Armstrong Cork Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1147 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY (LANCASTER FLOOR PLANT) 1 147
vision. They receive the same rate of pay as journeymen. It is
also clear that the apprentices are trained in both press and
stereotype work so that whenthey achieve the status of journey-
men they are competent to perform both types of work. More-
over, it is evident from the record that there has been an
interchange between journeymen doing primarily press or
stereotyper's work either on a long term basis, or for such
periods as are necessitated by vacation schedules and emer-
gencies.
In view of the foregoing, particularlythe close integration and
interchangeability of functions of the Employer's stereotypers
and pressmen and the long history of bargaining on the basis
of a unit of stereotypers and pressmen, we are of the opinion
that the limited unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate t
for the purposes of collective bargaining. We shall, therefore,
dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
'Cf. Piedmont Publishing Company, 100 NLRB 246.
ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY (LANCASTER FLOOR PLANT),
and LOCAL NO. 928, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, AFL and LOCAL NO. 285, UNITED RUBBER,
CORK, LINOLEUM & PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO. Case No. 4-RM-140. September 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 Joseph A.
Weston, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. Local No. 928, International Association of Machinists,
AFL, referred to herein as IAM, and Local No. 285, United
Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, CIO,
referred to herein as Rubber Workers, are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act and claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. The Employer-Petitioner asserts that the employees at
its Shell Shop constitute an appropriate unit, separate from
those presently represented by the IAM and the Rubber Workers.
Each Union contends that its contract with the Employer bars
an election for employees of the Shell Shop.
The Employer is primarily engaged at its floor plant at
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in the manufacture of hard surface
106 NLRB No. 191.
1 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
floor coverings, adhesives, and related sundries. In the spring
of 1953, however, the Employer undertook a Government
contract for the production of shells, and established a new
administrative section in its mechanical shops division, known
as the Shell Shop. It has recently begun production on this
contract in a separate building within the plant enclosure.
From 1940 to 1945 the Employer also manufactured shells
at the floor plant. The Rubber Workers was first certified as
bargaining representative for a production and maintenance
unit at the floor plant in September 1944. The Rubber Workers
has bargained continuously with the Employer since its
certification. From that date to the termination of the Govern-
ment contracts for shell production a year later, the Rubber
Workers also represented the employees of the Shell Shop, as
part of the production and maintenance unit at the floor plant.
The latest contract became effective August 28, 1952, and will
terminate November 1, 1954.
In February 1952, following Board-directed elections,' the
IAM was certified as bargaining representative for separate
craft units of carpenters, electricians, tool and die makers,
and machinists, millwrights, pipefitters, and welders, all with-
in the Employer's mechanical shops division. A single 2-year
contract was entered into as of June 18, 1952, covering the
employees in these units . Section 2 . 2 of this agreement reads
as follows:
Section 2.2: The Union during the term of this agree-
ment shall be the bargaining agent for all employees in-
volved in the event of any expansion or change in operation
of the Mechanical Shop, so long as the expansion or change
takes place on Floor Plant property or under Floor Plant
management.
Even though the Shell Shop is an expansion of the mechanical
shops division which takes place on floor plant property, we
do not agree with the contention of the IAM that this contract
provision covers the Shell Shop. We note that Section 1.1
specifically provides for recognition of the IAM as representa-
tive only of the craft units for which it was certified. The IAM
does not presently represent all the crafts in the floor plant.
Other employees exercising craft skills, for example, black-
smiths and sheet-metal workers, and all the other noncraft
maintenance employees, continue to be represented by the
Rubber Workers even though they are administratively assigned
to the mechanical shops division. We are satisfied that it was
not the effect of the agreement that the IAM be granted
recognition as representative for any employees other than the
craft units for which it was certified.
In any event, since the agreements of the Rubber Workers and
the IAM were both entered into before production in the Shell
' Armstrong Cork Company, 97 NLRB 1057.
ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY (LANCASTER FLOOR PLANT) 1149
Shop was begun , we find that neither is a bar to a determination
of representatives for Shell Shop employees. 2
Accordingly , we find that a question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6)
and (7 ) of the Act.
4. The Employer contends that the employees in its Shell
Shop constitute a separate appropriate unit . The Rubber Workers
asserts that the production of shells is merely an extension of
the Employer ' s business which does not warrant the severance
of the Shell Shop from the existing unit which it represents.
While the position of the IAM on the unit issue is not entirely
clear , since it relied solely on its contract -bar contention, it
may reasonably be inferred , from its statement that all the
employees of the Shell Shop ( rather than merely those craft
employees for whom it was certified ) are within its coverage,
that it agrees with the Employer that the Shell Shop constitutes
a separate appropriate unit.
In June 1953 there were 61 persons employed in the Shell
Shop , 56 of whom were permanently assigned there . The Em-
ployer expects that the full complement of 147 employees for
the Shell Shop will be attained by November 1, 1953, and that
most of these employees will be transferred from other jobs
represented by the Rubber Workers or the IAM.
We have noted above that the Shell Shop is engaged in the
production of items quite unrelated to other production of the
floor plant . Administratively , its superintendent reports to the
supervisor of the mechanical shops division , who has under
his ultimate supervision 700 employees , and who In turn reports
to the plant engineer . The Shell Shop will provide for the routine
maintenance of its own machinery , but other maintenance work
will be supplied by the mechanical shops division on the same
basis as for other departments of the plant.
As the Shell Shop is physically located in the floor plant en-
closure , shares the facilities and services of the floor plant,
is subject to the same general supervision , and has previously
been represented as part of afloor-plant unit , we find that the
absorption of the Shell Shop employees into the Rubber Workers'
existing unit may be appropriate . But while the factors present
here for integrating the Shell Shop employees into that unit are
persuasive , we do not believe that they compel a finding that a
separate unit for the Shell Shop may not also be appropriate.
The Board normally permits employees at a new plant or
operation to decide whether they wish to be separately rep-
resented even though the new operation is in close proximity
to the old one, and has even been partially staffed with old
employees. 5
2 Delta Tank Manufacturing Company, Incorporated . (Shell Division ), 100 NLRB 364; W. H.
Anderson Co., Inc ., 99 NLRB 820.
3 Scrivner Stevens Company , 104 NLRB 506; Ware Laboratories , Inc., 98 NLRB 1141.
1 150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the facts in this record we believe that either a separate
unit consisting of Shell Shop employees, or the existing produc-
tion and maintenance unit may be appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining. We shall, therefore, make no deter-
mination with respect to the employees of the Shell Shop at,
this time but shall first ascertain their desire as expressed
in the election directed herein.
We shall direct an election among the production and main-
tenance employees in the Shell Shop at the Employer's floor
plant at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, technical and salaried employees, guards and watch-
men, shift foremen, and all other supervisors as, defined by
the Act.
If a majority vote for the IAM, they will be taken to have in-
dicated their desire to constitute a separate unit, and the
Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of
representatives to the IAM for that unit, which the Board, under
such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining. If a majority of the employees in the
above voting group cast their ballots for the Rubber Workers
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be part of
the existing production and maintenance unit represented by
the Rubber Workers, in which event the Regional Director
conducting the election will certify the results of the election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
GRANT STORAGE BATTERY COMPANY, Petitioner and
AUTOMOTIVE, PETROLEUM & ALLIED INDUSTRIES
EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 618, affiliated with
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL. Case No . 14-RM-80. September 24, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND
DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election is sued herein
on March 30, 1953,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted
on April 14, 1953, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, among employees
in the unit found appropriate by the Board. The tally of ballots
shows that all 5 ballots were challenged, 1 by the Union and
4 by the Employer-Petitioner. No objections to the conduct of
the election or conduct affecting the result of the election were
filed within the time provided therefor.
'Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.
106 NLRB No. 187.