Ladish Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 1101 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

LADISH CO. 1101
Ladish Co. and Local No. 92, American Federation
of Technical Engineers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 30-UC-38
June 25, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING
PETITION TO CLARIFY
CERTIFICATION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition of Local No. 92, American
Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO, for
clarification of unit duly filed on August 12, 1968,
and first amended petition filed on September 19,
1968, under Section 9(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , a hearing ' was held on
September 24, October 15, November 14, 15, 22,
1968, and January 7, 1969, before John Groth and
Cecil Sutphen, Hearing Officers. On January 8,
1969, the Regional Director for Region 30 issued an
Order transferring the case to the National Labor
Relations Board. Thereafter, briefs were timely filed
by the Employer and the Petitioner.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officers'
r(tlings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner and Intervenor are both labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act, and
both claim to represent certain employees of the
Employer.
3. The Employer is engaged in the production of
forgings, pipefittings, and related products at its
Cudahy, Wisconsin, plant. On June 30, 1964, the
Petitioner was certified as the bargaining
representative of a unit of all technical employees at
this plant.' The Petitioner and Employer are
currently parties to a collective-bargaining
agreement effective from February 19, 1968, to
February 15, 1971, covering the certified unit of
technical employees.
In this proceeding Petitioner is seeking
clarification of its certification to include certain
classifications of employees whose work Petitioner
alleges is technical in nature . Petitioner's request, if
'Associa moos of America , Local 85, was allowed to intervene at
the hearing on the basis of its contract covering the clerical employees of
the Employer . The Intervenor took no position on any of the issues
discussed herein.
'Case 30-RC- 18 (not published in NLRB volumes).
176 NLRB No. 150
granted, would result in the addition of
approximately 107 employees to the 440 employees
it currently represents. The Petitioner contends that
reorganizations have taken place which have
resulted in new technical jobs being created which
are not now included in the unit. The Employer
contends that the classifications of employees sought
had previously been excluded from the technical unit
by stipulation between the Employer and the
Technical Engineers Association, the predecessor of
the Petitioner as representative of this unit; that the
job classifications now sought were in existence at
the time the Petitioner was certified and the
employees in these classifications had been
specifically excluded from voting in the election;
and, therefore, the relief sought cannot be granted in
a clarification proceeding. The Board finds merit in
the Employer's contention that the petition should
be denied.
Among the classifications that the Petitioner
requests that the Board add to its unit are the
following: purchasing department (buyer and chief
buyer); planning department (property
administrator, customs planner, and project
engineer ); production department (production
supervisor, office supervisor, engineering supervisor);
fittings division (fittings pricer, assistant to manager
of resale pipe and tubing); advertising department
(assistant advertising manager, assistant to manager
of marketing and research); sales service divisions A
and B (pricer, inside desk salesman, outside desk
salesman ); quality control department (quality
control assistant); traffic department (customs
packaging engineers , traffic analyst, traffic
assistant); government relations department
(accountant, administrative assistant, termination
claims supervisor); steel stores division (general
foreman); metallurgical department (metallurgical
engineer ); fittings sales division (sales coordinator);
and first-aid department (first-aid attendant). The
record shows that all of the aforementioned
classifications were in existence and populated prior
to the election and certification in 1964, and the
employees in these classifications were specifically
excluded from voting in the 1964 election. The
record further reveals that most of the employees
now working in these classifications were performing
substantially the same duties in 1964, but were
excluded from the voting group as managerial,
supervisory, professional, or confidential. They
therefore cannot be regarded as accretions to the
existing technical unit.'
The Petitioner is also seeking to represent the
employees in the following classifications: planning
department (planning coordinator, facility planner);
industrial engineering department (fittings assistant
supervisor); fittings division (product line manager);
and general superintendent's office (general
'Lu in Foundry and Machine Company, 174 NLRB No 90;
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 173 NLRB No. 51, General Electric
Co., 144 NLRB 88.
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
foreman, factory general supervisor, special project
supervisor, cost supervisor, tooling supervisor,
central quantity records supervisor). It is not clear
from the record when some of the above
classifications came into existence , but we note that
they were all in existence at the time of the
execution of the most recent contract between the
Petitioner and the Employer and have been excluded
from its coverage. Moreover, virtually all of the
employees now working in these classifications were
working in other divisions of the plant at the time of
the 1964 election and were excluded from the voting
group as either managerial or professional . In these
circumstances , we find that these employees cannot
be added to the unit without an election.'
Finally, Petitioner seeks to include the
classification of administrative assistants -in the
industrial engineering ' and metallurgical
departments. It is Petitioner's view that John
Frederick, administrative assistance in the industrial
engineering department , performs substantially the
same work as employees in the represented
estimator-planner classification. The record does not
reveal when Frederick's job was created. The duties
involved include the analysis of job costs on all
standard parts made at Cudahy and the
maintenance of information on the cost of materials
Ladish must buy from other plants. While there is
some evidence that estimator - planners , who are
included in the technical unit, may at times be called
upon to do work similar to that done by Frederick,
there is no evidence that Frederick consistently
performs any task that is within the unit job
descriptions. William R. Boos, the lone
administrative assistant in the metallurgical
department , assists in establishing , developing, and
maintaining effective cost control procedures in the
metallurgical department. The Petitioner contends
'Gould- National Batteries , Inc. 157 NLRB 679, 681 ; Westinghouse
Electric Corporation, supra Lufkin Foundry and Machine Company,
supra. See also Industrial Siderurgica , Inc, 147 NLRB 975.
'An additional classification in the industrial engineering department
(fittings processing supervisor) was apparentiN sought in the petition
However , it is stipulated that Lloyd G. Ellsworth , the only individual
working in this classification, is a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act.
that Boos was promoted out of the unit into this
newly created classification. However, the record
reveals that Boos ' place in the unit was taken by an
individual that Boos himself trained for the job and
that Boos ' present work is dissimilar from that of
unit employees. We find that these jobs are not
accretions to the technical unit.
It is clear that most of the classifications at issue
were in existence and populated prior to the election
and certification in 1964. Neither the certification
nor the subsequent contracts have covered these
classifications in the unit description. The record
indicates that the basic job functions in these
classifications are substantially unchanged and in
many instances the employees presently working in
these classifications were performing the same job at
the time of the certification. While there is limited
evidence of overlapping function between unit
employees and certain employees in the requested
classifications, the employees sought do not perform
such tasks which are within unit job descriptions on
a regular basis or to the exclusion of their own job
responsibilities. Considering these factors, together
with the differences in job functions, supervision,
and responsibility, we find that the addition of
approximately 107 unrepresented employees to a
unit of approximately 440 now represented by the
Petitioner without affording them an opportunity to
accept or reject such representation is unwarranted.
Consequently, the petition for clarification raises a
question concerning representation which may not
be resolved through a clarification of the existing
unit. The proper procedure to determine the issue of
inclusion is a petition pursuant to Section 9(c) of the
Act, seeking an election.' We shall therefore dismiss
this petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner ' s petition
for unit clarification be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
'Cruc,b e teel Casting, 162 NLRB 1513, Beaunu Fibers, Inc, 153
NLRB 987; cases cited fn 2 and 3, infra