Local 1, Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 1, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 581 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

LOCAL 1, INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS 581
(d) Additional copies of the attached notice shall be signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, and forthwith returned to the aforesaid Regional Director
for posting by Machnick Construction Co., Inc., said employer being willing, at its
business offices and construction projects, where notices to its employees are
customarily posted.
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of
this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.13
' In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision.
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 106, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERAT-
ING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF MACHNICK CON-
STRUCTION CO., INC.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Machnick Construction Co., Inc.,
or any other employer, to discharge, demote, deny employment to, or otherwise
discriminate against Raymond J. Dahoda because he is not a member of this
union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce Raymond J.
Dahoda, or any other employee, in the exercise of his rights guaranteed by Sec-
tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL notify Machnick Construction Co., Inc., in writing, that we have
no objection to, and we will not interfere with, its employment of Raymond J.
Dahoda in the capacity of and as an operating engineer , whether he is a mem-
ber of this union or not.
WE WILL notify Raymond J. Dahoda that we have no objection to his em-
ployment by Machnick Construction Co., Inc., in the capacity of and as an
operating engineer , whether he is a member of this union or not, and that here-
after we will not unlawfully infringe upon any right guaranteed to him by Sec-
tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL make whole Raymond J. Dahoda for any loss of earnings he may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
LOCAL 106, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS , AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Fourth
Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York, Telephone No.
TL 6-1782, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Local Union No. 1, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO and McDonnell Aircraft Corporation and
District No. 9, International Association of Machinists, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 11-CD-157. April 1, 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act follow-
ing charges filed by McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, herein called the
146 NLRB No. 73.
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer, alleging that Local Union No. 1, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent, had
threatened to strike the Employer with an object of forcing or re-
quiring the Employer to assign particular work to members of the Re-
spondent rather than to members of District No. 9, International As-
sociation of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein called the TAM. A hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Joseph H. Solien between October 29
and November 12, 1963. All parties appeared at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings
of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer, the Respondent, and
the TAM have filed briefs herein which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 1 makes the following
findings :
1. The business of the Employer
The Employer is a Maryland corporation with its principal office
and place of business at Lambert Field, St. Louis County, Missouri,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of aircraft, missiles, space ve-
hicles, and supporting devices. The Employer annually ships goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its St. Louis County estab-
lishment to customers located outside the State of Missouri, and has
supplied goods valued in excess of $1,000,000 for the national defense.
2. The labor organizations involved
Respondent and the TAM are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The dispute
The Work at Issue
The work in dispute is the electrical wiring and repair of the ceramic
hot-form die, an item of production tooling, utilized in the production
process to shape or form metallic parts of airplanes and other products
of the Employer.
The Basic Facts
In 1941, the TAM was certified as bargaining representative of all
the Employer's production and maintenance employees and it con-
tinued to represent that unit until 1948 when Respondent was certified,
pursuant to a craft severance election, as bargaining representative of
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a three -member panel [Members Leedom,
Fanning. and Brown].
LOCAL 1, INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS 583
a unit of maintenance and construction electricians. At the time of
the latter certification, the Employer was not engaged in the fabrica-
tion of the ceramic hot-form die, hereinafter referred to as CHFD.
The nature of the Employer's business has changed radically in recent
years and the Employer is now engaged not only in the production of
supersonic aircraft and missiles, but also in the development and manu-
facture of space vehicles, missiles, and ground support equipment.
The CHFD is an item of production tooling developed by the Em-
ployer to meet certain product specifications in the production process
and is the evolutionary outgrowth of a long period of experimentation
with various other types of hot-forming dies. Its development was
made possible because of the recent availability of a new ceramic ma-
terial known as "glass rock."
When the CHFD was in the experimental and testing stages and
there were neither blueprints nor wiring diagrams available, main-
tenance electricians were assigned the task of inserting heating ele-
ment wires in the dies under the direction of a senior tool designer,
while tool-and-die makers and other employees of the tooling depart-
ment who are also represented by the IAM performed the remainder of
the work. When the CHFD became a regular item of production tool-
ing, the maintenance electricians continued to install the wiring, which
is one of the last stages in its fabrication. This assignment continued
until February 1963, when the Employer assigned the work to tool-
and-die makers represented by the IAM. Respondent protested this
assignment and threatened strike action.
Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the CHFD, as an item of production
tooling, should, logically, and in the interest of efficiency, be fabri-
cated in its entirety in the tooling department so as to eliminate dual-
ity of both supervision and union work jurisdiction with their
consequent delays and disruption of production schedules; that the
tool-and-die makers, to whom the work is now assigned, possess the
necessary skills to perform the task, which is very simple; and that
the disputed work is part of a production process which is unrelated
to the maintenance of the plant electrical system and the plant elec-
trical equipment which is the responsibility of employees represented
by the Respondent. The IAM joins in the Employer's contentions.
The Respondent questions the Employer's motivation in reassign-
ing the work in, dispute to the tool-and-die makers. It contends that
its members have traditionally performed electrical work on not only
the CHFD but on many other items of production tooling on which
they still perform the electrical work such as the wiring of jigs and
fixtures, compression molds, punchpress dies, and hot-form dies in
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
general, and that tool-and-die makers do not possess the skills needed
to do electrical wiring.
Applicability of the Statute
The charge, which was duly investigated by the Regional Director,
-alleges a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (B) of the Act. We are satis-
fied on the basis of'the record evidence that there is reasonable cause
to believe that a violation of that section has been committed. We
therefore find that a jurisdictional dispute exists and that it is prop-
erly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the
Act.
Merits of the Dispute
'Section 10 (k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative
award of disputed work, after giving due consideration to various
relevant factors. The following factors bearing on the merits of the
=dispute are asserted in support of the claims of the parties herein :
1. Historical development
The CHFD, as indicated above, was developed by the Employer as
the evolutionary outgrowth of a long process of experimentation with
other types of hot-form dies. It appears that throughout the period
of experimentation with other types of dies, and in the developmental
stages of the CHFD itself, the electrical wiring was performed by
maintenance electricians working under the direction of tool design-
ers. Eventually, however, the CHFD became a standard and recur-
ring item of production tooling. Uncontradicted testimony indicates
that the work of wiring the CHFD is presently 'a simple task which
may be performed effectively by employees who can distinguish colors
and follow an uncomplicated wiring diagram. The assignment of
the disputed work to the IAM reflects'the Employer's judgment,
which is supported by the record, that standardization of the CHFD
at its present level of development no longer requires the superior
electrical skills and 'abilities of the maintenance electricians.
2. Collective-bargaining agreements
Both of the contending unions claim the disputed work on the basis
of their respective collective 'bargaining agreements with the Em-
ployer. Neither agreement, however, refers specifically to the partic-
ular work in question. In fact, the work assignment and job de-
scription portions of both contracts antedate -the development of the
CHFD. The recognition clause of the IAM contract embraces the
LOCAL 1 , INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS 585
category of tool-and-die maker and the job description for that cate-
gory, which is made a part of the contract, reads:
Plan, construct, alter or repair tools such as dies (e.g., hydro-
press, form and compound), tools (e.g., Kellar templates, drill-
plates and bars) gauges ... .
The job description contained in Respondent's current contract
provides :
Employees covered hereunder shall install, maintain, repair, re-
place and care for the entire plant electrical system and plant
electrical equipment including refrigeration, air conditioning and
the maintenance and operation of cranes from cabs, and includ-
ing the power supply apparatus which requires adjustment and
minor replacement and/or modification necessary to obtain de-
sired engineering results of tests.
It appears from the foregoing that while neither contract treats
specifically of the CHFD, the IAM contract does treat generally of
the construction and repair of form dies.
3. Skills and work involved
Wiring of the CHFD, as noted above, is not a difficult or complex
'operation at the present time, although a knowledge of electricity
and the peculiar skills of a trained electrician appear to have been
required when the die was in its early stages of development. The
operation, in its present form, consists of threading colored wires
through holes in the ceramic body of the die in accordance with a
wiring diagram. Record testimony indicates' that it is a relatively
simple tack which requires neither special training nor prolonged
instruction. Both contending groups possess the skills requisite to
performthe disputed work.
4. Efficiency of operation
The record indicates that the work in dispute, one of the last opera-
tions performed in connection with production of a CHFD, was,
prior to its assignment to the tool-and-die makers, the only produc-
tion operation on the die performed by employees outside of the
tooling department. Prior to the assignment in dispute, electrical
wiring of the die was done by maintenance electricians who are neither
,employed in nor under the supervision of the tooling department.
Rather, they are employed in the plant engineering department and
are supervised by the plant engineer and his subordinate supervisors
who are concerned with maintenance activities in the plant.
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
. Testimony at the hearing disclosed that, when maintenance elec-
tricians were performing the wiring of the CHFD, serious delays of
from 2 or 3 days to a week resulted from waiting to have them assigned
to the job by their department; that they were often called away
from the job before it was completed in order to handle maintenance
work elsewhere in the plant; and that when they arrived in the tooling
department to wire the CHFD, the maintenance electricians had to
study the drawings to familiarize themselves with the distribution of
the electrodes in the die. It appears that the wiring of the CHFD
is more efficiently performed by one department as a continuous
operation.
Merits of the Dispute
Upon consideration of all pertinent factors in the record we shall
assign the work in dispute to the tool-and-die makers represented by
the IAM. They are as skilled in the performance of the work as
the maintenance electricians who compete for it and their efficiency in
performing the integrated task of wiring and repairing the CHFD
upon completion of their earlier operations in its fabrication, in it
sequential operation under their own supervisors and within the same
department, is superior to that demonstrated by the maintenance
electricians. The Employer has awarded the work to the tool-and-
die makers and desires to retain those employees in this work. This
assignment is consistent with the terms of the IAM contract.
We shall, therefore, determine the dispute by deciding that tool-
and-die makers rather than maintenance electricians are entitled to
perform the work in question. Our present determination is limited
to the particular dispute which gave rise to this proceeding.' In
making this determination we are assigning the disputed work to tool-
and-die makers represented by the IAM but not to the IAM or -its
members.
We find that Respondent is not and was not entitled by means pro-
scribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act to force or require the
Employer to assign the disputed work to maintenance electricians
rather than to tool-and-die makers.
Determination of Dispute
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
this proceeding, the Board makes the following determination of
dispute, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
1. Tool-and-die makers of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, cur-
rently represented by District No. 9, International Association of
2 There is no warrant for broadening the scope of this proceeding , as urged by the JAM
and the Employer , to encompass the entire area of production tooling.
SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 587
Machinists, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of wiring
and repairing the ceramic hot-form die used in the fabrication of
metal parts for aircraft and missiles.
2. Local Union No. 1, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act to force or require the Employer to assign
the above work to maintenance electricians.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, Local Union No. 1, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director
for the Fourteenth Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain
from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by
Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to maintenance
electricians rather than to tool-and-die makers.
Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc. and District 50, United Mine
Workers of America , Ind. and Jerome Wiezycki. Cases Nos.
7-CA-4169, 7-CA-4209, 7-CA-4227, 7-CA-4227(2), and 7-CA-
4227(4). April 2, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 15, 1963, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommeding that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a sup-
porting brief.
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 McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and, brief, and the
entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's
findings,' conclusions,' and 'recommendations.
i The Respondent has excepted to the credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner.
It is the Board's established policy, however, not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolu-
tions with respect to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the clear preponderance of
all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry
Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3).
2 The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged employees Ecker, Nieman , Burnell , and Wiezycki in violation of Section 8(a) (3)
146 NLRB No. 78.