to the record, is performed on a "mixed crew" basis. And, although the Petitioner provides an extensive ap- prenticeship program, the record reveals that the Employers prefer to provide on-the-job training to their machinist employees in order to train them as specialists on a particular type of machine. There was substantial evidence in the record that the predominant pattern of employee representation and bargaining in like industry in the Portland area is through the multiunion representative, the Metal Trades Council of Portland, Intervenor herein. 10 American Pipe and Construction Ca ..supra. In that case, as here, the petitioning union contended that it had a right to withdraw from the mul- tiunion bargaining unit just as an employer has the right to withdraw from a multiemployer bargaining unit, pursuant to the Board's decision in The Evening News case, supra. However, the Board ruled that the union did not Therefore, upon our review of the record herein, we conclude that it wail not effectuate the purposes of the Act to permit the disruption of the existing established multiunion production and maintenance units by directing elections for separate representa- tion , as requested by the Petitioner . The employees whom the Petitioner seeks to sever from the broader existing units perform an integral function of the Employers' total production operation and, as such, they share a wide community of interests with other employees, represented by the Council with which all the unions are affiliated . On balance, therefore, we find that the interests of stability served by maintaining the existing bargaining units outweigh the interests served by permitting the machinists to change their mode of representation and thereby to disrupt the existing pattern of bar- gaining. In the light of the machinist employees' close functional integration in the Employers' operations, their community of interest with the production and maintenance employees , their long inclusion in the production and maintenance units , and the absence of any compelling countervailing con- siderations, we conclude that the units sought by the Petitioner are inappropriate . For the same reasons, the single employer units of machinist em- ployees for each of the nine employers in the As- sociation, alternatively requested by the Petitioner, are likewise inappropriate . Accordingly , we shall dismiss the petitions.10 ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petitions filed herein be, and they hereby are, dismissed. have such an automatic right of withdrawal , but that any right of a union to withdraw from a multiumon bargaining group would be determined on the basis of whether or not the unit sought to be represented on a single union basis constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit