Allison Steel Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 723 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

ALLISON STEEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 723
foregoing, and the entire record, we find that the employees
in question are ineligible to participate in the election.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6Harris Products Company. 100 NLRB 1036; Robert C. Matlock, d/b/a Owensboro Plating
Company, 103 NLRB 993.
ALLISON STEEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 21 - RC-3058 . June 24, 1953
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 L. A. Gordon,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all machine shop employees
at the Employer's Phoenix, Arizona, plant. The Employer
contends that such unit is inappropriate because of the integra-
tion of its operations and because it comprises only a small
segment of the total number of employees exercising similar
skills. With respect to the first contention the record shows
that the Employer produces structural steel and aluminum
products which are used for the construction of bridges and
other heavy structures. Except for its outside workers who
are engaged in the construction of bridges, there is no history
of collective bargaining at the Employer's plant. The machine
shop is located in a building which is 700 feet long and
approximately 70 feet wide. The front 100 feet of the building
are used as a steel storage area. Immediately back of this
area is the machine shop. There is no partition between these
two areas, and both are under the supervision of the machine
shop foreman. The employees in the machine shop are used in
the steel storage area whenever occasion demands. The
remaining area in the building is occupied by the galvanizing,
plating, welding, and structural department, which is separated
105 NLR$ No. 117.
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the machine shop by a partition that runs across the
entire width of the building. Altogether the Employer has 13
different departments which are housed in 11 different build-
ings. The machine shop contains the types of machines usually
associated with machine shops. There are 6 tool and die
makers, 10 machinists, 17 drill press operators, 23 machine
operators, 2 welders, 2 toolroom employees, and 2 sweepers
regularly assigned to the machine shop. The parties agree that
the tool and die makers and machinists are skilled craftsmen
whose duties require the exercise of all the skills usually
required of journeyman machinists and tool and die makers.
The tool and die makers make tools and dies which are used
elsewhere in the plant. The machinists perform the most
sensitive machining operations. Both groups do maintenance
work throughout the plant. The drill press operators' and
machine operators' skills are limited to the operation of
individual machines. They perform machining operations on
the Employer's end products, 90 percent of which come into
the machine shop for such purposes. The welders perform
whatever welding is required in the machine shop and spend
20 percent of their time in welding maintenance work through-
out the plant. The toolroom employees hand out tools and grind
and sharpen tools used in the machine shop. The sweepers
sweep cuttings and act as general handymen in the machine
shop. Despite the fact that employees in the machine shop
spend a large share of their time working on the Employer's
end products, it is apparent from the record that the machine
shop performs a specialized function in the Employer's
operations and is not so integrated with the production processes
as to preclude a finding that it may constitute an appropriate
bargaining unit on a departmental basis. I
With respect to the Employer's second contention, we find
in accordance with the agreement of the parties and on the
basis of the record that the tool and die makers and the
machinists are skilled craftsmen. The record shows that there
are no other employees elsewhere in the plant who exercise
the same skills. They therefore comprise a nucleus of skilled
employees sufficient to support an appropriate departmental
grouping of the Employer's machine shop employees.2 The
Employer contends that because of the existence of numerous
other employees in other departments of the plant who per-
form essentially the same operations and exercise the same
skills as do the unskilled employees in the machine shop, a
departmental unit is inappropriate. We find no merit in this
contention. The fact that other employees in the plant perform
substantially the same operations as the unskilled employees
in the department does not militate against the appropriateness
of the departmental unit. It is the existence in the plant of
lCf Ingersoll Products Division of Borg-Warner Corporation. 100 NLRB 1531, American
Hoist & Derrick Company, 88 NLRB 219.
2Certam-Teed Products Corporation, 101 NLRB 1110
LONE STAR GAS COMPANY 725
other employees possessing the same skills as the employees
who comprise the craft nucleus which prevents a departmental
unit from being appropriate. 3 We are satisfied that the machine
operators and drill press operators in the machine shop are
performing functions and exercising skills sufficiently related
to the craftsmen in the machine shop to warrant their inclusion
in the same unit with them. As the two welders spend most
of their time in the machine shop we will include them in the
unit.4 For the same reason we include the two sweepers in
the unit. The toolroom employees perform their services only
for employees of the machine shop and therefore have a
sufficient community of interest to be included in the unit
with them.
In view of the foregoing determinations, we shall direct an
election among the following employees of the Employer's
Phoenix, Arizona, plant, which we hereby find constitute an
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All machine
shop employees, including tool and die makers, machinists,
drill press operators, machine operators, welders, toolroom
employees, and sweepers, excluding supervisors as defined
by the Act and all other employees.
[Text of Direction of Election 5 omitted frompublication.]
3 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 101 NLRB 441, General Electric Co., 101 NLRB 1341.
4Globe Steel Tubes Co., 101 NLRB 772.
5 The Petitioner requests that it be placed on the ballot as International Association of
Machinists and with the letters IAM appearing above the box in which the vote is marked. As
no adequate reason was presented for this departure from normal procedures the request is
denied.
LONE STAR GAS COMPANYand OIL WORKERS INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 16 -RC-1277.
June Z4, 1953
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent
election , executed on April 6, 1953, and approved by the
Regional Director on April 7, 1953, anelectionby secret ballot
was conducted on April 20, 1953, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region. Upon
the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished
the parties, in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of
the Board. The tally showed that, of approximately 14 eligible
voters, 14 cast valid ballots, of which 3 were for the Petitioner
and 11 against.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules
and Regulations , the Regional Director investigated the matters
raised by the objections and on May 19, 1953, issued and duly
served upon the parties his report on objections in which he
105 NLRB No. 109.