Cutler-Hammer, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 1966

161 N.L.R.B. 1627 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

CUTLER-HAMMER, INC. 1627
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Room 2407 Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincin-
nati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 684-3686, if they have any questions con-
cerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Cutler-Hammer , Inc. Employer -Petitioner and Tool and Die
Makers Lodge No. 78, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO 1 and Technical Engineers
Association .2 Case 30-RM-57. December 8, 1966
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On June 1, 1966, the Regional Director for Region 30 issued a Deci-
sion and Order in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he dis-
missed the petition on the ground that' no question concerning
representation existed in the requested unit of all tool and machine
designers and draftsmen in the Employer' s Manufacturing Engineer-
ing Department located at 4201 North 27th Street, Milwaukee, Wis-
consin. On June 13, the Employer filed a motion for reconsideration
and reopening of the record. On June 28, the Regional Director issued
a ruling on motion to reconsider and reopen hearing, in which he
adhered to his Decision and Order and denied the motion to reopen
the record. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, as amended,
the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Direc-
tor's Decision and Order and his subsequent ruling on motion,3 urg-
ing reconsideration of the "Board rule or policy" applied by the
Regional Director as the basis for dismissing the petition.
On August 1, the National Labor Relations Board by telegraphic
Order granted the request for review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch
and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
I Herein called the Machinists.
9 Herein called the Engineers.
8 Attached to the request for review was a copy of the Employer's brief- previously filed
with the Regional Director.
161 NLRB No. 143.
1628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect
to the issues under review, including the Employer's brief filed with
its request for review, and makes the following findings
In support of its unit request, the Employer contended that because
of a merger of its tool design and machine design operations, the pre-
viously established units of designers and di aftsmen engaged in each
of these operations were no longer appropriate The Regional Direc-
tor found, on the basis of the record evidence, that the requested unit
of employees engaged in the merger operations may be appropriate.
However, he made no finding as to the continued appropriateness of
the earlier established units in view of his conclusion that no question
concerning representation was raised in the unit alleged in the
Employer's petition We disagree with the latter conclusion
As found by the Regional Director, the most recent contracts of the
Machinists and the Engineers both expired on May 31, 1966,4 and
both Unions sei ved requisite notices on the Employer to reopen their
contracts for further negotiations It was in this context that the
Employer filed the instant petition At the hearing, the Machinists
and the Engineers contended that their respective units remained
appropriate despite the merger of the operations involved The Engi-
neers intervened on the basis of its continued interest in the unit of
machine designers and draftsmen, and further stated that in the event
the Board directed an election in the Employer's requested unit, it
disclaimed all further interest in the employees and did not wish to
appear on the ballot On the other hand, the record reveals that the
Machinists intervened "on the basis that they are the collective-
bargaining repiesentative for the employees, or part of the employees
presently included in the unit petitioned for," and stated at the con-
clusion of the hearing that it would continue to have an interest in
the event the Regional Director found the unit petitioned for appro-
priate and "would be on the ballot " In these circumstances, we find,
contrary to the Regional Director, that the Machinists raised a ques-
tion concerning representation in the Employer's requested unit in the
event it was found to be alone appropriate Moreover, we note that
the frequent claims to representation rights by both Unions in parts
of the requested unit taken together embrace all of the employees in
such unit 5 For these reasons, we shall resolve the issues as to the con-
tinued appropriateness of the previously certified units
4 In 1952, the Engineers was certified as representath e of all tool designers and drafts
men In 1955, the Emplo3er voluntarily recogmLed the Engineers as representative of the
machine designers and draftsmen and bargained with it for a single unit of both groups
In 1959, after a self determination election, in Case 13-RC-6375, the Machinsts was cer-
tified as representative of all employees in the tool design department The Engineers con-
tinued to represent a separate unit of the machine designers and draftsmen
6 See Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 144 NLRB 455, 458
CUTLER-HAMMER, INC 1629
As found by the Regional Director
the record reflects that prior to May 1965, the manufactur-
ing engineering department, including the tool designers and
di aftsmen, was housed in a building located at Twelfth and St
Paul Streets in Milwaukee At this location the tool designers
and draftsmen were subject to the overall supervision of the man-
ager of the manufacturing engineering department and were
engaged in design work for the tooling of molding dies, punch
press work, screw machine work and other tools, gauges and fix-
tures used by the Employer in its manufacturing processes The
machine designers and draftsmen were housed in a separate
building with the maintenance department, located across the
street from the manufacturing engineering department The
machine designers and draftsmen reported through a supervisor
to the plant engineer and they were primarily engaged in design-
ing special production equipment, welding fixtures and electrical
and pneumatic circuits
In May 1965, because of a condemnation proceeding, the
Employer was forced to abandon its building at Twelfth and St
Paul Streets and the manufacturing engineering department,
with the tool designers and draftsmen were moved to the third
floor of the Employer's building at North Twenty Seventh Street
in Milwaukee In August 1965, with a view to integrating its
design operations and with space available at the new location,
the Employer moved the machine designers and draftsmen to the
new location
Since August 1965, the entire manufacturing engineering
department including the manufacturing engineering group, the
design section consisting of all tool and machine designers and
draftsmen and a service section has been housed in a single area
on the this d floor at the North Twenty Seventh Street location
The assigned space, consisting of approximately 5100 feet, is
unpartitioned except for three offices for supervisors and the tool
and machine designers and draftsmen work adjacent to each
other without regard to classification The whole design section
is directed and controlled by a single supervisor, Perseck, who
reports directly to the manager of the manufacturing engineer-
ing department With reservations for differences provided for in
their respective contracts the tool designers and draftsmen and
the machine designers and draftsmen enjoy similar employment
benefits and working conditions
As set forth above, both groups of designers at the old loca-
tions were assigned to specific designing functions and there was
little interchange or cross assignment between the two groups
1630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
However, since the merger of the machine designers and drafts-
men into the manufacturing engineering department in August
1965, tool designers do resign work previously performed only by
the machine designers and vace versa Moreover, there is consid-
erable evidence in the record of dual assignment of tool design-
ers and machine designers to the same project without regard for
the cleavage in job functions previously existing.
On the basis of these findings of fact concerning the merged opera-
tions, which have not been disputed by the Unions, we find that the
previously established separate units for the two types of designers
and draftsmen are no longer appropriate 8 and that the only appro-
priate unit at the present is that alleged by the Employer.'
Accordingly, we find that a question concerning representation
exists and that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act 8
All tool and machine designers and draftsmen in the Employer's
Manufacturing Engineering Department located at 4201 North 27th
Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, excluding all clerks, stenographers,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act B
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication 10]
6 Although it appears that subsequent to the merger of the two operations in August 1965
the Employer continued to apply the terms of the existing contracts to the covered em
ployees, such fact, in the circumstances here present, would not militate against our finding
that separate units of employees in the merged operations are no longer appropriate
7 Booker Electrochemical Co , 116 NLRB 1898
8 In accord with the stated position of the Engineers , above indicated, we shall not place
its name on the ballot for the election hereinafter directed
0 We find that William Knopf , in accord with the parties ' stipulation , and Charles
Morelia, on the basis of the evidence in the record, are unit employees on temporary loan
to the Employer 's engineering section and therefore are eligible to vote in the election
10 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters,
must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 30 within 7 days after
the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional Director shall make the
list available to all parties t9 the election No extension of time to file this list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply
with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper
objections are filed Excelsior Underwear Inv, 156 NLRl3 1236
O