C. K. Williams & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 20, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 219 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

C. K. WILLIAMS & CO. 219
such modification, as in the instant case, does not warrant a
different result.'
We find, therefore, that ng question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the Act, and we will dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3See Appleton Electric Company, 105 NLRB 666.
C. K. WILLIAMS & CO. and DISTRICT NO. 9, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, A.F.L., 'Petitioner
C. K. WILLIAMS & CO. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 149 A.F.L.,' Peti-
tioner . Cases Nos. 14-RC-2202, 14-RC-2203, and 14-RC-
2213. July 20, 1953
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Walter A. Werner, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.3
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 [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to representcer-
tain employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale
of iron oxide pigments. The bargaining history of its East
St. Louis, Illinois, plant, which is alone involved in this
proceeding, dates back to 1936, when the Employer entered
into a collective-bargaining agreement covering all its hourly
paid production and maintenance employees. In 1948 Interna-
'Herein referred to as the I A M.
2 Herein referred to as the Operating Engineers.
3 The Employer and intervenor moved at the hearing that the petitions in all three cases
be dismissed The motions were referred to the Board. For reasons stated below, in the
text, the motions are granted only with respect to Case No 14-RC-2202.
4Local No 21, International Chemical Workers Union, A F.L., intervened in the instant
cases on the basis of a current contract.
106 NLRB No 35.
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers was certified for a
unit consisting of six electricians and their helpers.5 All other
production and maintenance employees are currently repre-
sented by the Intervenor. The Petitioners seek to sever from
this broad unit units of journeymen garage mechanics, ma-
chinists, and powerhouse employees. In addition to more
specific objections discussed below, the Employer and the
Intervenor object to severance of any of the proposed units
upon the ground that, in view of the long and successful
collective-bargaining history on a comprehensive basis, the
plantwide unit is alone appropriate. However, it is well settled
that a history of bargaining on a broader basis does not preclude
severance.6
Case No. 14-RC-2202
There are 41 employees classified as millwrights in the
Employer's plant. The I.A.M. seeks to sever 2 of these em-
ployees as a unit of journeymen auto mechanics. The Employer
and Intervenor contend that the requested unit is not appro-
priate. These employees tune up truck motors, change tires,
and perform other duties usually associated with the job of
automobile or garage mechanic. They have the same immediate
supervision as many of the other millwrights and have the same
general working conditions. We find that a unit consisting of
the requested garage mechanics is inappropriate because such
employees are not skilled craftsmen.' Accordingly, we shall
dismiss the petition in Case No. 14-RC-2202.
Case No. 14-RC-2203
The I.A.M. also seeks to sever a unit consisting of all
journeymen machinists and helpers. There are three em-
ployees of the Employer's plant classified as machinists.
The duty of the machinists is to fabricate and repair parts
for the equipment and machinery used throughout the plant.
These employees are headquartered, and spend most of their
time working, in the machine shop, which is located in a
building separate from other working areas in the plant. Such
work as they do at other locations is largely restricted to
gathering information such as size specifications for work to
be performed in the shop. To qualify for the position of a
machinist, an employee must have background as a journeyman
in that craft. The machinists are highly skilled and use the
5 Case No 14-RC-81 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions).
6 Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 103 NLRB 1020; Nesco, Inc , 101 NLRB 147; Hudson Pulp &
Paper Corporation, 94 NLRB 1018
7 Armstrong Cork Company, 97 NLRB 1057. The I A.M sought at the hearing to introduce
into evidence a certificate issued to Verdon Johnson, one of the two garage mechanic mill-
wrights prior to his employment with the Employer, attesting that he had completed a
course of training as a Chevrolet mechanic. Both the Employer and the Intervenor objected
to the introduction in evidence of the exhibit on the ground that it was immaterial. The
'rearing officer referred the objections to the Board. We have considered the exhibit as part
of the record in the case.
C. K. WILLIAMS & CO. 221
customary precision hand and machine tools such as microm-
eters, calipers, lathes, and drill presses, and perform the
traditional work of their craft. They do bench and layout work,
must be able to work from blueprints and drawings, and
frequently are required to work to close tolerances. The
Employer contends, inter alia, that the proposed machinist
unit is inappropriate because many of the millwrights fre-
quently use the machine shop to perform certain tasks that
are not unlike those performed by the machinist. None of the
millwrights are headquartered in the machine shop, and they
all spend most of their time working in other areas of the
plant. The millwrights generally do work involving the mainte -
nance and repair of existing machinery in the plant and the
construction and installation of new machines or chemical
processing equipment. In carrying out their duties, the mill-
wrights perform jobs requiring plumbing, carpentry, cement,
and brick laying work. Not infrequently a millwright may use
certain machines that are located in the machine shop. Thus
to a limited extent their work overlaps that performed by the
machinists. However, the millwrights' work in the machine
shop does not usually require the same degree of precision
as does the machinists', work. Furthermore, unlike the ma-
chinists, the millwrights rarely do machining on the lathes
located in the shop. The machinists receive 13 cents an hour
more than the journeyman millwrights.
Upon the entire record, we find that the machinists may
constitute a separate appropriate unit for purposes of collective
bargaining. 8
Case No. 14-RC-2213
The Petitioner , Operating Engineers , seeks to sever a unit
of all licensed engineers, firemen, and utility men who are
employed in the power department. These employees all work
in the powerhouse, which is a building separate and apart from
the other buildings that make up the Employer's plant. They
work different hours, and under separate immediate super-
vision, from all other employees, and perform customary
boilerroom duties. It is clear from the foregoing and the entire
record that the powerhouse employees constitute a distinct,
homogeneous, and functionally coherent group, which the Board
has customarily held may be accorded separate representation.'
Contrary to the contentions advanced by the Employer, the
proposed unit of power department employees is not rendered
inappropriate by its possible disruptive effect on labor rela-
tions , " nor because most of the steam generated in the power
department is used in the production process, n nor because
there is a limited interchange of powerhouse employees with
8 W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627; Globe Steel Tube Co., 101 NLRB 772; Glass
Fibers, Inc., 93 NLRB 1289.
9Heyden Chemical Corporation, 100 NLRB 520.
10 Heyden Chemical Corporation, supra.
11 Reynolds Metals Company, 93 NLRB 721.
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other production and maintenance employees through the
process of plantwide bidding for vacancies throughout the
plant. 12 Accordingly, we find that the power department em-
ployees may constitute a separate appropriate unit for purposes
of collective bargaining.13
We shall make no final unit determination at this time, but
shall direct separate elections by secret ballot be held among
the employees at the Employer's East St. Louis, Illinois, plant
in the following voting groups:
(1) All journeymen machinists and their apprentices, ex-
cluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(2) All licensed engineers , firemen, and utility men in the
power department, excluding all other employees, clerical,
technical, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in voting group (1) or (2)
votes for I.A.M. or Operating Engineers, respectively, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a
separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting
the elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certifi-
cation of representatives to the I.A.M. or Operating Engineers
for the applicable unit, which the Board, under such circum-
stances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining. If a majority of the employees in either voting
group (1) or (2) votes for the Intervenor they shall continue to
be represented by the Intervenor as part of the existing
production and maintenance unit and the Regional Director
will issue a certification of results of election to such effect.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Member Peterson, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with my colleagues that the petition in Case No.
14-RC-2202 should be dismissed because the requested garage
mechanics are not skilled craftsmen and a unit of these em-
ployees is therefore inappropriate. However, I disagree with
their decision to direct elections in Cases Nos. 14-RC-2203
and 14-RC-2213 for machinists and powerhouse employees,
respectively.
12 Burroughs Adding Machine Company, 90 NLRB 1814.
13 The Operating Engineers sought to introduce in evidence a letter of November 28, 1952,
from the Employer to a representative of the Operating Engineers, requesting his views on
certain job instructions issued to engineers in the power department. The purpose of this
offer was to show that the Operating Engineers had in fact participated in bargaining for the
power department employees in the past. The Intervenor and Employer objected to the
admission of this letter in evidence on the ground that it was irrelevant. The hearing officer
referred these objections to the Board for a ruling. While the Board generally does not
require any showing of separate bargaining by powerhouse employees to justify a finding
that they may constitute a separate unit, we do not regard such evidence as wholly irrelevant
and will treat the proffered letter as part of the record herein.
INTERNATIONAL SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY 223
The record discloses that the machinists and powerhouse
employees have been represented as part of the production
and maintenance unit since 1936. Because of the long bargaining
history of their inclusion in an overall unit and because other
factors warranting their severance are lacking , 14 I would also
dismiss the petitions in Cases Nos . 14-RC-2203 and 14-RC-
2213.
14 See my dissenting opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627.
INTERNATIONAL SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY,
RARITAN COPPER WORKS and UNITED STEELWORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-1981. July
20, 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 W. Draper
Lewis , Jr., hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing 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 , Styles, and
Peterson].
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 organizations involved claim to representcer-
tain employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
4. The employees involved in the instant case are employed
at the Employer ' s Perth Amboy , New Jersey , plant , where the
Employer is engaged in the smelting and refining of copper and
other nonferrous metals . The Petitioner seeks to represent a
unit of all hourly paid production and maintenance employees at
the Employer ' s plant, excluding all salaried employees and all
employees and their successors on an exempt list compiled by
the Employer . Smelter Workers agrees that this constitutes an
appropriate unit but would include in it salaried plant clericals,
if any. MESA contends that the appropriate unit should include
all salaried employees who are covered by its present contract
with the Employer, in addition to the hourly paid production and
maintenance employees , but agrees to the exclusion of employ-
lLocal 17, Mechanics Educational Society of America, hereinafter referred to as MESA,
intervened on the basis of a current contractual interest . International Union of Mine,
Mill, and Smelter Workers, hereinafter referred to as Smelter Workers, intervened on
the basis of a showing of interest.
106 NLRB No. 45.