Henry Vogt Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1037 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

HENRY VOGT MACHINE CO. 1037
ment by the production and maintenance union. However, the
special treatment granted to the engineers in the instant case
has been merely incidental to their particular functions and
duties and has been such as is normally taken cognizance of
by the bargaining representative of a more inclusive production
and maintenance unit. The type of special treatment to which
I referred in the Hamilton case as one of the bases for the
establishment of a separate craft unit in the face of a broader
bargaining history is that which has tended to preserve
the separate identity of the craft group involved with respect
to its representation for collective-bargaining purposes.io
In view of the fact that there has been a substantial bargain-
ing history of inclusion of the engineers in the production and
maintenance unit; that these employees have not been granted
the special type of treatment to which I adverted in my
Hamilton dissent; and, that other factors mentioned in that
dissent which would warrant their severance from the estab-
lished unit are not present, I would dismiss the petition herein.
10 In this regard, see for example the United States Potash Company (N.S.L.) case, 63 NLRB
1379 where, despite the fact that they were represented in a production and maintenance unit
by another union, electricians were permitted to maintain membership in the Electrical
Workers Union; employees transferred to electrical work from other departments were
allowed to transfer their membership to the Electrical Workers; the Electrical Workers
were accorded representation as a group on bargaining committees selected by the production
and maintenance union; and, the contract between the employer and the production and
mauitenance union designated the Electrical Workers as entitled to require maintenance
of membership on the same terms as the designated bargaining agent
HENRY VOGT MACHINE CO. and INTERNATIONAL DIE
SINKERS' CONFERENCE and its LOUISVILLE DIE SINKERS'
LODGE #430, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-1926. August 26,
1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On June 29, 1953, the Board issued its Decision and Order in
this proceeding dismissing the petition for the reasons that
the unit requested was inappropriate within the meaning of
the Board's decision in Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
101 NLRB 441, and that the Petitioner had evidenced no
interest in a strictly craft unit of die sinkers. Thereafter the
Petitioner duly filed and served upon the parties its motion
for reconsideration of the Board's said Decision and Order
which the Board construes as a request by the Petitioner to
represent a unit restricted to die sinkers.
The Board finds that a question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of certain employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
106 NLRB No. 154
1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer employs 8 diesinkers and 13 apprentice
diesinkers . The foreman diesinker , who himself started as an
apprentice , testified that all die sinkers of the Employer become
journeymen via a recognized apprenticeship program, none
being hired to journeymen status from the outside , and that,
although the apprenticeship is spoken of as a 4 - year program,
no diesinker has actually been recognized as a journeyman
until after 6 years of training . The diesinkers make and
repair closed impression dies used for drop forging in a steam
press, all of this work except certain repairs being done in
the die shop . There are also 4 machinists who work in the die
shop, repairing forge-shop equipment but doing no diesinker
work . Testimony was introduced by the Employer tending to
show that dies similar to those made in the die shop are made
in the blacksmith shop by employees not classified as die-
sinkers, but this was confused and inconclusive . As a whole
the record shows, and we find, that the diesinkers and their
apprentices constitute a skilled group whose work is not
duplicated elsewhere in the plant , entitled to severance on a
true craft basis if they so desire . However, should the Peti-
tioner not wish to participate in an election in that unit, it may
withdraw its petition upon notice to that effect to the Regional
Director within 10 days from the date of this Supplemental
Decision and Direction of Election.
Accordingly we vacate the order of dismissal contained in
our said Decision and Order of June 29, 1953, and we find that
the following employees may constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All diesinkers and diesinker apprentices employed by
the Employer at its Louisville, Kentucky, plant, excluding
all other employees and supervisors as defined in
the Act. If a majority of the employees vote for the Peti-
tioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional
Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner
for such unit, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds
to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In
the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board
finds their inclusion in the existing unit to be appropriate
and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of results
of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Chairman Farmer and Member Peterson took no part in the
consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Direc-
tion of Election.