Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 17, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1512 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he incurred moving expenses in the sum of $100 to make possible his acceptance
of the indicated employment. Despite the Respondent's formal denial, I find this
item of expense to be a reasonable and proper deduction from Cantrell's first
interim earnings in sawmill employment.
Throughout the third and fourth quarters of 1954, Cantrell's interim earnings
exceeded his gross back pay. For these quarters, the General Counsel has ad-
vanced no back-pay claim.
Upon the entire record, I am satisfied that the Respondent's back-pay obligation
with respect to Cantrell should be computed as follows:
[Cclaimtof
the
Frank Harlin onafor a deta ledlea ems t
In this
of thes
report
laimants grossback-fie
computation]
g PaY
19534th quarter
Gross back pay--------------
- -
----------------------------- $639.00
Interim earnings ------------------------------------------------ None
Net back pay--------------------------------------------- 639.00
[Consult the back-pay summary provided elsewhere in this report with respect to the
claim of Kenneth Mumford for a detailed statement of this Claimant's gross back-pay
computation]
1954 1st quarter
Gross back pay------------------------------------------------- 810.00
Interim earnings------------------------------------------------ None
Net back pay--------------------------------------------- 810.00
1954 2nd quarter
Apr. 1-3, 24 hours---------------------------------------------- 36.00
12 weeks, Apr. 5-June 26, 40 his. at $1.50-------------------------- 720.00
June 28-30, 24 hrs---------------------------------------------- 36.00
Gross back pay------------------------------------------- 792.00
Interim earnings:
Arkley Lumber Company---------------------------- $486.50
Less: Incidental expenses----------------------------- 100.00
Net interim earnings-------------------------------------- 386.50
Net back pay-------------------------------------------- 406.50
Total net back pay---------------------------------------- 1,855.50
Payment on account--------------------------------------------- 1,215.75
Back pay due-------------------------------------------- 639.75
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corp . and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corp. and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local No. 611, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 33-RC-708 and 88-RC-710. February 17, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
122 NLRB No. 176.
KERMAC NUCLEAR FUELS CORP. 1513
Hugh M. Smith, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.'
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 to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Rodgers and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations 2 involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner in Case No. 33-RC-708, herein called Steel-
workers, seeks a unit of production and maintenance employees at
the Employer's sections 10, 22, and 30 mines. The Petitioner in
Case No. 33-RC-710, herein called IBEW, seeks a unit of all elec-
tricians, helpers, and apprentices. The various intervenors generally
seek an overall production and maintenance unit and have indicated
a desire to appear on the ballot in whatever unit the Board finds
appropriate. The Employer contends that the only unit appropriate
should consist of the production and maintenance employees, and
the electricians, at its entire operations near Grants, New Mexico,
including all its mines, mill, and auxiliary departments. There is
no history of collective bargaining at these operations.'
Case No. 33-RC-708
The Employer is engaged in mining and milling uranium ore for
the production of uranium oxide. Its operations are divided into
three divisions : mining, milling, and service. Other auxiliary de-
partments, such as a warehouse, serve both the mill and mines. The
mining division consists of six mines : the three sought by the Steel-
workers which are now in operation, and three designated sections 24,
33, and 17, now being readied for operation. The milling division
1 The hearing officer referred to,the Board the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petitions
on the grounds that ( 1) the units sought are inappropriate and (2 ) the petitions were
prematurely filed. For the reasons stated hereinafter the motion is denied.
2 After the close of the hearing, the Board received from Uranium Metal Trades
Council of Grants, New Mexico and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, a motion to intervene in Case
No. 33-RC-708 . As the showing of interest submitted in support of the motion post-
dated the close of the hearing on October 27 , 1958, we find the attempted intervention
untimely and deny the motion . Transcontinental Bus System, Inc., 119 NLRB 1840.
8 A petition for the Employer 's production , maintenance , and transportation employees
at these operations , filed by the Steelworkers on July 1, 1957, was dismissed by the
Board on September 23, 1957 ( Case No. 33--RC-616, unpublished), on the ground that
it was prematurely filed.
1514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
consists of the Employer's mill, and the service division is presently
composed of two departments, mechanical maintenance and electrical
maintenance.
The Employer's operations are interdependent and integrated.
The mines are all similar in nature, produce the same product, use
the same type of equipment and similar methods of production, and
have the same employee job classifications. All ore produced at the
-mines is processed at the Employer's mill and the same service em-
ployees, including electrical maintenance employees, maintain the
mines and mill to keep production moving. The service employees
are subject to call at all times to perform repair and maintenance
work as and when needed throughout the operations. And to insure
continuous and proper operations, a crew of service repairmen is
regularly assigned to each mine and to the mill, where they work
the same shift hours and under the same supervision as the produc-
tion employees working therein.
The Employer's entire operations are under centralized and com-
-mon managerial control. All employees are hired through a common
personnel office, are subject to uniform personnel and labor policies,
have the same working conditions, and enjoy the same benefits.
Seniority is on a companywide basis, regardless of classification.
Upon the entire record in these cases, we are of the opinion that a
unit of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
entire operations, rather than a unit limited to three mines, may be
appropriate.4
Case No. 33-RC-710
The IBEW seeks to represent all the Employer's electricians, their
helpers and apprentices, including electrical repairmen. These em-
ployees, comprising the electrical maintenance department of the
Employer's service division, are separately located in an electrical
shop under the supervision of a chief electrician and electrical fore-
man, both admitted supervisors. The primary function of these
employees is to maintain and repair all electrical equipment and
apparatus in the Employer's operations. They install motors, repair
switches, pull wire, and lay powerlines. They use test instruments
to check voltage and amperage, and tools and safety equipment espe-
-cially assigned to the electrical maintenance department by the Em-
ployer. As electrical power is used in all the Employer's operations,
the electricians are subject to call to perform electrical maintenance
and repair work wherever required throughout the entire operations.
At such times they work in teams with mechanical maintenance and
other employees. An electrician is also regularly assigned, on a rota-
tion basis, to each of the three shifts of each mine. Mine assign-
4 Gaspro, Ltd ., 114 NLRB 833; Homes take Mining Company, 105 NLRB 198.
KERMAC NUCLEAR FUELS CORP. 1515
ments are made by the chief electrician or the electrical foreman.
While so assigned the electricians are under the general supervision
of the mine supervisor, but on technical matters they contact their
electrical supervisors who also inspect the underground electrical
work. Although there is no apprenticeship or formal training pro-
gram for electricians, the Employer attempts to hire employees with
electrical experience, and applicants for employment are examined
as to their electrical ability and trade knowledge. The final decision
to hire them in the electrical department is made by the chief elec-
trician. In view of the foregoing and the record as a whole, we
find that the electricians sought may constitute a unit appropriate
for separate representation if they so desire.5
In view of our determination that the electricians may constitute
:a separate unit if they so desire, and that a production and main-
tenance unit may also be appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but
shall direct separate elections in the following voting groups of
employees at the Employer's mines, mill, and auxiliary departments
at its operations near Grants, New Mexico :
(1) All production and maintenance employees, including plant
clerical employees, but excluding all employees in voting group (2),
office clerical and professional employees, guards, and all supervisors
as defined in the Act.
(2) All electricians, helpers, apprentices, and electrical repairmen,
excluding all other employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined
in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in voting group (2) vote for the
.IBEW, those employees will be taken to have indicated their desire
to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director
conducting the election is hereby instructed to issue a certification
'of representatives to the IBEW for such unit, which the Board
under the circumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining. And in that event, should a majority of the
,employees in voting group (1) select a bargaining representative, the
Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representa-
tives to the successful labor organization for a unit of production
and maintenance employees, which the Board, under the circum-
stances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
However, if a majority of the employees in voting group (2) do
not vote for the IBEW, such group will appropriately be included
in the same unit with the employees in voting group (1) and their
s Griffin Wheel Company, 119 NLRB 336. After the hearing, the Employer submitted
an 'affidavit stating that organizational changes have further integrated the electricians
with other maintenance employees. Despite opposition by the IBEW, we have considered
this affidavit. However, we find that it does not affect our determination that the elec-
tricians herein may constitute a separate appropriate unit.
1516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
votes will be pooled with those in voting group (1).1 If a majority
of the employees in the pooled group select a bargaining representa-
tive, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of
representatives to the successful labor organization for the pooled
group which the Board in such circumstances finds to be an appro-
priate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
5. The Employer contends further that the petitions are premature
because of expanding operations. The record shows that at the time
of the hearing, there were 194 employees in the 3 mines sought by
the Steelworkers, and that this number would increase to 284 by
January 1959 and to a full complement of 344 by April 1959. Of
the 3 remaining mines, 1 was expected to start operations in Decem-
ber 1958, a second in April 1959, and the third in December 1959,
each with 25 employees. The Employer expected that the latter 3
mines would have full complements of 95 employees each by May
1959, August 1959, and May 1960, respectively. The mill was in
partial production at the time of the hearing. It was estimated that
there would be 75 mill employees by December 1, 1955, and 121 by
January 1, 1959, when the mill would be in full production. In addi-
tion, there were approximately 39 service employees at the time of the
hearing, with an estimated full complement of 70 to be reached by
March 1959. These service employees include the electricians, of
whom there were 19 at the time of the hearing, with a full comple-
ment of 25 anticipated by January 1959. At the time of the hearing,
there were employees in 14 of the Employer's contemplated 29 job
classifications.
Under all the circumstances, we find that at the time of the hearing
there was employed a substantial and representative segment of the
ultimate complement of employees and that the petitions herein were
not prematurely filed. However, as voting group (1) has expanded
since the filing of the petition, and the Steelworkers' showing of
interest as of the time of such filing is no longer adequate, the
Regional Director is instructed not to proceed with the election in
voting group (1) herein directed, until he shall have first determined
that the Steelworkers has made an adequate showing of interest, as
of the date of the hearing, among the employees in voting group (1).1
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
6If the votes are pooled , they are to be tallied as follows : The votes for IBEW shall
be counted as valid votes , but neither for nor against any union seeking to represent
the more comprehensive unit ; all other votes are to be accorded their face value , whether
for representation in one of the unions seeking the comprehensive group or for no union.
'Brown & Root Caribe , Inc., 119 NLRB 815. In the event the Steelworkers does not
wish to participate in an election in the larger group, we shall permit it to withdraw
its petition upon notice to the Regional Director within 5 days from the date of issuance
of this Direction of Elections , and shall thereupon vacate the Direction of Election in
Case No. 33-RC-708.