Lapp Insulator Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 23, 1964

150 N.L.R.B. 596 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lapp Insulator Co., Inc. and Federal Labor Union No . 22485 and
District No. 6, International Association of Machinists, AFL-
CIO. Cases Nos. 3-R-210 and 3-RC-1164. December 23, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION
By a motion to clarify collective-bargaining units filed with the
Board on August 31, 1964, the Employer sought to ascertain whether
the certification of District No. 6, International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO (IAM), or that of Federal Labor Union No.
22485 (FLU) properly covered certain employees to be transferred
to two newly constructed buildings. In support of their positions,
each of the two unions filed documents with the Board, the FLU
requesting a hearing.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Jenkins].
The Board finds that the factual allegations in the Employer's
motion are uncontested by any party, and that no purpose would be
served by conducting a hearing. Accordingly, the Board finds :
In 1940, the Employer conducted its entire operation in a single
main plant building. That same year the hourly paid production
and maintenance employees, in an election the results of which were
certified by the Regional Director, designated the FLU to represent
them in collective bargaining with the Employer. FLU and the
Employer then reached an agreement containing the following rec-
ognition clause :
Article 1-The Company recognizes the Union as the sole
collective-bargaining agent for its hourly employees during the
term of this agreement.
Expansion of the Employer's operations required the construction
in 1952 of a machine shop building to which a number of the
employees were transferred. On April 22, 1953, pursuant to a stipu-
lation for certification upon consent election, the National Labor
Relations Board certified the IAM as the representative of a machine
shop unit, consisting of all the employees in the following unit :
THE APPROPRIATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
UNIT-All Machine Shop employees presently employed in
Departments 12, 15, 18, and 19 ....
By the end of January 1965, the Employer expects to complete
construction of two more buildings, the special grinding building
150 NLRB 53.
LAPP INSULATOR CO., INC. 597
and the special bushing manufacture and grinding building. The
Employer contemplates the transfer of employees to these new
buildings from both the main plant and the machine shop.
Whether the certification of the FLU or the IAM properly covers
the proposed machine shop transferees is the question raised by the
Employer in its request for clarification of the units.' These trans-
ferees are now represented by the IAM and work in the machine
shop in department 12. The transfer will divide them into two
groups. The first group of 15 employees will move to the special
grinding building where they will continue to grind porcelain and
metal. The other four employees will be transferred to the special
bushing manufacture and grinding building where they, too, will
continue to perform grinding work similar to that which they per-
formed in the machine shop.
Separate collective-bargaining agreements were signed with the
FLU and the IAM in June 1953 and again in 1955. Pursuant
thereto, the FLU represented "production and maintenance employ-
ees ... exclusive of all Machine Shop employees ... permanently
assigned to ... the Machine Shop." On the other hand, the IAM
represented "all employees permanently assigned in the ... Machine
Shop or any addition thereto . ' .. regardless of any change in geo-
graphical location or department number."
Applying the above agreements, the FLU, IAM, and the Employer
agreed in the past that two employees, classified in department 12,
who were transferred from the machine shop to the main plant,
there continuing to perform their grinding work, should remain in
the IAM unit.
Relying on the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements, the
manner in which the parties have applied the agreements, and the
scope of the appropriate unit as defined in IAM's 1952 certification,
the Board concludes that IAM's certification properly covers those
employees to be transferred from the machine shop. The crucial
element in the Board's view is this: An employee who has trans-
ferred out of the machine shop should continue to be covered by the
TAM certification if he continues to do machine shop work. In the
present case , after transferring to the new buildings, all former
machine shop employees will be performing machine shop work,
and not regular production or maintenance work.
1 The Employer asks for clarification of both "units ." We deem it unnecessary to
clarify the FLU certification in view of the lack of conflict concerning the additional
transferees . They are represented by the FLU and apparently will perform functions as
inspectors , testers, and gaugers, and in packing , pugging, turning , kiln burning, and
shipping.
598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the appropriate unit covered by the
certification of District No. 6, International Association of Machin-
ists , AFL-CIO, in Case No. 3-RC-1164, be, and it hereby is, clarified
so as to include the following :
(a) Those employees now classified in department 12, who are to
be transferred from the machine shop to the special grinding
building to perform the same work as they are now doing in the
machine shop.
(b) Those employees now classified in department 12, who are to
be transferred from the machine shop to the special bushing
manufacture and grinding building to perform the same work as
they are now doing in the machine shop.
Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated i and International Asso-
ciation of Machinists , Ranger District No. 49, Petitioner. Case
No. 28-RC-133. December 24, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
J. W. Cherry. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 3 finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9 (c) (1) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons.
The Employer is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Chicago, Illinois. It is engaged in the distribution of
merchandise throughout the United States through a system of retail,
mail-order, and catalog stores. The subject case concerns only the
retail store in Thomas Mall, Phoenix, Arizona.
1 As amended at the hearing.
2 After the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director issued an order trans-
ferring this case to the Board for decision.
8 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 [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Fanning and Brown].
150 NLRB No. 56.