Potter Aeronautical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 1077 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

POTTER AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION 1077
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the
entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby makes the following determination of dispute.
1. Millwrights employed by PMI Corporation who are represented
by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, are entitled to perform the work of installing machinery and
equipment fora beer can production line in the Peoria, Illinois, plant
of Continental Can Company, Inc.
2. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 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 work
described above to machinists.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Officer-in-Charge of Subregion
38, in writing, whether 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 machinists rather millwrights.
Potter Aeronautical Corporation and District No. 47, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-
CIO,' Petitioner. Case No. 22-RC-2887. November 22, 1965
DECISION ON REVIEW
On June 18, 1965, the Regional Director for Region 22 issued a Deci-
sion and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in a
unit confined to machine shop employees at the Employer's Union,
New Jersey, plant. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8,
as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the
Decision, alleging that the unit found appropriate by the Regional
Director was too narrow in scope. The Board, by telegraphic order
dated July 1.5, 1.965, granted the request for review and stayed the
election pending its decision on review. Thereafter, the Employer
filed a brief in support of its position.
I Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing.
155 NLRB No. 86.
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board ' has considered the entire record in the case with respect
to the Regional Director's determination under revi ew, and finds, in
substantial accord with the Employer 's contentions, that the only
appropriate unit is one encompassing all the production and main-
tenance employees of the. Employer.
The relevant facts are not in dispute , and most of them are accu-
rately set forth in the Regional Director 's decision . Briefly sunlnla-
rized, they show as follows:
The Employer , a manufacturer of electromechanical fiowmeters at
its L`•nion, Now Jersey, plant , has a complement of approximately 90
production and maintenance employees. its manufacturing operations
are conducted through two major departments , viz, the machine shop
department , where 55 to 60 employees are assigned , and the electronics
department, where 20 to 25 employees are assigned. The employees
in the machine shop department who area classified as machinists build
and construct the shell of the meters from metals p r e p a r e d by the sheet
metal workers who are also in the department . They work directly
under Foreman Robert Sponsler . The employees in the electronics
department who are classified as coil winders, welders, testers, and
assemblers, install the inner workings of the meters which are there-
after returned for further work to the machine shop department.
They work directly under Foreman Kenneth Hoffer. Both Sponsler
and Hofer report to the plant manager. Other plant employees,
under the direct supervision of the plant manager, are variously
engaged in maintenance and shipping and receiving functions for both
the machine shop and electronics departments. There is no history
of collective bargaining.
The Employer's production processes are highly integrated, and
various components of its product pass back and fort-h between the
machine shop arc the electronics departments in the course of manu-
facture and assembly . All those engaged in these processes work the
same hours and enjoy the same benefits . Some electronics department
employees were formerly employed in the machine shop department
and possess and exercise the same skills and receive the same pay as
machine shop department employees . Fur! her, there is some evidence
of temporary interchange among them, especially in work involving
machine drilling operations . As of the. date of the hearing, most of
the machine shop department employees worked in a building about
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [-Members Fanning. Brown, and Jenkins].
POTTER AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION 1010
100 feet away from another building under construction where the
electronics department employees are located. However, the former
will be mcved into the new building when it is completed. A few
machine shop employees are now physically located in the same build-
ing as the electronics department employees, and work in close con-
junction with some of the latter.
Upon the foregoing facts, we are unable to find sufficient distinction
between the work performed by the machine shop department em-
ployees, on the one hand. and that performed by the electronics depart-
ment employees, on the other. to justify any separation of the two
groups of employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. In view
of the high degree of functional integration of the Employer's machine
shop department with its other production department, as evidenced
by the fact that the various components of the E plo er'S products
pass back and forth between employees in both the machine shop and
electronics departments in the normal course of manufacture. and
assem'bly, and that other employees commonly service both produc-
tion departments, we are persuaded that the only appropriate unit
herein is one encompassing all of the Employer's production and
maintenance employees. i°efind, accordingly, that the following
employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the. pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's T+nion,
New Jersey, plant, excluding office clerical employees. professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Although the unit we thus find appropriate is broader than that set
forth in the Petitioner's amended request, we shall not dismiss the
petition inasmuch as the Petitioner has not specifically disclaimed
interest in such unit.3 We shall therefore remand the. case to the
Regional Dire-ctor for the purpose of conducting an election pursuant
to his Decision and Direction of Election, as modified herein, subject
to his ascertaining that the Petitioner has made an adequate. showing
of interest among the employees in the appropriate unit, and with the
further exception that the eligibility date shall be that immediately
preceding this date a
S On being directly asked by the Fearing Officer whether it wished to go on the ballot
in the event the overall unit were found to be alone appropriate , the Petitioner stated that,
while its answer to that at the present time would be "no ," its answer might be different
by the time the decision would be issued.
A If the Petitioner does not now desire to participate in an election in the unit we find
appropriate herein, we shall permit it to withdraw its petition without prejudice upon
written notice to the Regional Director within 10 days from the date of this Decision.