Ludlow Typograph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 5, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 2 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees concerned is performed in the laboratory building, and there is no evidence of any interchange between the laboratory work- ers and the Employer's other employees. In view of the technical nature of the work performed, the physical separation of the laboratory from the plant, and the absence of evi- dence of interchange between the laboratory workers and the Em- ployer's other employees, we believe that the laboratory workers properly constitute a separate appropriate bargaining unit.' Ac- cordingly, and upon the entire record, we find that all of the Em- ployer's laboratory employees employed at its Charleston, South Carolina, plant, including the two part-time students,' but excluding the metallurgist, the chief chemist, and all other supervisors as de- fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.3 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] I See Phillips Chemical Company, 83 NLRB 612. ' It is the policy of the Board to include in the bargaining unit with full -time employees students who do the same type of work as the full-time employees and work on a regular part-time basis . See Burrows & Sanborn, Inc ., 84 NLRB 304. 3 We reject the Employer 's contention that the Petitioner should not be allowed to represent the employees here concerned because they have access to confidential informa- tion: An employee ' s access to confidential information does not warrant his exclusionl from a bargaining unit unless such information pertains to the field of labor relations. See E. if. Squibb & Sons, 83 NLRB 792. LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY and LOCAL 1024, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER 1 LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY and LOCAL 134, INTERNATIONAL BROTH- ERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER? Cases Nos. 13-RC-1813 and 13-RC-1827. July 5, 1951 Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Ivan C. McLeod, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pusuant 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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 3 Herein called IUE. ' Herein called IBEW. 95 NLRB No. 5. LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY a 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-- ployees of the Employer .3 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion 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. 13-RC-1813- For the reasons stated below, however, we find that such a question, does not exist in Case No. 13-RG1827. 4. IUE and FE-UE each seeks a unit of all production and factory maintenance employees.4 The IBEW seeks to represent a unit of elec- trical employees,,' and the IAM requests it unit of toolroom employees.sâ€¢ The Employer, the FE-UE, and the IUE contend that the units. sought by the IAM and the IBEW are inappropriate in the light of the- past bargaining history on a plant-wide .basis,' and because the em- ployees in the units sought constitute an integral part of the Em-- ployer's production process. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of composing room printing machinery and equipment, employing about 530 workers.. The record indicates that for the most part all machines are manu- factured in a standard manner, with the exception that some are con verted from 220 volt machines to 110 volts when requested to do' soy by the customer. A. The unit requested by the IBEW The employees sought to be severed from the existing production, and maintenance unit by the IBEW in Case No. 13-RC-1827 are all: assigned to what is known as department 11 or the crucible assembly- department. In this department the electric crucible, a component, part of the Employer's finished product, is assembled and tested. In- cluded in this department are about seven "crucible assemblers ," seven. "crucible assemblers and final testers," one "electric crucible assembler- and electrical plant maintenance employee," and one "electric crucible- final tester and lead man." 3 United Farm ' Equipment Workers of America, Local 124 , affiliated with the United!. Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America (hereinafter , FE-UE ) was permitted! to intervene on the basis of a contractual interest . Die and Tool Makers Lodge 113, International Association of Machinists , AFL (hereinafter, IAM), was permitted to- intervene on the basis of a showing of interest ' in the requested unit. 4'.Excluding foremen, assistant foremen, foreladies , assistant foreladles , chief shop time- keeper, engineering employees , draftsmen , type face design department employees , office- employees , watchmen , messengers, and management personnel. ' Including electrical assemblers , electrical maintenance men, electrical testers, and. electrical lead area. 'Including tool makers and toolroom machinists. . " 7 For 14 years, the Employer has executed collective bargaining agreements with the- FE-UE covering . all production and maintenance employees including the toolroom.. employees. 961974-52-vol. 95-2 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The record indicates that for the most part the assembly of the electric crucible is a routine bench assembly process requiring little, if any, of the craft skills of an electrician. That this is so is further demonstrated by the fact that the Employer has no apprenticeship training program for electricians, hires employees for department 11 with little or no electrical training, or transfers them from other de- partments on the basis of plant-wide seniority, and is able freely. to train an employee for this department in well under 1 year. Nor does it appear that the employees whose job includes the testing of crucibles perform a function requiring true craft skills. The testing itself is fairly routine and only such minor repairs as the replacement of, a broken wire are done by the employees in this department with re- spect to any crucible found to be defective. As to the employee whose job title indicates the performance of plant electrical maintenance functions, the record establishes that such maintenance work con- sists primarily of changing bulbs, oiling electrical machinery, and simple wiring. Although this employee does do some minor repairs on electrical equipment, any major repairs are performed.by skilled elec- tricians who are employees of an independent contractor, and whom the employee in question assists. It thus appears that the employees sought by the IBEW are pri- marily engaged in a repetitive production function, requiring few of the craft skills normally possessed by a journeyman electrician. As such they do not constitute a skilled craft group of the type which the Board permits to be separately represented apart from other produc- tion and maintenance employees. Accordingly, we find that the unit sought by the IBEW is inappropriate, and we shall dismiss the peti- tion in Case No. 13-RC-1827.8 B. The unit requested by the IAM The IAM seeks a unit of tool makers and machinists. These em- ployees work in what is known as the "special machine shop," which is physically separated from the rest of the plant by an iron railing. Although a number of production employees are also stationed in this area, they perform none of the functions of the tool makers and machinists and are not interchanged with them. The employees in question make tools, jigs, and fixtures, which are used in production, and also repair the production machinery. One of the tool makers spends the major portion of his time making special molds which go into the manufactured product, and other machinists similarly spend part of their time doing specialized production work. These employees are the highest paid workers in the plant and no other See Armstrong Cork Company , 89 NLRB 296 and cases cited therein . Cf. Baldwin Locomotive Works, Eddystone Division, 89 NLRB 403. LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY 5 employees perform comparable work. They work to the very close tolerances usually required in the work performed by skilled machin- ists and tool makers. Although the Employer maintains no formal apprenticeship program, the Employer requires that its tool makers and machinists must have comparable training or experience. The Employer has not transferred production workers into the department. . The craft characteristics of the machinists and tool makers are clearly established by this record, 'and while a portion of the time .of these employees is spent on production work such work is not routine or repetitive nor is it done on a mass production basis 9 Nor do we find the kind of integration and the type of bargaining history in this industry such as would preclude the establishment of true craft units 10 We find that the machinists and tool makers may properly constitute a separate bargaining unit despite a history of collective bargaining on a broader basis. However, we shall make no final determination with respect to the unit or units appropriate for employees at the Employer's plant, de- ferring such conclusions until. separate elections shall have been held among the following voting groups : 1. All tool makers and toolroom machinists at the Employer's Chi- cago, Illinois, plant, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. All production and- maintenance employees at the Employer's Chicago, Illinois, plant, excluding tool makers and machinists, mes- sengers, draftsmen, type face design department employees, office employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The record shows that the Employer's plant will be closed for the week of July 23, 1951. As many employees will be absent the week before or the week after, the Employer requests that the elec- tions not be conducted between July 16 and August 3, 1951. The Board hereby directs this fact to the attention of the Regional Director and within the time limits of the direction of elections herein leaves the specific date of the elections to his discretion. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 13-RC-1827 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. . [Text of Direction of 'Elections omitted . from publication in this volume.] . :, Â° Cadillac Motor Car Division, Cleveland Tank Plant, General Motors Corporation, 94 NLRB 225. . 10 See United States Rubber Company, 91 NLRB No. 213, and cases cited therein.