Holmberg, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1966

162 N.L.R.B. 407 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

HOLMBERG, INC. 407
Finally, I do not view the 25-year bargaining history for the pro-
duction and maintenance unit as' supporting the finding that a
separate unit of instrument mechanics is inappropriate. Examina-
tion of that history reveals, as already noted, that other units have
been severed therefrom without noticeable loss in the collective
strength of the production and maintenance employees, and I ven-
ture the opinion that the severance of these 12 instrument mechan-
ics would not weaken the capability of the-280 production and main-
tenance employees to bargain effectively in the future. Moreover, there
is no indication in this record that the inclusion of the instrument
mechanics in the larger unit has resulted in a loss of separate identity ;
indeed, the very factors cited by the majority for their conclusion
that the needs of the instrument mechanics have not been neglected
by the Intervenor also indicate that the Employer and the Intervenor
continue to recognize their separate identity and special interests.
Accordingly, in the absence of evidence compelling the conclusion
that the instrument mechanics do not, as craftsmen, share a com-
munity of interests separate and distinct from the community of
interests they share with other employees in the existing produc-
tion and maintenance unit, I believe this is a situation in which
Section 9(b) (2) contemplates that a craft unit cannot be found to
be inappropriate unless the employees in the proposed unit vote
against separate representation. I therefore, dissent from my col-
leagues' refusal to direct the election as requested by the Petitioner.
Holmberg, Inc.' and Tool-Die and Moldmakers Guild , Independ-
ent, Petitioner . Case P29-RC-209. December 28,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 19, 1965, the Regional Director for Region 29 issued
a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceed-
ing. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and -Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the Employer and the Intervenor, Local 1614, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the First Inter-
venor, filed timely requests for review of the Regional Director's
Decision and Direction of Election on the grounds that the decision
was clearly erroneous, that the Hearing Officer committed preju-
dicial error in quashing the Employer's subpena seeking the-pro-
duction of Petitioner's bargaining agreements, and that there were
I The names of the parties appear as amended at the hearing.
162 NLRB No. 53.
408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
compelling reasons for reconsideration of an important Board policy.
The Board, by telegraphic order dated December 12, 1965, granted
the request for review and stayed the election.
The Board has considered the entire record in this case with
respect to the Regional Director's determination under review and
the positions of the parties set forth in their briefs,2 and makes the
following findings : 3
The Regional Director found, in accord with the Petitioner's
request, that the tool-and-die makers, allied toolroom craftsmen and
their apprentices, constituted a unit appropriate for purposes of
severance.4 The Employer and the First Intervenor oppose severance,
alleging that the employees in the proposed unit are not true crafts-
men, and that the Employer's integrated operations result in a func-
tional overlap between the toolroom employees and the pressroom
employees. The employees in the requested unit are presently repre-
sented by the First Intervenor as part of the existing unit consist-
ing of all the employees of the Employer. There is a 24-year history
of collective bargaining between the Employer and the First Inter-
venor for the existing overall unit.
The Employer is engaged in the business of manufacturing metal
stamp products in a 'one-story structure housing the tool and die,
press operations, and office facilities. The employees in the unit
sought spend, on an average, approximately 75 percent of their time
in an area of the plant known as the toolroom. The toolroom is
separated from other areas of the plant by a concrete wall which
exists as a structural support for the roof of the building and as
a device to muffle the noise and vibrations generated by the presses
operating in the production area of the plant.
The evidence adduced establishes that there is considerable amount
of overlap in the job duties of the employees in the unit sought and
those of other employees in the plant. Thus, the diemakers may per-
form machine maintenance and machine rebuilding work that is
identical to work performed by the maintenance mechanic, a classifi-
cation outside the proposed unit. Additionally, the diemakers at
times set dies, that is, place dies in a press, install them, and try out
the product for sampling. That function is normally performed by
the Employer's diesetters, a classification of employees not within
the proposed unit. Diemakers are called upon to perform such work
when the diesetters are unavailable because of heavy workloads.
2 The First Intervenor has requested oral argument . This request is hereby denied be-
cause the record and the briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties
3In view of the disposition of the case herein , we find it unnecessary to rule upon the
Hearing Officer 's quashing of the subpoena duces tecuns.
* The International Union , International Association of Tool Craftsmen , described herein
as the Second Intervenor , also seeks to sever the above-described unit.
HOLMBERG, INC. 409
When toolroom work is light or when the Employer lacks sufficient
manpower to complete a particular job, employees in the unit sought
may also be assigned to run power presses on the production floor,
work normally done by press operators. On occasion, diemakers have
bumped press operators to avoid layoff.
The record also discloses that there are times when jig borers and
jig borer trainees, classifications within the unit sought, are called
upon to perform work in the Employer's inspection department for
extended periods of time.
The assignment of employees to perform jobs outside their classifi-
cation is dictated, in most instances, by manpower requirements and
the availability of employees for such assignments. When employees
in the unit sought perform work other than tool-and-die work, they
are supervised by the foremen who normally supervise those other
functions.
Employees in the proposed unit not only do work outside their
classification, but also frequently in areas outside the toolroom. Con-
versely, work at times is done in the toolroom by employees in classi-
fications whose inclusion in the unit is not sought. Thus machinists,
who normally work in the production area , also use the Employer's
toolroom facilities and equipment to perform part of their work. At
the time of the hearing, a project previously assigned to one of the
diemakers under the direction of a project engineer was being per-
formed in the toolroom by a newly employed lathe hand.
In the recently decided Hallinckrodt 5 case, the Board, after reex-
amining its policies regarding craft severance, concluded that it
would no longer limit itself to the restricted and rigid tests of Amer-
ican Potash 6 in determining whether craft severance elections should
or should not, be granted, but would instead base its determination
upon a weighing of all relevant factors in each case before it. Apply-
ing that standard to the particular facts of this case, we are satis-
fied that severance would not be warranted here.
It is quite clear, to begin with, that the employees sought to be
severed share a substantial community of interests with other
employees in the existing bargaining unit. Thus they work in close
proximity with such other employees, share with them the same
locker room and cafeteria facilities, punch the same timeclock, have
similar working conditions, and enjoy the same vacations, holidays,
and health and welfare benefits.
Although the employees in the proposed separate unit undeniably
possess special skills, their work is not confined to tasks requiring
the exercise of such skills. As we have previously noted, the record
5 Mallinckrodt Chemical Works , Uranium Division, 162 NLRB 387.
6 American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418.
410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shows a significant overlap in actual work assignments between
employees within and without the proposed unit-diemakers at times
performing duties of maintenance mechanics, diesetters, and opera-
tors; jig borers performing inspection work;-and employees out-
side the proposed unit frequently performing work in the toolroom.
Moreover, it is evident from the nature of the Employer's business
operation-the manufacture of metal stamp products-that the tool-
room employees, even when engaged in their specialized tasks, per-
form work that is an integral part of the production process in
which other employees in the existing bargaining unit are also
engaged.
Bearing in mind the cohesive factors mentioned above, we are not
persuaded that a finding is justified, simply on the basis of the
employees' special skills, that the toolroom group possesses such a
distinct homogeneity and such diverse interests of its own as to
override the broader community of interests which it shares with
the others in the existing unit with whom it has so long been asso-
ciated for purposes of collective bargaining. In addition, there is
nothing in this record to demonstrate that the common unit group-
ing of toolroom employees with other production and maintenance
employees has not proved workable, or that the incumbent union is
not equipped adequately to represent the employees whom the Peti-
tioner would now carve out, and it is apparent that the interests of
the toolroom group have not been ignored by the present bargaining
representative. Thus, the record affirmatively shows that the pay
rates of the tool-and-die makers are the highest in the plant and that
their promotion is governed by special provisions in the contract
between the IBEW and the Employer.
Our evaluation of all relevant factors, including the 24-year bar-
gaining history, leads us to find that the overall interests to be served
through maintaining the stability of the existing bargaining unit
outweigh such special interest as the tool-and-die makers may have
in setting themselves apart as a separate bargaining unit. We con-
clude, therefore, that the unit sought by the Petitioner is not appro-
priate.7 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting :
In this case, the Regional Director for Region 29 granted a peti-
tion for severance of a unit of tool-and-die makers, allied toolroom
craftsmen and their apprentices, finding that those employees possess
7 In our view, the dissenting opinion does not appear to have given any consideration to
the impact of the long history of bargaining upon the merger of the interests of all the
employees . Nor does it state the factors which require preemption for the interests of a
fragment of the existing unit.
IIOLMBERG, INC. 411
the usual' skills and qualifications of tool-and-die craftsmen and con-
stitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining. A majority of
the Board, however, conceding the special skills possessed by these
employees, concludes that they are not entitled to separate representa-
tion. I cannot agree.
As found by the Regional Director, the employees in question
work in a separate toolroom, apart from the production area, and
work under the separate supervision of the toolroom foreman for
most of the time. These employees spend an average of 80 percent of
their time in the performance of tool-and-die functions, and most of
their remaining time is spent in work directly related to tool-and-die
making. The Employer hires either experienced tool-and-die makers
or apprentices, and has a 4-year apprenticeship program run under
the auspices of the State of New York. At present, the Employer
employs four apprentices under the program who are trained by
the tool-and-die maker Class A. Several present employees success-
fully completed the program and received their certificates from the
State. In addition, toolmakers own their own tools, traditionally
used and owned by tool-and-die craftsmen, valued at between $500
and $1,000. Like others of their fellow craftsmen, the tool-and-die
makers produce dies to extremely close tolerances on a variety of
machines normally used by such employees. Further, as acknowledged
by the majority, toolroom employees receive higher wages than all
other employees and are governed by a special provision in the cur-
rent contract with respect to promotions. No such provision appears
for pressroom employees.
On occasion, certain pressroom employees do use machines in the
toolroom, and tool-and-die employees have occasionally performed
work in the pressroom when their own work is slow. As noted by the
Regional Director, however, those assignments are made to forestall
the necessity of laying off tool-and-die men at such times. He found
that the "occasional" use of toolroom machines by press employees,
and pressroom work by tool-and-die employees, were not sufficient to
preclude severance.8
Such is the record before the Board, and it clearly establishes, as
found by the Regional Director, that the tool-and-die employees con-
stitute an appropriate craft unit which the Board has historically
accepted for severance purposes.9 Despite the obvious craft skills of
8 Citing Convair ( Pomona), 122 NLRB 41, 43. See also Boeing Airplane Company, 86
NLRB 368, 375.
Indeed , the fact that some non -toolroom employees may on occasion use toolroom equip-
ment is "immaterial " in deciding the question of severance of toolroom employees General
Dynamics /Telecommunications, etc, 140 NLRB 1286, 1287, and cases cited therein.
6 General Dynamics /Telecommunications , a Division of General Dynamics Corporation,
supra ; Dalmo Victor Company, 132 NLRB 1095; Dana Corporation, 122 NLRB 365; Con-
tinental Can Co, 119 NLRB 1851; E I. DuPont de Nemour8 and Company, 117 NLRB 849.
See also Armstrong Bros Tool Co., 74 NLRB 1361.
412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these employees and their performance of highly specialized craft
functions, however, the majority finds that they do not possess "such
a distinct homogeneity and such diverse interests of their own as to
override the broader community of interests which they share with
the others in the existing unit with whom they have so long been
associated for purposes of collective bargaining." They cite no case
for the proposition that journeymen tool-and-die makers, all of
whom have undergone a substantial apprenticeship program, and
whose craft skills are utilized inside and outside the toolroom, are
not entitled to separate representation if they so choose.
Moreover, in reaching a result contrary to that of the Regional
Director, the majority has chosen to draw broad conclusions which I
do not find justified in view of the record herein. Thus, it is said
that there is a "considerable amount of overlap" between the func-
tions of employees within and without the unit sought to be severed,
and that there is a "significant overlap" in work assignments. The
Regional Director, however, found such instances to be occasional in
nature, and noted that tool-and-die employees work on presses only
when their own work is slow and then to avoid the necessity of lay-
offs. Further, to the majority it is "quite clear" that the tool-and-die
employees share "a substantial community of interests" with other
employees. To support a showing of such a "clear" and "substantial"
sharing of interests, the majority cites the common locker room and
cafeteria facilities, the "close proximity" in which all employees
work, and the fact that all employees have the same vacations, holi-
days, and health and welfare benefits.10 Yet, no mention is made in
this portion of the majority's opinion of the higher wage rates and
special contractual provisions governing promotions enjoyed by tool-
and-die makers; 11 items which seem to me more significant than the
location at which employees eat or wash.
Although the majority states that it is judging this case under its
newly announced standards in Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Ura-
nium Division, 162 NLRB 387, an examination of those standards
and their application to the facts herein reveal that, in fact, conclu-
sive weight is being given to the broader bargaining history. While
10 However , neither similarity of working conditions nor the close association of craft
employees with others is a valid ground for the denial of the right of separate representa-
tion to craft employees . B H Hadley, Inc., 130 NLRB 1622, 1625-26; Griffin Wheel Com-
pany, 119 NLRB 336. Moreover, the close proximity of the employees at the Employer's
plant is hardly surprising in view of the facts that the plant is only a one-story structure
and that there are 75 employees in all.
11 Instead , these factors are cited elsewhere in the majority 's opinion as indicating only
that the interests ( presumably separate ) of the toolroom employees have not been ignored
under the present bargaining structure . It should be apparent , however , that these factors
are equally relevant to their discussion of the issue of whether the tool -and-die makers
enjoy working conditions which are similar to , or separate from, those of the production
and maintenance employees.
E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. 413
the history of bargaining at the Employer's plant is one of the fac-
tors to be considered under Mallinckrodt and does militate against
the granting of severance herein, it is but one of the factors to be con-
sidered. And, in my view of the record, virtually all of the other
factors dictate a result contrary to that reached by my colleagues.
Thus, as found by the Regional Director, the tool-and-die makers are
a distinct group of highly skilled craftsmen who perform the func-
tions of their craft more than 80 percent of the time, and whose sep-
arate identity has been maintained in spite of their inclusion to date
in the broader unit. Additionally, as shown above, their occasional
work in the pressroom has not detracted from their high level of
skills or their separate identity.12 To me, these factors are more than
ample to warrant a conclusion that these employees are entitled to the
separate representation they seek. On the other hand, little in the
present record, other than the mere length of the bargaining history,
supports the conclusion of the majority herein. And, for the reasons
set forth at some length in my dissenting opinion in Mallinckrodt,
that factor may not be given controlling weight.
I would, for the reasons set forth above and in the decision of the
Regional Director, grant the petition.
12 The record does not indicate the nature or extent of integration of the Employer's
production processes.
E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company I (May Plant, Camden,
South Carolina ) and International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local Union No . 382, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 11-RC-1999. December 28,1966
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Thomas C. Bradley, Jr. The Hearing Officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.2 Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 During the course of the hearing, the Employer appealed a ruling of the Hearing
Officer, excluding certain expert testimony comparing the manufacturing process at the
Employer ' s plant involved herein and those in the steel, aluminum , lumber, and wet-milling
industries . On August 18, the Board by telegraphic order granted the Employer 's appeal
and reversed the ruling of the Hearing Officer in that regard.
162 NLRB No. 49.