Motor Wheel Corp.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Motor Wheel Corporation and International Society of Skilled Trades, a/w American Craftsmen Asso- ciation, Petitioner. Case 7-RC-14244 January 20, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY On April 1, 1977,1 the International Society of Skilled Trades, a/w American Craftsmen Associa- tion, herein called Petitioner, filed a petition under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, seeking to sever from an existing unit of production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's Lansing plant a unit of all toolroom depart- ment employees, all maintenance department em- ployees, and all first aid nurses.2 The Regional Director for Region 7 conducted an investigation and, on July 5, administratively dismissed the peti- tion. In so doing, he found that the group of employees sought to be represented by Petitioner was neither a homogeneous group of skilled journeymen craftsmen nor a group of employees constituting a functionally distinct department with a separate community of interest warranting their severance from the broader existing production and mainte- nance unit.3 Thereafter, on July 21, Petitioner filed a request for review of the Regional Director's dismis- sal, contending that the appropriateness of separate tool department and maintenance department units could best be determined after a formal hearing. The Board, in considering Petitioner's request for review, concluded that it raised substantial questions as to the potential appropriateness of the proposed toolroom unit which could best be resolved on the basis of record testimony. Therefore, by ruling of August 18, the Board reinstated the petition insofar as it related to the proposed toolroom unit, and remanded the case to the Regional Director for the purpose of arranging a hearing on this issue.4 A hearing was subsequently held on September 13 l Unless otherwise indicated, all dates are 1977. 2 Allied Industrial Workers of America, Local 182, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as Intervenor, was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of its current contract covering the Employer's production and maintenance employees. 3 Petitioner's original petition. dated April I, included the following employee classifications in the petitioned-for unit: All tool room employees, including pipe and die welders, heat treat employees, gauge checkers, all maintenance employees including steel workers. electricians, plumbers, millwright and machine repair employ- ees, carpenter and furniture repair employees, building and equipment repair employees, painters and glaziers, garage mechanics and oilers; all first aid nurses, including RNs and LPNs; but excluding die storage employees; tool engineering employees; yard laborers, including specialty A; paint mixers; experimental painters; power plant employ- ees; time clerks, including specialists; production employees, including set up and floor inspection employees; material handling employees; 234 NLRB No. 70 before Hearing Officer Joseph Canfield. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Regional Director for Region 7, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. Briefs have been timely filed by the Employer, the Petition- er, and the Intervenor. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 5 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. For the reasons set forth below, we find that no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(cXl) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Employer, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, employs approximately 2,700 production and maintenance employees at its Lansing, Michigan, plant, where it is engaged in the manufacture of wheels and braked- rums. The Intervenor has since 1937 continuously represented these production and maintenance em- ployees, 6 with its most recent contract having been signed in 1977 and due to expire in 1980. Petitioner seeks to sever from this production and maintenance unit a toolroom unit which, as described at the hearing, would consist of approximately 138 hourly paid employees. 7 inspection employees; office clerical employees; technical employees; truck drivers; guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. Member Murphy would also have granted a hearing on the question of the possible appropriateness of the maintenance unit. 5 Petitioner has requested oral argument. This request is hereby denied as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 6 This fact was stipulated to by the parties at the hearing. When recognized by the Employer as the exclusive bargaining representative of its production and maintenance employees at the Lansing plant in 1937, the Intervenor was known as the UAW-AFL. In 1955 it changed its name to the Allied Industrial Workers of America. I Although the department designated by the Employer as the toolroom department is comprised of approximately 171 hourly rated employees, Petitioner, as more fully discussed below, does not seek to represent 358 MOTOR WHEEL CORPORATION Following the Board's remand on the issue of the appropriateness of the toolroom unit, Petitioner at the hearing amended its original petition8 to request a unit described as follows: All employees of the tool and die department who work on tools, dies, jigs, fixtures and production tools and equipment, but excluding all production and maintenance employees, technical employ- ees, guards, truck drivers, and supervisors as defined in the Act. In response to queries of the Hearing Officer, Petitioner further clarified the requested unit by stating that such unit would include gauge checkers, but exclude sweepers, bellhops, pipe and die welders, heat treat employees, tool engineering employees, die storage employees, oilers, chip haulers, and toolroom clerks. While stating that it considered the toolroom unit described above appropriate, Petitioner also stated that it would accept the "tool room grouping of the department, as we had originally petitioned for" if the Board so desired. The Employer and Intervenor oppose severance, contending that the group of employees sought to be severed by Petitioner does not comprise a separate homogeneous unit whose bargaining interests would best be served by such separate representation. Both maintain that the factors set forth in the Board's decision in Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Uranium Division, 162 NLRB 387 (1966), as appropriate areas of inquiry relative to craft severance petitions, do not militate in favor of Petitioner. Upon a review of the record made at the hearing, we are persuaded that the petitioned-for toolroom unit is inappropriate for severance from the broader existing unit. The Employer's Lansing operation consists of four separate manufacturing divisions, each of which fabricates a particular product line. Division I makes wheels, styled wheels and original equipment wheels; Division 2 manufactures automotive brakedrums; Division 3 manufactures truck drums; and Division 4, a centrifugal foundry, manufactures rough brake- drums.9 The Employer receives steel in coils, processes it into sheets for either a wheel or brakedrum product, then moves it into the respective depart- ments for fabrication of its various product lines. The Employer supplies wheels and drums to all of the major automotive manufacturers, truck products to the truck manufacturers, and some ordnance parts. Production and maintenance employees in the Em- ployer's Divisions 1, 2, and 3 have been continuously represented by the Intervenor since 1937. approximately 20 die storage employees, 9 pipe and die welders, and 4 heat treat employees classified by the Employer as part of its toolroom department. I See fn. 3, supra. The tool and die department, which Petitioner seeks to sever, cuts across product lines and services Divisions 1, 2, and 3. It consists of a central toolroom, located in a partitioned-off area between Divisions I and 2; a tool fabrication department, designated as Department 34, which is a caged-in area located in Division 3; and, a die storage component located in Division 1. Petitioner's re- quested unit would exclude all of the approximately 20 die storage employees who assemble and disas- semble dies on the production machinery, and who transport these dies between manufacturing areas and the toolroom. Central toolroom employees, of whom there are approximately 125, build tools, dies, fixtures, and gauges for use in the Employer's production process. They also make replacement parts needed for the production machinery on both a regular and a "demand" basis, as when a machine breaks down. These individuals are classified into four groupings: die grinders; lathers and shapers; a bench group; and machine repairmen. Central toolroom employees operate such tools as lathes, milling machines, grinders, drill presses, and welding machines. The approximately 13 Department 34 employees maintain reamers, grinders, and various types of cutting tools for the various product divisions. Located in Division 3 where they can provide immediate tool maintenance services in that produc- tion area, these employees sharpen drills, reamers, and other such equipment for all the production departments. A toolroom superintendent oversees the operations of the central toolroom, Department 34, and die storage, as well as other workers not in the peti- tioned-for unit. Employees under his general supervi- sion who are either not part of the tool and die department or are excluded from the unit sought by Petitioner include bellhops, toolroom sweepers, heat treat employees, and pipe and die welders. Reporting to the toolroom superintendent are supervisors for each of the toolroom components, including central toolroom and Department 34 general foremen. The entire tool and die department is under the supervi- sion of the Employer's manager of engineering, to whom the toolroom superintendent reports. As a general rule, manufacturing employees do not do work in the central toolroom or Department 34. Nor do toolroom employees, with the exception of die tryout men, generally work in the production areas. Die tryout men, a classification within the central toolroom bench group, spend a substantial a The employees in Division 4, which is the foundry, are represented by Allied Industrial Workers, Local No. 2, another labor organization, and are not concerned in the issue herein. 359 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD portion of their time in the production areas engaged in the assembly and installation of dies. Maintenance employees, such as electricians, plumbers, mill- wrights, carpenters, and pipefitters, regularly perform repairs or maintenance functions in the toolroom, where they are then under the overall supervision of the toolroom supervisor. A majority of the toolroom employees have been promoted from production jobs into toolroom posi- tions through the Employer's so-called upgrader system. Under this program, production workers who can demonstrate some machining ability receive approximately 18 months of on-the-job training qualifying them for toolroom jobs as such positions become available. Production workers in the upgrad- er program are classified as bellhops while awaiting toolroom job openings. As bellhops, these upgraders essentially perform stock and errand-running func- tions for the central toolroom. Although toolroom employees hired from outside the production unit are expected to have 8 years of experience or a journey- man's card, there is no evidence on the record as to how many of the toolroom employees in fact hold a journeyman's card or meet the 8 years of experience requirement. The record testimony does indicate that the bulk of the toolroom employees have come up from production, and that approximately 89 of the current 122 central toolroom employees were pro- moted to their positions through the Employer's upgrader system. It was further testified that a high percentage of these employees are single-purpose operators, trained only to operate one machine, and without multiple machining experience. Upgrader employees, i.e., former production em- ployees trained as toolroom employees, carry dual seniority under the Employer's collective-bargaining agreement, maintaining their production department seniority while accumulating tool and die depart- ment seniority. The upgrader's production depart- ment seniority is frozen when he or she commences toolroom work. This allows the upgrader holding dual seniority to bump back into a nonskilled production job and displace a less senior production department employee in the event of a layoff in the toolroom. All the employees in the petitioned-for unit are hourly rated and, except as stated below, receive the same general company benefits as pro- duction and maintenance workers. Thus, they work the same hours, punch the same timeclock, use the same facilities, such as restrooms, lunchrooms, vend- ing machines, medical department, and parking lot, and participate in company recreational and social activities. They also receive the same contractual fringe benefits. to The contract contains five separate apperdages relating to the following: tool and die department; tool engineenng department; mainte- nance crafts; first aid nurses; semi-city and overland drivers. However, the current and past collective-bargain- ing agreements covering production and mainte- nance employees have also included special provi- sions dealing with the tool and die department. Under contractual appendage 1, tool and die em- ployees enjoy separate departmental seniority, higher wage rates, and different overtime, night work, and promotion benefits than do production employees. Similar special appendages covering other skilled employees within the unit are also included.10 The testimony indicates that separate apprenticeship pro- grams for tool and die employees, electricians, millwrights, plumbers, and perhaps some other clas- sifications, have also recently been negotiated, al- though not yet implemented. The actual plans and their anticipated effective dates are not in the record. The record shows that tool and die employees have participated significantly in union affairs of the Intervenor. The chairman of the Intervenor's bar- gaining committee during the last contract negotia- tions was a tool and die department employee. Toolroom employees have attended union "work- horse" meetings wherein they have discussed parti- cularized problems, and have participated in special meetings of skilled trades regarding their own over- time and seniority policies. They have also freely utilized the contractual grievance procedure, with approximately 15 percent of the 1976 contractual grievances reduced to writing having concerned toolroom employees. Toolroom employees receive special representation regarding grievances in that the current contract provides that their grievances may only be discussed if a union representative from their department is present. The same is true of other skilled classifications covered in the five contract appendages. The bargaining relationship between the Employer and Intervenor has been a long and stable one. There have been only two strikes in their 40-year bargain- ing history, one in 1971 and one in 1974. Other than a 1959 election wherein tool and die department employees rejected separate representation by Peti- tioner, and electricians also rejected separate repre- sentation, none of the skilled classifications within the production and maintenance unit have sought separate representation. The current contract be- tween the Employer and Intervenor was executed as recently as June 1977, and runs for a period of 3 years. As further disclosed by the record, the general pattern of bargaining at the Employer's several other plants located throughout the United States and Canada has been to include employees such as those sought by Petitioner in an overall unit of production 360 MOTOR WHEEL CORPORATION and maintenance employees. Nowhere within the Motor Wheel Corporation does there exist a unit such as that sought by Petitioner. Nor was evidence adduced at the hearing indicative of a pattern of dual representation such as that sought herein elsewhere in the industry. Petitioner's experience in representing employees such as those petitioned for, as disclosed by record testimony, is minimal. Petitioner contends that it was established in 1954 for the purpose of representing skilled groupings of employees already represented in broader units. It further contends that it is uniquely qualified to represent such employees. While the record does not cast doubt on these assertions, it does show that Petitioner does not currently repre- sent any units composed exclusively of toolroom employees. Nor does it represent any employees under contract at this time. The tool and die employees whom Petitioner seeks to represent separately cut across product lines and provide an integral service to the Employer's Divi- sions 1, 2, and 3. Thus, without the input of the tool and die department the production process would come to a halt. The Employer's manager of engineer- ing estimated that the production department could probably not function more than 2 or 3 days without the toolroom. The tools and dies used in the production process are, as stated, fabricated at the Lansing plant, with toolroom work seldom being subcontracted. Subcontracting of toolroom work had occurred only twice in the past year, when the Employer would otherwise have been unable to meet its delivery schedule even though the toolroom employees were working overtime. " Member Murphy, while agreeing with the result reached herein, does so without endorsing all aspects of Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Uranium Division, supra. She bases her conclusion, rather, on the facts of this case, and upon a balancing of sometimes conflicting statutory policies. Thus, while Sec. 9(b) of the Act requires that the Board shall decide in each case the unit appropriate for collective bargaining "in order to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the nghts guaranteed by this Act," that decision must be made in conformance with the Act's underlying policy of fostering and promoting stability in labor relations. Where these two policies come into conflict, as in the instant case, the Board must carefully weigh all countervailing considerations in reaching its decision. Here, the nghts of the employees in the requested separate unit must be measured against the broader goal of promoting and encouraging continued stability in the Employer's total bargaining relationship. The Board Based on the foregoing, we are unable to conclude that the group of employees sought by Petitioner herein is either a homogeneous group of skilled journeymen craftsmen or a group of employees constituting a functionally distinct department. The toolroom operations are an integral part of the production process, with any work stoppage likely to have an immediate and adverse impact on the Employer's production operations. The majority of toolroom employees have come up from production and have received only limited on-the-job training with respect to a particular machine. Thus, the record shows they are not true craftsmen. Moreover, because of the way they came up, they carry dual seniority evidencing a community of interest with the production and maintenance unit. Toolroom em- ployees have been active in the affairs of the Intervenor, have received special contractual recog- nition of their particular representational needs, and have regularly utilized the contractual grievance procedure to resolve their disputes with the Employ- er. On these facts, and given the long and stable history of collective bargaining and the general absence of such dual representation at the Employ- er's other plants or within the industry, we do not believe it would effectuate the policies and purposes of the Act to sever the requested unit from the established production and maintenance unit. Ac- cordingly, we find that the unit is inappropriate for severance and we shall dismiss the petition." ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. therefore must apply its expertise in striking a balance between the two. The Employer and Intervenor herein have enjoyed a 40-year harmonious bargaining relationship. Within that relationship, the employees have actively participated in the affairs of the Intervenor and have been accorded recognition of their representational needs. Moreover, the record shows that the employees do not comprise either a traditional craft unit or a departmental unit with a strong cranf nucleus. While such units might well be appropriate for severance, here the record shows that a majority of the employees in the requested unit are single-purpose operators who attained their skilled status through limited on-the-job training. On these facts, Member Murphy gives greater weight to maintaining the long established bargaining relationship than to those factors favoring severance, and finds severance inappropriate. 361