Knox Porcelain Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1299 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of KNOx PORCELAIN CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 555, PETITIONER
Case No. 10-R-1874.-Decided August 8,1946
Messrs. Charles D. Snepp and H. E. Williams, both of Knoxville,
Tenn., for the Employer.
Mr. Paul Chipman, of Atlanta, Ga., and Mr. C. H. Dinwiddie, of
Knoxville, Tenn., for the Petitioner.
Mr. H. L. Cloud, of Byington, Tenn., and Mr. C. McMillan, of
Knoxville, Tenn., for the IBEW.
Mr. John A. Nevros, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Knoxville,
Tennessee, on May 29, 1946, before John C. McRee, Trial Examiner.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:-
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Knox Porcelain Corporation, a Tennessee corporation, is engaged at
its Knoxville, Tennessee, plant in the manufacture and sale of electri-
cal wiring devices such as sockets, insulators and switches. The
Employer annually uses about $600,000 worth of raw materials, of
which about 50 percent comes from sources outside the State of Ten-
nessee. Over 50 percent of the Employer's finished products, valued
at approximately $800,000 annually, is sold and shipped to points out-
side the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
69 N. L. R. B., No. 160.
1299
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-927,
herein called the IBEW, is a labor organization affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all tool and die makers, machinists,
maintenance mechanics, and their apprentices and helpers.' This
unit consists of all the employees in the Employer's machine shop.
The IBEW contends that such a unit is inappropriate in view of the
existing plant-wide production and maintenance unit which includes
the machine shop employees, and the 5 years of bargaining history
with the Employer on the basis of such a unit. The Employer takes
a neutral position.
The Employer has a total complement of approximately 350 em-
ployees. Only 12 of these individuals are assigned to the machine
shop, an area separated from the rest of the plant by a wire fence.
These 12 employees comprise in effect a separate department function-
ally; constitute the Employer's only highly skilled group of em-
ployees, the others being either semi-skilled or unskilled; and are
the highest paid hourly workers in the plant. With respect to the
bargaining history at the plant, the record shows that there was no
collective bargaining before 1941. On May 28 of that year, as the
result of an election held pursuant to a consent election agreement
to which the Employer, the IBEW, and.the Board were signatories,
the IBEW was designated as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
Employer's production and maintenance employees. The machine
shop employees participated in that election. Thereafter, on June
6, 1941, the IBEW and the Employer signed a "union shop" agree-
ment covering all production and maintenance workers, including the
machine shop employees. The parties have been in contractual rela-
tionship ever since; the last 1-year union shop agreement was entered
into on September 5, 1945, and was made effective retroactively from
June 24, 1945.
The Petitioner appears to base its argument for severance of these
employees from the existing unit primarily on the grounds that they
comprise a craft group and that bargaining has not protected their
craft interests. However, the record does not sustain the position
of the Petitioner in the latter respect. During the past 5 years, the
machine shop employees have obtained wage increases through the
bargaining efforts of the IBEW. For the most of this period, they
have also had their own shop stewards. No grievances have ever been
processed in their behalf because none have arisen. And although
the machine shop employees have never had any direct representation
i At present there are no apprentices and helpers employed in the machine shop.
KNOX PORCELAIN CORPORATION 1301
on the Petitioner's General Shop Committee or Executive Commit-
tee, it is clear from the record that this committee has represented
indiscriminately all the employees and that there has been no com-
plaint that the committee has failed to safeguard the interests of the
machine shop personnel. That there has been no dissatisfaction with
representation by the IBEW is further emphasized by the fact that
the machine shop employees have been members of the IBEW during
this 5-year period and until recently have neither sought member-
ship in the International Association of Machinists nor expressed a
desire for separate representation as a craft unit. It would thus ap-
pear that since 1941 the machine shop employees have deliberately
merged their interests with those of the other employees in the plant-
wide unit represented by the IBEW and have participated in the
benefits of collective bargaining upon a broader basis than the craft
unit sought herein.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, including the participation
of the machine shop employees in the original establishment of the
plant-wide unit, and the subsequent history of collective bargaining
in the more comprehensive unit, we see no reason for setting the
machine shop employees apart from the remainder of the Employer's
employees represented by the IBEW 3 We conclude, therefore, that
the unit requested by the Petitioner is inappropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining and we shall dismiss the petition filed herein .3
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the Petitioner
is not appropriate, as found in Section III, above, we find that no ques-
tion affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of
employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, it is hereby ordered that the petition for investigation and
certification of representatives of employees of Knox Porcelain Cor-
poration, Knoxville, Tennessee, filed by International Association of
Machinists, Lodge 555, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
2 See Matter of General Electric Company ( Lynn River Works and Everett Plant), 58
N. L. R. B. 57.
8 See Matter of Continental Can Company-Owens -Illinois-Division, 66 N. L . R. B. 1069 ;
Matter of Radio Corporation of America, RCA Victor Division, 66 N. L . R. B. 162; Matter
of International Harvester Company , Canton Works, 61 N. L. R. B. 1199; and Matter of The
American Swiss Company, 59 N. L. R. B. 790.