Clayton & Lambert Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 305 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

CLAYTON & LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 305
that day in the computation of the 60 days required by the con-
tract,' the Mill B date, or day on which the automatic renewal
became operative, was October 2, 1953. The last day on which
notice to forestall automatic renewal could be effective was
October 1, 1953.4 As notice was not received'on or before Octo-
ber 1, 1953, we find that the contract was automatically renewed.
The Employer urges that the Union, by its subsequent conduct,
waived the defect in the notice. The record discloses that in its
notice letter , the Employer indicated a willingness to meet with
the Union prior to December 1, 1953, "to discuss our reasons
for the action... ." In its reply, the Union maintained that the
notice was not timely and that it would "defend by all means
available . . . all terms and conditions of the present working
agreement as well ' as the bargaining rights , .. ," but indicated
a willingness to meet and confer " for the purpose of negotiating
upon any changes to be proposed by either party to the working
agreement." There is no indication that the Union at any time
thereafter abandoned its initial position.
In these circumstances, we view the Employer's September
30, 1953, letter and the Union's reply thereto as post-renewal
requests to negotiate changes, having no effect upon the renewed
contract as a bar to the petition herein.' For the foregoing
reasons, we find that the contract, as automatically renewed,
is a bar to this proceeding. We shall therefore dismiss the
petition without prejudice to the filing of a new petition a reason-
able time before the automatic renewal date of the existing
contract.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3See Williams Laundry Company, et al., 97 NLRB 995; Golden Belt Manufacturing Com-
pany, 103 NLRB 1543, and cases cited therein.
4 A notice which will forestall automatic renewal must be received prior to the "Mill B"
date. See Williams Laundry Company, supra p. 996.
5See Land O'Sun Dairies, Inc., 107 NLRB No. 253.
CLAYTON & LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and
ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 369,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, A. F. of L., Petitioner . Case No . 9-RC-2087.
April 20, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold M.
Kennedy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
108 NLRB No. 64.
339676 0 - 55 - 21
306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. i
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
Z. The labor organizations involved claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the
following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to sever from the production and main-
tenance unit currently represented by the Intervenor, a unit
of all instrument electricians A and B and all maintenance
electricians A and B. Though both groups are part of the
maintenance department they are separately supervised and
work out of different shops and perform different duties.
The instrument electricians -A maintain and adjust all electronic
control instruments used by the Employer in its production
operations. In their work they utilize portable voltmeters, port-
able recorders, ohmmeters, optical pyrometer, portable py-
rometer, Wheatstone bridge, circuit battery sets, tube testers,
oscilloscopes, and small handtools such as pliers, side cutters,
and soldering pistols. They work exclusively in the instrument
shop. The instrument electricians B perform what is in fact
a chemical rather than an electrical operation, treating waste
products with chlorine and other chemical agents, to neutralize
the cyanide contained in the waste products so that they can
safely be disposed of in the sewage system. There is no
progression between class A and class B instrument elec-
tricians, and the class B instrument electricians work in the
chlorinating house. Their only connection with instrument elec -
tricians A seems to be the fact that they work under the same
supervisor. Although the Employer attempts to hire men with
previous electrical experience for class A instrument elec-
tricians, the record contains reference to the experience of
only 1 man, and he had less than 3 years of instruction and
experience in the field of electronics before being hired by the
Employer.
The maintenance electricians class A maintain and repair
electrical equipment. They work on transformer circuits, cir-
cuits for electric motors, on stators, electrical controls, they
run conduit, pull wire, and connect wires to equipment. They
work with power ranging from zero to 13,000 volts. It is the
Employer's policy to hire employees with journeyman skills
for the classifications of maintenance electrician A. One of
the employees involved testified that a man should have 4 years
apprenticeship training in order to properly handle the duties
i Local 4811, United Steelworkers of America, CIO, was permitted to intervene on the basis
of its contractual interest in the employees involved herein.
CENTRAL RUFINA 307
of a maintenance electrician Class A. Although the maintenance
electricians B are considered to be helpers to maintenance
electricians A, there is no progression from B to A and the
Employer hires less skilled employees for the B classification.
There are 5 class A and 7 class B maintenance electricians.
A regular part of the duties of this group consists of plating
racks with a plastic, acid resisting, insulation coating. Three
men are regularly assigned to these duties on the day shift and
one man on the night shift. This work is performed by both A
and B maintenance electricians.
In the American Potash2 case the Board stated that craft
severance will be granted only in those cases where the em-
ployees sought to be severed constitute a genuine craft group.
We find that, of the employees sought by the Petitioner, only
the maintenance electricians A spend the major portion of their
time performing tasks requiring the exercise of craft skills and
have the necessary experience to qualify as craftsmen under
the criteria set forth in the American Potash case.' Because
the other employees sought by the Petitioner neither possess
and exercise genuine craft skills nor are in the direct line of
progression in the electrician's craft, and as the Petitioner
has not indicated its willingness to represent a unit limited
to the 5 maintenance electricians A, we find that the unit sought
is inappropriate for severance purposes and shall therefore
dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Member Beeson took no part inthe consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
2 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
3107 NLRB 1418, pp 7-8, 9-10.
MARIO MERCADO E HIJOS d/b/a CENTRAL RUFINA and
UNION de TRABAJADORPS de FACTORIA de la INDUSTRIA
AQUCARERA, LOCAL 1805, ILA, Petitioner. Case No. 24-
RC-606. April 20, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before George L.
Weasler, 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.
108 NLRB No. 59.