Kwikset Locks, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 247 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

KWIKSET LOCKS, INC. 247
majority of the group also held membership in the striking union. The court there stated
that if the employees in question came within the protection of Section 7 of the Act, the find-
ing of an unfair labor practice would be sustainable. It then proceeded to hold (1) that the
activities were not concerted; (2) that a refusal to cross the picket lines was an act of
principle and did not relate to their own grievances; and (3) assuming the activities to be
concerted, they were not carried on for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid
or protection.
The knotty problem here posed is perhaps well described by the language of the Supreme
Court in Allen-Bradley Co. v Local Union No 3, 325 U. S. 197. The Court stated, "We must
determine here how far Congress intended activities under one of these policies (to preserve
the rights of labor through the agency of collective bargaining) to neutralize the results
envisaged by the other (to preserve competitive business economy)."
Although there is no direct evidence that the complainant herein was replaced, that would
inevitably have been done, inasmuch as he was the only pickup man. And, since the Supreme
Court majority in the Rockaway decision flatly rejected the Board's distinction between
"discharge and replacement in this context," as "unrealistic and unfounded in law" it
follows that Respondent, as a result, was within his legal rights in discharging the com-
plainant for refusing to fully perform his job As a result, in this context and in the absence
of any antiunion bias or motive, Respondent had the alternatives of tolerating this demonstra-
tion of sympathy by the complainant or of treating it as a refusal on his part to perform the
normal duties of his position This employer chose to treat it as the latter, as insubordina-
tion, and in effect as an attempt to dictate the terms of his employment.
In view of the foregoing, and under all the circumstances present herein, I am persuaded
and find (1) that the complainant herein was not engaged in a concerted activity for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and (2) that in any event,
assuming these activities to have been protected under the Act, Respondent did not commit
an unfair labor practice by discharging this employee for refusing to perform his normal
duties. I will accordingly recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. See
N. L. R. B. v. Montgomery Ward and Co., 157 F. 2d 486 (C. A. 8) and Elk Lumber Co.,
91 NLRB 333.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The operations of Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act
2. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1) and (3) of the Act
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
KWIKSET LOCKS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS, Petitioner
KWIKSET LOCKS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 21-RC-3225 and
21-RC-3283. November 30, 1953
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, hearings were held before L. A. Gordon,
107 NLRB No. 69.
248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing officer.'The hearing officer' s rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act in Case
No. 21-RC-3283.
No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act in Case
No. 21-RC-3225.
The Employer operates two plants at Anaheim, California, at
which it is engaged principally in the manufacture of lock sets,
consisting of the outside and inside knob and the latch or lock
assembly which as a unit is fitted into ordinary household doors.
The lock sets are manufactured at the Employer's Santa Ana
Street plant. The Employer also manufactures metal parts for a
60-millimeter illuminating flare on what is referred to herein
as the shell line, and metal links for machinegun ammunition
belts on what is referred to herein as the link line. The shell
and links lines are located at the Employer's Center Street
plant. The Employer also temporarily leases premises at 709
Center Street, where shipping and receiving activities are per-
formed. These operations will be housed in a new building at the
Santa Ana Street plant within approximately 3 months.
The Employer employs approximately 750 employees, 600 of
whom are located at the Santa Ana Street plant, 135 of whom are
located at the Center Street plant, and 15 of whom are located
in the temporary premises at 709 Center Street. Supervision
over all the operations is performed by the works manager.
Under him, the production unit superintendent supervises the
operations of the Santa Ana Street plant, and the Center Street
plant superintendent supervises the operations of the Center
Street plant. On the immediate supervisory level, each depart-
ment is supervised by a separate foreman, except that the buf-
iThe Petitioner filed its petition in Case No. 21-RC- 3225 on July 23, 1953. On the same
date it filed a petition in Case No. 21-RC-3226 for a unit of all production and maintenance
employees, excluding those involved in Case No. 21-RC-3225. The two cases were con-
solidated for hearing by order of the Regional Director, but on August 11, 1953, Petitioner
withdrew Case No. 21-RC-3226 After hearing was held in Case No. 21-RC-3225, Petitioner
filed its petition in Case No. 21-RC-3283, which is essentially the same as the petition which
it withdrew. At the hearing on the last filed petition the parties incorporated by stipulation
the entire record and exhibits in Case No. 21-RC-3225. On September 23, 1953, the Em-
ployer moved the Board to consolidate Case No. 21-RC-3225 and Case No. 21-RC-3283 for
purposes of decision. The motion is hereby granted.
2 The Employer refused to stipulate that Petitioner is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act. The record adequately discloses that Petitioner admits to membership
employees of the Employer for the purpose of representing them in bargaining negotiations
with the Employer as to rates of pay, wages, hours, and working conditions.
KWIKSET LOCKS, INC. 249
fing and polishing department and the automatic buffingdepart-
ment are supervised by the same foreman , and the plating
department and the burnishing department are under the super-
vision of a single foreman.
In Case No. 21 - RC-3225 the Petitioner seeks to represent a
unit of all employees of the buffing and polishing departments,
automatic buffing department , plating department , and the
burnishing department , and also the phosphatizing operators
who work on the shell line and the tank operators who work on
the link line. The Petitioner is also willing to include the em-
ployees of the lacquer department if the Board so determines.
In Case No . 21-RC-3283 , the Petitioner seeks to represent all
production and maintenance employees , including shipping and
receiving department employees , but excluding those employees
who are the subject of its petition in Case No. 21-RC-3225.
The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one
composed of all production and maintenance employees at
both plants including the shipping and receiving department
employees and the employees of the buffing and polishing,
automatic buffing, plating , and burnishing departments. The
Petitioner contends that the buffing and polishing , automatic
buffing, plating, and burnishing department employees, and the
phosphatizing and tank operators constitute a craft unit en-
titled to separate representation as a departmental unit. The
Employer denies that these employees are craft employees and
contends that they do not under any theory constitute a depart-
mental unit entitled to separate representation and moves to dis-
miss the petition in Case No. 21 -RC-3225. The Petitioner states
that if the Board finds that these employees do not constitute an
appropriate unit, it is willing to include them in a plantwide pro-
duction and maintenance unit.
Petitioner ' s witness, Vargas , who admittedly possesses all
the skills of a journeyman polisher, buffer, plater, and burn-
isher, gained in employment for employers other than Kwikset,
testified that it is necessary to serve an apprenticeship of at
least 2 years and usually 3 or 4 years before an employee can
learn all phases of buffing , polishing , plating, and burnishing on
a great variety of different metals so as to be qualified for a
journeyman rating in the craft. The Employer has no apprentice-
ship program and makes no attempt to rotate its employees
among the departments so that they can become skilled in more
than one function of the craft. Each of the departments which
come within the scope of the alleged craft unit performs only 1
function of the 4 basic functions of the craft. Only 5 employees of
the 45 employees in the buffing and polishing department, only 1
of the 15 employees of the automatic buffing department, and 1
of the 22 employees of the plating and burnishing departments
had previous experience as buffers , polishers , platers, and
burnishers prior to their employment at Kwikset. Twenty-four
of these employees were transferred into these departments
from other departments of the Employer at varying times within
the last 3 or 4 years . In addition to these permanent transfers
250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the record discloses that there are numerous temporarytrans-
fers in and out of these departments to and from other depart-
ments in the plant. Employees are hired as class C buffers,
polishers, platers, or burnishers and advance from class C to
class A primarily on ability and efficiency. In some instances
employees have adva;tced from class C to class B in as little
as 6 weeks. The Employer's job classifications show that the
Employer expects newly hired employees to progress from
class C to class A in less than a year.
The Employer's production departments are organized on an
assembly-line basis. The departments involved in the petition
receive the component parts of the lock sets from the die cast,
cylinder assembly, or punch press departments, for various
finishing operations. They either return the parts to the
cylinder, die cast, and punch press departments, and receive
them back for further finishing operations or forward the parts
to the lacquer departments or assembly departments. There is a
continual flow of partially finished parts backand forth between
the various departments.
Even those few employees who do possess journeyman status
in the purported.craft are not required to utilize all their skills
at Kwikset. Vargas testified that at Kwikset he had not worked
in the plating department or the automatic buffing department,
and that he was not required to utilize his full complement of
skills in performing his duties. He testified that he colored
over 4,800 knobs a day. He also works on other parts of the lock
set at various times, and it is apparent that even he, perhaps the
most skilled employee in the group, is engaged in performing
highly repetitive and standarized operations and is at most a
production specialist.
In view of the foregoing and on the record as a whole we find
that the employees in the buffing and polishing, automatic buf-
fing, plating, and burnishing departments do not constitute a
group of craft employees but at most perform highly specialized
production work.3 As no persuasive basis for establishing them
in a separate unit has been shown, we find that the unit sought
by the Petitioner in Case No. Zl-RC-3225 is inappropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining. Accordingly we shall dismiss
the petition in Case No. 21-RC.3225.
4. The appropriate unit:
Since we have dismissed the petition in Case No. 21-RC-3225
we shall treat the petition in Case No. 21-RC-3Z83 as a petition
for a plantwide production and maintenance unit as requested by
the Petitioner. As noted above, the Employer agrees that this
is the only appropriate unit. The parties stipulated that the unit
should include the shipping, receiving, and warehouse em-
ployees, presently located at 709 Center Street.
We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that
the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
3 Hyster Company, 106 NLRB 347 , General Metalcraft, Inc., Olympia Division , 106 NLRB
1131.
PENN-DIXIE CEMENT CORPORATION 2 51
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees employed at the
Employer's Santa Ana Street and Center Street plants in
Anaheim, California, including leadmen,4 employees of the buf-
fing and polishing, automatic buffing, plating, and burnishing
departments, shipping, receiving, and warehouse employees
employed at 709 Center Street, Anaheim, California, who are
classified as material handlers , parts crib attendants, in-
dividual truckdrivers, truckdrivers, leadman storekeeper,
storekeeper, shipping clerk, and shipping clerk leadman, but
excluding cafeteria employees, watchmen, guards, professional
employees, office clerical employees, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 21 -RC-3225
[Test of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 The parties stipulated that leadmen are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
PENN-DIXIE CEMENT CORPORATION and UNITED CEMENT,
LIME AND GYPSUM WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 4 -RC-2005. December 1, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles Sand-
berg, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
On May 2, 1953, the Employer and Local No. 4 (a local of
the Petitioner herein) executed a contract for the period from
May 1, 1953, to April 1, 1954, covering the production and
maintenance employees but specifically excluding the labora-
tory employees,plant clerical employees, and storeroom em-
ployees. The Petitioner in this proceeding seeks to represent
'Because the record and the Employer 's brief fully present the positions of the parties
on the issues involved herein, the motion of the Employer for oral argument is hereby
denied.
107 NLRB No. 74.