Int'l Brotherhood Electrical Workers, Local 1081

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 1964

150 N.L.R.B. 2 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would continue to bargain with the Employer as the Bedford Gear
Employees Association until the certification is amended by the Board,
as requested in the motion.
It is clear from the above-described circumstances that the motion
for amendment of certification constitutes an attempt to raise a ques-
tion of representation. However, such a question can be resolved. only
by the timely filing of a petition and a secret ballot election among the
employees concerned, and not by a motion to amend the certification.'
Indeed, as the Board pointed out in'the Gulf Oil case, granting such a
motion in circumstances such as this would in effect result in the cer-
tification of the very union which less than a year before had been re-
jected by a majority of the employees. In accord with well-established
Board policy, therefore, we shall deny the motion.
[The Board denied the motion for amendment of certification.]
MEMBERS FANNING and JENKINS took no part in the consideration
of the,above Decision and Order Denying Motion.
1 Gulf Oil Corporation, 109 NLRB 861 ; cf. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Com-
pany, 144 NLRB 419.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1081,
and its agents, including officers A . D. Bentley, Steve Paulos,
Mike Churich, and William K. Groves and Utah Copper Divi-
sion, Kennecott Copper Corporation and International Asso-
ciation of Machinists , Lodge 568
Utah Copper Division , Kennecott Copper Corporation ' and Inter-'
national Association of Machinists , Lodge No. 568, AFL-CIO
Utah Copper Division , Kennecott Copper Corporation and Inter-
national Brotherhood . of Electrical Workers, Local Union No.
1081 , AFL-CIO
Utah Copper Division , Kennecott Copper Corporation and Inter-
national Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, for itself
and. on behalf of its Local 485. Cases Nos. 927-CD-45, R-2719
(20-R-834), R-2723 (20-R-838), and, R-5114 (20-R-839) . De-
cember 11, 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE AND
DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING AND AMENDING
CERTIFICATIONS
The proceeding in Case No. 27-CD-45 arises under Section 10(k)
of the Act following charges filed by Utah Copper Division, Kennecott
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
150 NLRB No. 4.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1081 3
Copper Corporation, herein called the Employer or Kennecott, alleg-
ing that International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No.
1081, and its agents, herein called IBEW, had, in violation of Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, induced and encouraged employees to strike,
and threatened strikes and picket lines for the purpose of forcing or
requiring the Employer to assign certain work to employees who are
members of the IBEW, rather than to employees who are members
of International Association of Machinists, Lodge 568, herein called
IAM, to whom the Employer had assigned the work in dispute and
who are now performing the work.
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Allison E..Nutt on No-
vember 19 and 20, 1963. All parties appeared at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and. to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings
of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
The proceedings in Cases Nos. R-2719, R-2723, and R-5114 arise
under Section .9(c) of the Act. On October 3, 1963, International
Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 485, herein called
MMS or Mine-Mill, filed a motion to amend or clarify its certification
in Case No. R-5114, issued August 4, 1963; as representative of a unit
of Kennecott employees. Second and third amended motions were
filed on October 14 and' December 6, 1963. On October 14, 1963,
Kennecott and IAM jointly filed a motion to amend or clarify the
TAM certification in Case No. R-2719, issued November 25, 1963, and
on December 5, 1963, Kennecott filed a separate motion in the same
case. On November 20, 1963, IBEW filed its opposition to the joint
motion of the IAM and Kennecott in Case No. R-2719, and moved
that its certification in Case No. R-2723 be amended by inclusion of
the machinist(T) classification in its unit. IBEW moved to dismiss
Case No. 27-CD-45 on October 17, 1963, on the basis that the jurisdic-
tional dispute had been submitted to the AFL-CIO trade disputes
board.
On December 10, 1963, the Board referred the matters raised by the
motions to the Regional Director for Region 27 for the purpose of a
hearing with respect to the unit placement of the classifications of em-
ployees placed in issue by the motions filed by the parties. On Febru-
ary 4, 5, 25, 26, 27, 28, and March 2 and 3, 1964, a hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Allison E. Nutt. All the moving parties par-
ticipated in the hearing, adduced evidence, and argued orally on the
record. In addition, International Union of Operating Engineers
Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (herein called Operating Engineers or
IUOE), Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen Lodge
844, AFL-CIO ;(herein called BLFE), and Office Employees Inter-
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
national Union, Local No. 286, AFL-CIO (herein called Office Em-
ployees or OEIU), intervened at the hearing and participated fully.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases 2 to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Brown, and
Jenkins].'
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board makes the follow-
ing findings:
FACTS GIVING RISE TO CONTROVERSIES INVOLVED IN THESE CASES s
The Employer operates an open-pit copper mine and mills at Bing-
ham Canyon, Utah. The mining process at the mine consists of the
following steps : (1) drilling and blasting of ore and waste, (2) load-
ing the ore and waste into some conveyance (either railcar or truck),
(3) transporting the ore and waste to the mill and the waste dump.
Incident to these operations are the maintenance. functions performed
on all of the Employer's equipment.
Organization at the mine dates back prior to 1943; however, in that
year the Board ordered separate elections for various craft groups
which resulted in certified units, as follows : .
IBEW : The X-ray technician, armature winders, electricians,
second electricians, third electrician helpers.
IAM : Shop leadmen, machinists, second machinists, third ma-
chinists, machinists' helpers, the coppersmiths, car repairers,
second car repairers, car repairers helpers, welders, and drill
repairmen.
IUOE : The electric-shovel engineers, electric-shovel pitmen,
locomotive crane operators, compressor engineers, heating plant
firemen, • track-shifter operators, caterpillar-operators, pump-
operator helpers.6
z IAM and Kennecott moved to consolidate the two proceedings , a renewal of their mo-
tion made when the Board directed a hearing on the motions to amend or clarify . In view
of the fact that the subject matter of the jurisdictional dispute case , namely assignment of
the electrical work performed by the machinst ( T), and the motions to amend or clarify
filed by Kennecott and IAM, and by IBEW seeking unit placement of the machinist(T)
classification , involve essentially similar issues , we shall, for decisional purposes , grant the
joint Employer -IAM motion and consolidate the two proceedings . The IBEW motion to
dismiss the joint Employer-IAM motion to amend or clarify and its motion to dismiss
Case No. 27-43D-45 are therefore denied.
3 The requests for oral argument by Kennecott , IBEW, and IAM are hereby denied as in
our opinion the entire record in these cases , including supporting briefs, adequately sets
forth the issues and positions of the parties.
* The facts as set forth herein are based on the evidence and testimony presented at the
hearings in the jurisdictional dispute proceeding and the hearing on the motions to amend
or clarify.
5 Utah Copper Company and Kennecott Copper Corp ., 49 NLRB 901 ; Utah Copper Com-
pany and Kennecott Copper Corp ., 35 NLRB 1295.
6 Pursuant to stipulated election in Case No . 20-RC-3538, IUOE was certified June.10,
1959.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1081 5
MMS : The remaining production and maintenance employees,
including the axemen of the engineering department, student em-
ployees, toe samplers, assay helpers, and precipitation plant
operators.
BLFE : Motormen, brakemen or motormen's helpers, hostlers
and- hostler helpers.'
Recognition clauses in the current contracts between the Employer
and the Unions adhere specifically to the Board certifications, but addi-
tional classifications of employees have been included in most contracts.
In summary, the ore and its overburden or waste is drilled and
blasted by employees represented by the MMS; the ore and waste are
loaded by power shovels operated and maintained by Operating En-
gineers; and the railcars are run by members of the BLFE. The
IBEW and IAM represent electricians and machinists engaged pri-
marily in maintenance work. Most truckdriving jobs, other than those
incident to some craft function, lie within the MMS unit.
As part of a major expansion program at the mine, the Employer is
changing from a rail haulage system to a truck haulage system in the
upper two-thirds of the mine. When completed, haulage, of waste
will be accomplished with eighty-five 65-ton trucks instead of railcars.
At the time of the hearings the Employer had 20-such trucks in use.'
In addition, other equipment such as angle-dozers, road graders, drills,
and small trucks will be needed. The Employer utilizes two types of
heavy-duty haulage trucks. The conventional type has a transmission,
electrical system, and drive train similar to the type used in passenger
autos. The electric-drive truck, or Dart truck, of which the Employer
has three, differs from the conventional type. in that it has no trans-
mission. In it the diesel motor turns a generator which provides elec-
tricity to a traction motor which in turn drives the wheels. In effect, a
generator and electric motor replace the standard transmission, and
the rest of the truck is the same as the conventional type.9 The Em-
ployer assigned the maintenance and repair of the electric-drive com-
ponents on these three trucks to the IBEW. At the time of the hear-
ing repairs on the electric transmission truck were performed by
factory mechanics under manufacturer's warranty.
Service and repair of the new equipment is done in a newly con-
structed maintenance 'shop called the Yosemite truck shop. This fa-
cility, a building approximately 480 by 160 feet, is divided into 27
bays and has attached to it a warehouse section, an oil storage section,
operations office, and ready room.
4 This unit was found appropriate in a separate case, Utah Copper Co . and Kennecott
Copper Corp., 23 NLRB 1160. Certification resulted at 25 NLRB 14.
8 Completion date for the changeover is June 1, 1967.
8 At the time of the. hearing the Employer did not know how many electric-drive trucks
it would ultimately acquire. . .
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When the Employer started its' new operation it established the
following job classifications: haulage truckdriver, machinist(T),
maintenance helper, lubrication man, and tire. repairman. As- a re-
sult of the new operations other jobs took different forms, either be-
cause of a change in the base of operations or because of added
job responsibilities.
The Employer assigned the new classifications of employees in the
following manner:.
The haulage truckdriver was 'assigned to the MMS unit; the ma-
chinist(T), maintenance helper,.the tire repairman, and the lubrica-
tion man were assigned to the IAM unit.'°
MMS seeks in its motions to add the following alleged classifications
to its certification : tire repairman, oil house man, service truckdriver,
lubrication truckdriver, field repair truckdriver, line truckdriver, tire
service truckdriver, repair'.gang truckdriver, and, welders' truck-
drivers. The joint Employer-IAM motion seeks to add the following
classifications to the IAM certification:, machinist(T), maintenance
helper, lubrication, man, and tire repairman. The Employer's; motion
to amend seeks. to add the haulage truckdriver classification to.the
MMS unit.
THE DISPUTE IN CASE No. 27-CD-45
A. The business of the Employer
Kennecott Copper Corporation operates an'open-pit mine at Bing-
ham Canyon; Utah, with adjacent facilities for the refining and fabri-
cation of metallic copper. The corporation ships goods directly out-
side the State of Utah valued at more than $100,000 per year. The
parties stipulate, and we find;-that Kennecott is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. ' '
B. The labor organizations involved
As stipulated by the parties, the IBEW and IAM are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the, Act.
C. The dispute and contentions of the parties
In. addition to the facts earlier stated, the record reveals that early
in 1963 the Employer announced to all unions representing its em-
ployees, including the parties hereto, that it intended to convert from.a
rail haulage system at its mine to truck haulage system. In May 1963
Kennecott decided to award the truck maintenance work to be done
io.The designation ( T) stands for truck . The maintenance helper is a junior machin-
ist(T), and all of these employees work in the Yosemite shop. I .
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1081 7
in the new Yosemite shop to IAM and began negotiations with IAM
for a supplemental working agreement to cover the new jobs. A supple-
mental agreement was signed September 18,1963, and on September 24
the Respondent'IBEW was so informed by the Employer. At the
meeting of September 24 and at a subsequent meeting on October 1,
the IBEW allegedly announced that it would establish a picket line at
the Yosemite shop if the Employer opened the shop with IAM mem-
bers rather than its members doing the electrical work. The specific
work in dispute deals with the repair and maintenance of electrical
components on the new heavy-duty trucks as well as other equipment
serviced at the Yosemite shop. It does not include the electric drive
and its components on the Dart trucks, which the Employer assigned
to IBEW electricians. IBEW claims that repair and replacement of
generators, starters, lights, ignition systems, electric transmissions,
heaters, batteries, and electric traction motors comes within its juris-
diction as specified in its contract which gives it jurisdiction over "all
work in connection with repair and maintenance of electric devices,
apparatus and equipment ...." Hence it contends that all electrical
repair work done at the Yosemite shop should be done by IBEW
electricians.
The Employer takes the position that the IBEW contract assigns
automotive electrical work to the IBEW only on components such as
generators and electric motors after they have been removed from the
vehicle. This work, the Employer contends, is still within the IBEW
unit, though the Employer would not oppose a Board assignment of
this work to the IAM.
The IAM claims that the work in dispute is a part of the traditional
work of automotive mechanics; that automotive mechanics possess the
necessary skills and experience to do electrical work on the trucks and
other equipment; that the auto mechanics do this work in other shops
of the Employer; that its mechanics do this work in other shops in
Utah and nearby States; and that jurisdiction over this work has
been awarded to it by the AFL-CIO.
D. Applicability of the statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to hear and determine
the dispute out of which an 8 ('b) (4) (D) charge has arisen. Before
making a determination of the dispute, however, the Board is required
to find there is a reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D)
has been violated.
As indicated earlier, a meeting was held on September 24, 1963, at-
tended by Pickering and Hays representing Kennecott, and Bentley,
the IBEW business manager, Paulos, and Churich representing
$ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IBEW. The purpose of the meeting was to inform the union repre-
sentatives of the Company's expansion program and of the job assign-
ments to the IAM.
Pickering testified that both Bentley and Paulos responded to the
assignment "to the effect that the day we started that (Yosemite)
shop that there would be a picket line," and that Bentley meant "that
there would be a strike on that basis." Pickering also testified that
these same pronouncements were repeated at another meeting on Octo-
ber 1. According to Hays, Bentley stated at the September 24 meet-
ing that, when the Company commenced operating the Yosemite shop
with machinists doing the electrical work under the machinist(T)
classification, the Union would put up a picket line. Hays further
testified that these same threats were repeated at the October 1 meet-
ing by Bentley and Paulos, who, objected to the Employer's assign-
ment of "their work" to the IAM. Hays' notes of the two meetings
reflect generally the areas of discussion, including the threat of strike
action. Norden, the Employer's maintenance supervisor, was present
at the October 1 meeting and corroborated both Pickering and Hays
in describing the strike threats made by Bentley and Paulos.
Bentley and Paulos denied threatening strike action. Their testi-
mony shows, however, that they did discuss the Employer's assign-
ment in the two meeting dates and that the parties did discuss peaceful
ways of settling their disagreements. Paulos testified, however, that
he, "emphatically stated that we weren't going to sit idly by and let our
bargaining unit be withered away." ' Bentley also expressed the posi-
tion that the terms and conditions of the IBEW contract were gotten
through strike action and that he didn't want to see them eroded away.
Other matters were discussed at these two meetings, such as travel
pay and peaceful ways of settling the dispute. Both company and
union ^ witnesses testified to these matters with substantial agreement.
Bentley stated that not only was no strike action threatened, but that
under the terms of the contract the Union was precluded from calling
a strike and that the union constitution forbade such action without
prior approval of the international union. Yet Hays' uncontradicted
testimony reveals that sometime in the latter part of 1962 Bentley
stood by an approach road to the mine with a sign reading "IBEW
Stop Here" and as a result a majority of the employees in the IBEW
unit reported to work 2 hours late.
The record reveals general agreement as to what transpired at the
two meetings except in regard to the alleged threats. The testimony
of Pickering and Hays, corroborated by Norden and the notes taken
by,Hays at the meetings, that the union agents threatened strike action
to get the electrical work assigned to the IBEW establishes a prima
facie case. The bare denials of Bentley and Paulos, when viewed in
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1081 9
contrast to their admitted statements that they emphatically would
not sit idly by and see their unit eroded, that their contract benefits
had been gained by strike action, and the Bentley-inspired work stop-
page a year before in spite of the no-strike clause in the contract, lend
credence to the testimony of Pickering and Hays that the strike threats
were in fact made. Accordingly, we find, on the entire record,
that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section
8(b) (4) (D) has occurred, and that the dispute is properly before the
Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. The merits of the dispute
1. Skills and work involved
Before establishment of the Yosemite shop both IAM machinists
and IBEW electricians performed electrical maintenance work on
various pieces of equipment. IAM and IBEW witnesses testified that
at various times either an electrician or a machinist rewired, replaced
a battery or bulb, or fixed a switch on a particular crane, track shifter,
grader, drill, or dozer. In some job functions, such as maintenance of
cranes and pumps, machinists and electricians work together. How-
ever, the IBEW electricians do all of the electrical maintenance on the
railcars, which involves a thorough knowledge of electricity and the
ability to work with sophisticated electrical generators, motors, and
circuits.
There is a definite parallel between the electric-rail car and electric-
drive truck. Basically, the systems are the same, except that the rail-
car gets its power from an overhead wire while the truck has a diesel
motor. The rest of the system, with generator, electric motor, braking
grids, and controls, is the same.
Electrical components, including automotive equipment such as gen-
erators, motors, and switches, once removed from the equipment, are
repaired in the electrical shop. This is not a part of the Yosemite shop
and is represented by IBEW. Other electricians work only on loco-
motives and still others work on equipment in the field.
The record further establishes that the machinst (T) classification
is an automotive mechanic engaged in the maintenance and repair of
motor-driven equipment, and that the auto mechanics, or machinist
classification, are in the IAM unit. Only 5 percent of the duties per-
formed by this classification deals with electrical work, and this is
limited to automotive electrical work, a function which machinists in
the IAM unit have performed in the past. IAM machinists receive
training in automotive electricity under the apprenticeship program,
though this training does not deal with the drive components in Dart
trucks.
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We conclude that employees in either unit have the necessary skills
and training to perform the disputed work on the regular trucks, but
the IBEW electricians are clearly better qualified to perform mainte-
nance work on the drive components of the Dart truck, which is strik-
ingly similar to the work they now perform on the trains.
2. The certifications
The IBEW certification spells out the specific job titles in the IBEW
unit and is restricted to electricians without defining whether or not
the electricians' work includes automotive electrical work. The IAM
certification includes machinists, or automotive mechanics. The work
of such mechanics does appear to include electrical work incident to
auto repair and maintenance.
3. Contract clauses
The IAM contract does not specifically include the disputed work in
the jurisdiction of the IAM unit, but it is work that has always been
done by IAM mechanics. The IBEW contract covers all work in con-
nection with the repair and maintenance of electrical devices, but when
viewed in the context of the IBEW certification and the primary job
function of the IBEW unit, it would appear that the contract refers
primarily to work on railcars rather than diesel driven trucks.
4. The assignment of the Employer and efficiency of operations
The Employer assigned the disputed work in accordance with its
assignments of similar repair work on other haulage vehicles. Thus,
repair of components such as generators which have been removed
from the vehicles was assigned to the IBEW electrical shop which had
repaired such devices in the past. Work on the electric-drive com-
ponents of the Dart trucks was also assigned to the IBEW, because
this work was similar to the work IBEW electricians had always per-
formed. Electrical work on the heavy-duty haulage trucks was as-
signed to IAM machinists who had always done electrical repair work
incidental to repair of truck motors. The Employer claims that it is
more efficient to have all IAM mechanics doing repair work in the
Yosemite shop, instead of requiring electricians to be present in the
Yosemite shop to perform the electrical work in the shop which IAM
mechanics could perform.
5. Custom and practices at Kennecott
It is apparent that IAM mechanics or machinists have customarily
performed automotive electrical repairs. This is an important part of
the skills of an automotive mechanic. That electricians are also ca-
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1081 11
pable of doing the work, and have done it in some instances, does not
alter the custom. The Employer's practice of having electricians per-
form some of the functions in dispute does not, in our opinion, estab-
lish a practice so firmly entrenched as to be controlling. On the con-
trary, it has been the practice at the mine to have the machinists do
almost all of the disputed categories of work.
6. Area custom and practice
The IAM contracts did not specifically cover electrical work, but
machinists have always performed work on generators, starters, and
auto ignition systems. IAM also introduced evidence to show that in
the Salt Lake City area IAM machinists do all automotive electrical
work on trucks used by Consolidated Freightways, a common carrier.
The work the machinists do there is practically the same as is included
in the machinist (T) classification but that employer has no electric-
drive trucks. There is also testimony to the effect that at the Ray,
Arizona, mine, MMS mechanics perform automotive maintenance;
IAM mechanics do the work at the Phelps Dodge mine at Bisby, in-
cluding work on 45-ton dumptrucks; and at the Anaconda mine at
Butte, Montana, the IBEW electricians do electrical work on the
electric-drive trucks.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the machinists repre-
sented by the IAM are entitled to the disputed work and shall deter-
mine the dispute in their favor. We rely particularly on the following
facts : the machinists possess the necessary skills to perform the dis-
puted work; the IAM certification includes automotive mechanics who
have regularly done the disputed work at the Employer's mine; the
IAM machinists have, by custom and practice, traditionally performed
automotive electrical repairs, the IBEW contracts and certification re-
fer primarily to work on railcars and not on trucks; and the Em-
ployer's assignment would result in a more efficient operation. In
making this determination, we are assigning the work in dispute to
machinists represented by IAM and not to the IAM or its members."
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, and upon the basis of the
foregoing, the Board makes the following determination of dispute:
1. Machinists in the unit represented by International Association
of Machinists, Lodge 568, are entitled to perform the automotive elec-
n The assignment of the disputed work herein does not include work on the drive com-
ponents of the Dart trucks which the Employer assigned to the IBEW As the record
clearly establishes that the IBEW electricians are qualified to do this work and the IAM
machinists are not, we will not disturb this assignment in spite of the fact that the
Employer expressed a willingness to have the Board assign this work also Nor is this
assignment Intended to affect the Employer's assignment of repair work on components,
which have been removed from the vehicle, to IBEW electricians In the electrical shop
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
trical repair and maintenance work at the Employer's Yosemite truck
repair shop at Bingham Canyon, Utah. ,
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1081
and its agents, are not and have not been lawfully entitled to threaten
to force or require Utah Copper Division, Kennecott Copper Corpora-
tion, to assign the above work to employees engaged as electricians,
who are currently represented by International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local 1081.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local No. 1081, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in
writing, whether or not it will refrain from threatening to force or
require or forcing or requiring Utah Copper Division, Kennecott
Copper Corporation, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to
assign the work in dispute to electricians rather than to machinists.
THE MOTIONS To AMEND OR CLARIFY UNITS
A. Case No. B-2719
1. The. machinist (T)
Only the IAM seeks inclusion of this new classification in its unit.12
As the job was set up by the Employer, this classification of employee
works only in or out of the Yosemite shop and the work is limited to
maintenance and repair of 65-ton trucks, smaller nonhaulage trucks,
graders, dozers, and related equipment. Only 5 percent of the ma-
chinist(T)'s time is spent on automotive electrical work, with the
balance having to do with duties purely mechanical.
It is evident, and we find, that employees in the machinist(T)
classification are auto mechanics who, by reason of their duties and
conditions of employment, have a close community of interest with
machinists in the IAM unit. We note that no other union seeks to
represent this category. Since the machinist(T) came into existence
after the certified unit was established, we find it constitutes an accre-
tion to the existing IAM unit.13
2. Maintenance helper
The primary task of this classification is to assist the machinist(T)
in his duties. The Employer assigned this classification to the IAM
which claims the job; IBEW does not claim the classification, except
to the extent that the job entails electrical work; and the Operating
Engineers agreed to be bound by the Board's determination. All
other unions have disclaimed.
12 The IBEW, though seeking in Case No . 27-CD-45 part of the work assigned to ma-
chinist ( T), does not seek to include that classification in its unit.
is Cf. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 138 NLRB 937, 939.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1081 13
Other than the facts that the maintenance helper works in the
Yosemite shop, is in the line of progression of the machinist (T), and
works with the machinist(T) as well as other classifications in the'
Yosemite shop, the record contains little about his job duties and func-
tions. It appears that the parties have considered the machinist(T)
and maintenance helper as one, both for purposes of developing a rec-
ord and of unit placement. At one point in the record the company
representative stated without objection that there was no contest in re-
gard to the maintenance helper. In view of the fact that no other
union seeks to include this classification in its unit, and the community
of interest between this classification and other classifications in the
TAM unit, we find that this classification constitutes an accretion to
the TAM unit.
3. Tire repairman
The primary task of this classification is to change wheel assemblies
(the tire and rim) in the shop, check air pressure, and break down
and separate tires from rims after the assembly has been removed from
the vehicle., Though most of his work has to do with 65-ton trucks, he
also works on tires from smaller trucks and other rubber-wheeled
equipment. All of his work is done in and from the Yosemite shop
where he works with other TAM employees such as lubemen, machin-
ists, and helpers.
He uses hand tools utilized by mechanical maintenance personnel- in
addition to hydraulic jacks, wrenches, pullers, presses, pincers, and a
forklift specially adapted for tire handling. In the field, where he
changes tires, the tire repairman, together with the machinist(T), has
to use a truck-mounted crane or a forklift to remove the tires. Ninety
percent of his time is spent working on tires from the 65-ton trucks.
Haulage truck tires weigh 1,800 pounds each, are 7 feet in diameter,
and cost over $1,500. Tires on other trucks and equipment are con-
siderably smaller. At another mine shop an employee in the MMS
unit classified as an ambulance driver changes tires on trucks, but none
of these tires is larger than three feet in diameter. Larger tires at that
shop are changed by employees in the TAM unit.
Before the tire-repair function was established at the Yosemite shop
the Operating Engineers changed the tires on equipment they oper-
ated. Large tires were changed by the Engineers in the field and ap-
parently only the Engineers operated the cranes that were necessary
for changing large tires. , We note that the Engineers' unit includes
no classification of tire repairman. -
In the Employer's. Nevada Mines Division the TAM represents the
tire repairman, while in the Employer's Chino mining operations the
tire repairman as well as the truck mechanics are represented by MMS.
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IUOE contends that removal and replacement of tires on equipment
operated by Engineers is within its unit.
The Employer and the IAM contend that the tire repairman should
be in the IAM unit because he has a community of interest with other
IAM machinists based on a common workplace, supervision, tools,
and progression with other IAM machinists.
MMS contends that, before the advent of the haulage trucks, tire
repairs were performed by an MMS member who also was the ambu-
lance driver.14 The IAM certification does not specifically cover tire
repairmen, and the MMS certification and contracts both include the
tireman. In the MMS contract the ambulance man is listed and his
job description includes tire repair and changing equipment as part
of the duties of his job. MMS further points to cases in which the
Board held that garage mechanics constitute a craft group and ex-
cluded other employees who work occasionally with craft mechanics
and do not possess similar skills, are not primarily assigned to the
craft group, and are not in the direct line of progression. This rule
has been followed in two cases involving this same Employer at one
of its mines and at a mill.15 MMS further contends, in an effort to re-
but the contention that this classification is part of the IAM unit, that
the Employer has created the line of progression by putting the tire
repairman in the IAM unit with the machinist (T).
Thus, MMS contends that the newly created line of progression
from tire repairman to machinst(T) should be given no weight;
tire repairmen do not work with the machinist (T) ; and they do not
possess or exercise nor are they required to possess or exercise similar
skills and abilities as the machinist(T).
In view of the fact that this classification works together with other
IAM classifications in and from the same shop and utilizes the same
tools in the maintenance and repair of the Employer's new equipment,
we find that there is a closer community of interest with the machinists
in the IAM unit than with other employees in the MMS unit. Though
the line of progression from tire repairmen to machinist(T) is newly
created and not controlling, it does serve to establish further this com-
munity of interest. The tire-repair work done by the ambulance driver
in the MMS unit bears little resemblance to the work done by the tire
repairman, nor did the MMS certification contemplate work on tires
used on 65-ton trucks which were not in use at the Employer's mine
at the time the certification issued. Though the Operating Engineers
represents classifications whose job duties include tire removal and re-
"The record shows that only 20 percent of his time was spent driving the ambulance
and the rest in tire work and car washing.
25Kennecott Copper Corporation, 125 NLRB 107, where the Board found that truck me-
chanics are craftsmen , but helpers , welders , steam cleaner operators , and laborers , because
they are not in the progression to the job of mechanic , should be excluded from the craft
unit. In Kennecott Copper Corporation, 138 NLRB 118, the Board excluded handymen,
oilers, and helpers from a craft unit of maintenance mechanics for the same reason.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1081 15
placement,"' these employees do not repair tires, nor have they worked
on tires from 65-ton trucks. Accordingly, as this classification was not
in existence at the time of issuance of the initial certifications, and as
this classification has a close community of interest with the machin-
ists in the IAM unit, we find that the tire repairman constitutes an
accretion to the IAM unit of machinists, and we shall amend the IAM
certification to include the tire repairman.
4. Lubrication man
This newly created classification, assigned to the IAM unit by Ken-
necott, lubricates trucks as well as other equipment and works out of
the Yosemite shop. When the changeover is complete, he will spend
80 percent of his time lubricating heavy-duty trucks and the balance
on other equipment. He works with other machinist classifications
and is in the recently established machinist(T) line of progression.
This employee drives the lubrication truck, which is'best characterized
as a service station on wheels, and performs regularly scheduled lubri-
cation on equipment in the field. Each truck has a crew of three men,
and one of them drives 1 to 2 hours a day,17 with the rest of the time
spent in lubrication functions.
The Employer and IAM contend that this classification is properly
in the IAM unit because he works out of the Yosemite shop, is in the
machinist(T) line of progression, and has common supervision and
washroom facilities with the machinist(T). In addition, the IAM
contract specifies, in describing the job duties of other classifications
in the IAM unit, that machinists regularly lubricate equipment. We
note that the contracts do not specify lubricating of Engineer-
operated equipment or heavy-duty trucks.
IUOE elicited no facts in regard to the lubrication man, nor are the
facts controverted. Its position is that Engineers have been greasing
their own equipment and want to continue to do so. The IUOE repre-
sentative at the hearing stated he had a letter, presumably from the
Employer, to the effect that the Engineers will continue to grease their
own equipment along with the greasing now being done by the lubrica-
tion man classification.
As no other labor organization seeks to represent this classification,
and because the lubrication man works and is in the line of progression
with other employees who perform maintenance work on the same
equipment, we find that the lubrication man constitutes an accretion
to the IAM unit. Accordingly, we shall amend the IAM certification
to include this classification.
18 Truck crane driver ( pit) and mobile crane truck driver.
17 The lubrication truck driver is an alleged job classification which the MMS claimed in
its motion and is discussed infra.
775-692-65-vol. 150-3
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The haulage truck driver
The Employer assigned this nejv claSSif cation Of employe0 to the
unit represented by MMS. BLFE claims that this classification is
properly within its jurisdiction and the Operating Engineers agreed
to be bound by whatever determination the Board makes. The other
unions have disclaimed.
These employees engage in driving the large haulage trucks, carry-
ing waste and ore. They report to the ready room at the Yosemite
shop together with the other heavy equipment operators. All haul-
age truck drivers require a degree of training, and the record does not
show that the employees represented by either DIMS or BLFE have
vastly superior skills or abilities. However, witnesses for the BLFE
testified that their experience as brakemen helped in operating the
65-ton trucks.
The record further shows that members of the MMS unit drive
other trucks at the mine under the Board's certification, but these
trucks were limited to smaller, nonhaulage type vehicles.
BLFE contends that it was certified in 1940 and that the Board's
decision gave it al unit of motormen, brakemen, and hostlers in the
Company's haulage department. We note that the Board decision
does make reference to a "haulage department," but does not certify a
haulage department. Thus, BLFE reasons that any employee who
hauls ore and waste, including the drivers of the new trucks, should be
in its unit. BLFE contracts with the Employer, including the cur-
rent contract, speak of the mine haulage service under the seniority
section of the contract, and establish seniority for engineers, firemen,
brakemen, etc. in the "Mine Haulage Service," "regardless of the kind
of motive power used ...." Under the rate establishment and ad-
justment procedure section of the contract the Company and the
Union (BLFE) agreed that if the Company acquired new or different
equipment requiring new job classifications or changing existing clas-
sifications the Company and the Union would agree on, and even arbi-
trate,,new wage scales. Thus BLFE relies on both its certification
and contracts as representative of employees in the mine haulage sys-
tem to establish its right to have the haulage truck driver placed in its
unit. Further, it contends that MMS is not the representative, either
under its certification or contracts, of ore and waste haulage employees.
As for the work itself, BLFE contends that this is work that has
always been performed by its members and that the only change in-
volved is some new equipment which its members can easily operate.
Further, its members have a great deal of familiarity with the haulage
process. Lastly, BLFE contends that in recent contract negotiations
over rate adjustment caused by new equipment and job classifica-
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1081 17
tions, the Company attempted to limit the BLFE work function to
"train service ," but that the parties continued use of the broader
"mine haulage service." ,
The record shows that MMS drivers get paid $23 .77 per day and no
preparatory time while BLFE members in the same classification earn
$25.83 per day, plus 10 minutes "prep" time. Thus BLFE contends
that the Employer- made its assignment purely for economic reasons,
and that as a result 180 locomotive engineers , brakemen, and firemen
will lose jobs.
The Employer contends that MMS was certified in a residual unit
which included truckdrivers and that MMS has contracted for these
employees ever since , and that for this reason it assigned the new
classification of haulage truck drivers to MMS . In addition , the Em-
ployer points out that BLFE was certified for and represents specific
railroad jobs. Thus the Employer looks upon the new classification
as an accretion to the MMS unit. The record also establishes that
MMS represents the same type haulage drivers at other mines in the
same kind of trucks. The -Employer rebuts BLFE's contentions by
claiming (1) there is no "mine haulage department" as such; (2) the
contracts with BLFE which deal with "motive power" were "slanted"
to railroad equipment and not trucks ; (3) the original Board certifi-
cation dealt with specific job titles-not a whole department; and
(4) Board cases involving the BLFE and the Employer dealt with
employees employed in rail operations or train operations . Thus, it
argues, the BLFE certification and contracts are concerned solely with
trainmen and related employees , which makes its assignment of truck-
drivers to MMS valid. Finally, the Employer contends that BLFE's
sole motivation is to provide jobs for its displaced members.
MMS contends that the BLFE certification is restricted to specific
classifications in the train service and that the MMS certification
covers a residual unit which specifically excludes all the other craft
classifications and the BLFE classifications . The reference to a "haul-
age department" in the Board's Decision was a word of description
and did not create a departmental unit, nor do the words "mine haulage
service" or "train service" in the contracts or work rules create a de-
partmental unit. The reference to motive power in the BLFE con-
tract refers to train power-such as electric or steam-and not trucks.
Affirmatively, MMS contends that it has always represented the
Employer's truckdrivers and has the authority to do so, regardless
of the size and type of truck, under its certification and contracts, and
MMS represents heavy duty truck drivers at the Employer's mines in
Nevada and New Mexico.
The Board certifications show, in defining units among the em-
ployees of the Employer, that the MMS unit is comprised of residual
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees, i.e., employee classifications not specifically sought by other
unions. Truckdrivers were included in this unit, both by practice of
the parties and by reason of exclusion of the truckdriver classification
from all other units. Thus all other units in the Employer's work
force set forth specific job classifications, and none includes truck-
drivers. The BLFE unit describes only certain 'job classifications,
and each one is connected solely with the operation of trains. It is
apparent that the BLFE unit, as contemplated in the original certifi-
cation, was not departmental in scope to the extent that it encompassed
a "mine haulage department" which the Employer claims does not
exist. Rather the BLFE unit is set forth on the basis of the skills
necessary in the operation of trains. If the BLFE unit is not a craft
unit restricted to railroad men, it is a departmental unit of railroad
operating employees. In either event, it does not encompass a haulage
department as claimed by BLFE, and we find that contention without
merit.
In addition, contracts between the Employer and BLFE speak in
terms of individual job classifications. That selected parts of these
contracts describe a "mine haulage service" or "train service" does not
create a departmental unit of the scope claimed by BLFE, nor are we
convinced that those phrases in the contracts are descriptive of some-
thing more than the train-operating work engaged in by the BLFE
classifications. Hence, we conclude that the contracts do not contem-
plate, nor do they create, a departmental unit broad enough in scope to
be considered a "mine haulage department."
The evidence is clear that truckdriver classifications were included
in the MMS unit in the original Board certification and that MMS has
represented and contracted for these classifications ever since. There
is no doubt that the employee members of the MMS unit possess the
requisite skills to perform this job function, and that the heavy duty
truck drivers have a closer community of interest with other truck-
drivers than with employees having the different and specialized skills
of railroad operating employees. As the heavy duty truck driver
classification was not in existence at the time of the Board certifica-
tion, and in view of the foregoing, we find that this new classification
constitutes an accretion to the MMS unit, we shall amend the MMS
certification to include this classification. 18
B. Case No. R-51'14
1. Oil house man or warehouseman
There is a newly constructed warehouse connected to-the Yosemite
shop which is staffed by two employees classified as senior warehouse-
1e The BLFE motion to stay or dismiss the motion to amend or clarify is therefore
denied.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1081 19
man and warehouseman . Their job duties are to receive, check, in-
spect, record, unload , store, and issue materials and supplies. Less
than 5 percent of their time is spent in checking in and checking out
trucks full of petroleum products , and this will increase to under 10
percent in the future . The warehousemen have been represented by
the OEIU. MMS represents employees classified as oil house man at
different parts of the mine whose primary duties include the dispens-
ing of petroleum products.
MMS seeks to add the warehousemen at the Yosemite shop to its
unit on the theory that these employees are oil house men and not
warehousemen . The Employer contends that the employees in the
Yosemite warehouse are not oil house men, that none work in the
Yosemite area , and that the employees at the Yosemite shop ware-
house are warehousemen and are properly in the OEIU unit.
As the record shows that the employees in the Yosemite warehouse
perform warehousing duties exclusively , and that, incident to these
duties, they spend only a small proportion of their working time in
dealing with , but not dispensing , petroleum products , we find that
they are warehousemen properly included in the OEIU unit. Accord-
ingly, the MMS motion to clarify its unit to include these two em-
ployees shall be denied.
2. Alleged driving classifications
a. Tire service truck driver
The tire service truck is used to replace tires in the field and is
operated by the tire repairman discussed earlier. The IAM tire re-
pairman drives the tire service truck approximately 2 hours per week.
He changes tires with the truck-mounted hoist and checks pressures.
According to Employer 's witnesses , there is no classification as tire
service truck driver. This evidence is uncontroverted.
MMS contends that the tire repairman is properly in its unit for
the reasons stated infra, and that under its certification , all driving
jobs are in its unit.
b. Lubrication truck driver
Company witnesses state that there is no such classification in ex-
istence. This is the lubrication man who works out of the Yosemite
shop and was discussed supra. One of the crew members who works
on the lube truck drives it 2 hours per day. All the rest of the time is
spent in lubricating vehicles . The Company contends no such classi-
fication exists . MMS contends it is a classification and claims it. IAM
and Operating Engineers claim it if it exists.
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
c. Field repair truck driver
The evidence shows that the two field trucks are driven by the ma-
chinist(T) when making repairs on equipment in the field. No sepa-
rate classification of field truck driver exists. The machinist(T)
drives the truck 11/2 to 2 hours per day. MMS claims it if it exists.
IAM and IBEW agree to be bound by whatever determination is
made by the Board.
d. The line truck driver
The line truck is driven by a journeyman lineman who works out of
the electrical shop and is represented by IBEW. Company witnesses
testified that there is no separate line truck driver classification, that
the lineman drives the truck approximately 2 hours per day, and that
no single lineman drives the truck all of the time.
IBEW contends that the classification exists and that it should be
included in its units as does the AIMS. The Employer contends this
employee should be in the IBEW unit.
e. Repair gang truck driver
A five-man repair gang does maintenance and repairs on electric
shovels and rotary drills. Normally the same man, a machinist, drives
the truck used to transport this gang, and this man spends 1 to 11/2
hours per day in driving. The gang is composed generally of a super-
visor, machinist, machinist leadman, an apprentice, and helpers, all
represented by IAM. Occasionally a welder will work with the crew.
The crew reports to and works out of the Yosemite shop.
The Company claims no such classification as repair gang truck
driver exists. MMS claims it if it exists. IAM and IBEW agree to
be bound by the decision of the Board.
f. Welder's truck driver
The welding truck is used in conjunction with the repair gang truck.
It is manned by two to five men classified as AS repair gang shovel
engineers, and as AS repair gang machinist helpers and welders. The
function of the crew on the welding truck is to maintain safety equip-
ment and latch plates on the electric shovels and perform various
welding jobs. Generally the same individual drives it 11/2 to 2 hours
per day and spends the rest of his time repairing shovels and drills.
Employees who work from the welding truck are represented by IAM.
Employer contends no classification of welder's truck driver exists.
MMS claims the job and IAM agrees to be bound by the Board.
LATHERS LOCAL 62, WOOD, WIRE, ETC., INT'L UNION 21
g. Service truck drivers
In its motion to amend or clarify MMS sought this classification.
The record reveals that this is a general term for all jobs which in-
volve the driving of service trucks such as those discussed above. Thus,
there is no evidence in the record concerning this alleged classification.
The parties stipulated that at the Employer's other mines in Nevada,
Arizona, and New Mexico the Company has similar service trucks
which operate in the same manner as in Bingham, that the employees
who drive the service trucks are not classified as drivers, and that in
Nevada and New Mexico they are represented by MMS, while in Ari-
zona the Steelworkers represents the haulage truck drivers as well as
operators of heavy equipment and MMS represents the remaining pro-
duction and maintenance employees except machinists and electricians.
We find, on this record, that the classifications of tire service truck
driver, lubrication truck driver, field repair truck driver, line truck
driver, repair gang truck driver, welder's truck driver, and service
truck driver do not exist, and that the motions to include these alleged
classifications into the various certified units are without merit. Ac-
cordingly, the motions, to the extent that they seek to add these al-
leged classifications to existing certifications, shall be denied.
[The Board clarified the certification in Case No. R-2719 (20-R-
834) by specifically including, in the description of the appropriate
unit, the classifications of machinist (T), maintenance helpers, tire re-
pairman, and lubrication man; clarified the certification in Case No.
R-5114 (20-R-839) by specifically including, in the description of the
appropriate unit, the classification of heavy-duty truck driver; and
denied the motions to amend and/or clarify the certifications in these
cases, except as specifically granted above.]
Lathers Local Union No . 62, Wood , Wire & Metal Lathers Inter-
national Union , AFL-CIO and Belou & Co. Accoustics, Inc.
Case No. 15-CD-45. December 14, 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act following
a charge filed by Belou & Co. Accoustics, Inc., herein called Employer
or Belou, alleging that Lathers Local Union No. 62, Wood, Wire &
Metal Lathers International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Lathers,
had violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act by engaging in conduct
to force or require the Employer to assign certain disputed work to
employees represented by Lathers rather than to employees repre-
sented by Carpenters Local Union No. 1846, herein called Carpenters.
150 NLRB No. 10.