Rheem Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 17, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 904 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN & APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING & PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL No. 78, AFL, and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE No. 727 , AFL, PETITIONERS RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, PETITIONER and UNITED STEEL- WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 4670, CIO. Cases Nos. 21-RC- 36821 21-RC-3686, and 21-RIt-311. November 17, 1954 Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections Upon separate petitions filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held in the above- entitled cases by Floyd C. Brewer, hearing officer. The hearing offi- cer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the United Steelworkers of America, Local No. 4670, CIO, herein called the Steelworkers, moved to dismiss the petition in Case No. 21-RC-3686 on the ground that the Board's determination of the showing of interest of the International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 727, AFL, herein called the Machinists, was based upon a fraudulent card showing. This mo- tion, referred to the Board by the hearing officer, is denied.' Motions to dismiss the petitions in the remaining cases, grounded upon conten- tions that no question concerning representation exists or that the units requested are inappropriate are disposed of in accordance with the findings hereinafter set forth under paragraphs numbered 3 and 4. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.' 3. With regard to Cases Nos. 21-RC-3682 and 21-RC-3686, ques- tions affecting commerce exist concerning representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. However, we find that no question concerning representation exists with regard to the employees of the Employer involved in Case No. 21-RM-311. In that case, the Employer petitions for an election 1 The motion is denied because determination of showing of interest of a petitioning union is a nonlitigable matter. Moreover , we have investigated the Steelworkers ' charges and administratively determine that the Machinists did not submit authorization cards bearing the names of any of the affiants who claimed they had not signed authoriza- tion cards. 2 The Steelworkers was permitted to intervene at the hearing on a showing of con- tractual interest in the representation of employees included in the various units sought in these petitions. 110 NLRB No. 149. RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY 905 among cafeteria and specified plant clerical employees whom the Steelworkers, pursuant to certification in 1952, has represented and bargained for as part of a production and maintenance unit.' At the hearing, the Steelworkers, the Machinists, and the Plumbers 4 moved that the Employer's petition be dismissed upon the ground, among others, that none of these unions seeks to represent the employees in question in a separate unit. We find merit in this contention and, accordingly, grant the motion to dismiss the Employer's petition in Case No. 21-RM-311. 4. The Employer, at its Downey, California, plant, is engaged in the fabrication of component parts of airframes which are, in turn, assembled by a prime manufacturer. In this operation, the Employer employs approximately 1,200 employees, the vast majority of whom are engaged in production processes. The rest of the employees are the usual shipping, clerical, maintenance, and subsidiary and servicing employees. As heretofore indicated, the Steelworkers was certified on May 29, 1952, as the bargaining representative for a production and main- tenance unit which included shipping and receiving employees and tool dispatchers, but excluded maintenance electricians A, B, and C, tool designers, tool planners, tool schedulers, technical typists, office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Plumbers, in Case No. 21-RC-3682, seeks to sever from this unit all maintenance plumbers and pipefitters or steamfitters including leadmen, apprentices, learn- ers, and full-time helpers. The Machinists, in Case No. 21-RC-3686, requests a unit of all employees currently bargained for by the Steel- workers in the production and maintenance unit heretofore found appropriate by the Board. The Employer, the Steelworkers, and the Machinists oppose the Plumbers' petition and contend that (1) the only appropriate unit is the broad industrial unit currently bargained for by the Steelworkers; (2) the employees sought by the Plumbers do not constitute a true craft group within the definition of the term contained in the Board's recent American Potash, decision; a and (3) in any event, the main- tenance plumbers constitute only a segment of the employees who possess and exercise like skills. In support of their first contention, the Employer, the Steelwork- ers, and the Machinists stress, as an overall consideration, the high 8 The Steelworkers was certified by the Board on May 29 , 1952 , after a Board-con- ducted election held pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election in Rheem Manu- facturting Company, 98 NLRB No 126 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Deci- sions and Orders). 4 United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus- try of the United States and Canada, Local No. 78, AFL, the Petitioner in Case No. 21-RC-3682 5 Ameracan Potash d Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. 906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD degree of integration of operations at the Employer's plant herein in- volved, as well as the predominance of an industrial type organiza- tion generally in the aircraft industry. We find this contention to be without merit inasmuch as the Board has but recently ruled that "the right of separate representation should not be denied the mem- bers of a craft group merely because they are employed in an industry which involves highly integrated production processes and in which the prevailing pattern of bargaining is industrial in character." 6 Moreover, the severance of craft groups from industrial units in the aircraft industry is not novel and the Board has, both before and since the American Potash case, directed elections among the employees in craft groups engaged in the aircraft industry.' The Employer, the Machinists, and the Steelworkers also argue that the maintenance plumbers are not true craftsmen entitled to sepa- rate representation because (1) their job classifications do not re- quire that they possess skills ordinarily associated with journeymen plumbers; (2) their work is of a relatively simple nature and, in fact, when major plumbing construction work becomes necessary, inde- pendent plumbing contractors are engaged; and (3) unskilled work- ers could be trained on the job to perform maintenance plumbing work within a considerably shorter time than is ordinarily required to train journeymen plumbers under established apprentice training programs. The record shows that the Employer hires, in its maintenance di- vision, only two classes of plumbers, maintenance A and B,8 to per- form all necessary maintenance and construction plumbing work. Witnesses for the Plumbers testified that the job descriptions for these plumbers and the type of work that they actually perform call for the exercise of skills normally possessed only by journeymen plumb- ers. At the time of the hearing, the Employer employed only main- tenance plumbers A, who comprise the higher skilled group. Although there was testimony given on behalf of the Employer that unskilled employees could be hired and taught to do the work of main- tenance plumbers B, the Employer admitted that, in practice, it pre- ferred employing skilled men because they can be promoted from class B to A in a relatively short period of time.' In addition to performing ordinary maintenance plumbing work, all maintenance plumbers also e American Potash & Chemical Corporation , supra ; see also Beaunit Mills, Coosa Pines Dii,nsion, 109 NLRB 651 7 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 77 NLRB 507 ; Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corpora- tion, 88 NLRB 49; North American Aviation, Inc , 108 NLRB 863. 8 The Employer does not employ any of the other classifications named in the Plumbers' petition Accordingly , all of the Board 's findings relating to that petition are confined in scope to the maintenance plumbers only. 9 It appears that out of approximately 9 maintenance plumbers 2 are licensed journeymen RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY 907 ^io construction plumbing of the type usually associated with the build- ing trades industry. This includes work on jobs started by independ- ent contractors which the maintenance plumbers often finish and which must pass inspections prescribed by State and local plumbing codes. In view of the foregoing, we find that maintenance plumbers A and B comprise a craft group entitled to separate representation within the rule of the American Potash case. We also find that the Plumbers is a union which has traditionally devoted itself to serve the special interests of the employees in question. As indicated above, the Plumbers would exclude from its proposed unit aircraft assemblers A, who the Employer and Steelworkers con- tend possess and exercise skills equal to those possessed and exercised by the maintenance plumbers. These employees are production em- ployees who install and fit hydraulic and pressure lines in aircraft frames. Although their job classifications, submitted by the Em- ployer, set forth work requirements which would seem to indicate that the aircraft assemblers A perform work requiring the exercise of at least some skills similar to those of maintenance plumbers, it is clear, as the same job classifications unequivocally state, that the work per- formed by the assemblers, unlike the work performed by the mainte- nance plumbers, follows established aircraft production procedures and patterns. Significantly, there is no interchange of jobs between the maintenance plumbers and assemblers. On the basis of the evi- dence before us, we find that the aircraft assemblers A are not crafts- men and that the unit sought by the Plumbers contains all of the Employer's employees exercising the skills of the plumbers' craft and not a mere segment thereof as the Employer, the Machinists, and the Steelworkers contend. With regard to the Machinists' petition in Case No. 21-RC-3686, the Employer contends that the unit sought therein, although the same as the established contractural production and maintenance unit, is inappropriate because of the inclusion therein of the cafeteria em- ployees and specified plant clerical employees .10 In the earlier case in which the Steelworkers was certified as the bargaining represent- ative of the production and maintenance employees,ll the cafeteria employees and the specified plant clericals were not excluded from the unit. Indeed, these employees participated, without challenge, in the election the Board directed in that case and were included in the unit in the contracts subsequently entered into between the Employer and 10 These are the employees listed by the Employer in its petition in Case No . 21-RM-311, as constituting an appropriate unit. 11 Rheem Manufacturing Company, cited in footnote 3, supra. 908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Steelworkers. In addition, employees of the type in question are customarily included in production and maintenance units, particu- larly where no union seeks to represent them on any other basis." Accordingly, we find that the cafeteria and the specified plant clerical employees are properly included in the production and maintenance unit which we find may also be appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining. We shall direct separate elections by secret ballot .among the em- ployees of the Employer's Downey, California, plant, in the voting groups set forth below : Group I: All maintenance plumbers A and B excluding all other employees and supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Group II: All production and maintenance employees, including shipping and receiving employees, tool dispatchers, cafeteria employ- ees, and plant clerical employees,' but excluding maintenance elec- tricians A, B, and C, maintenance plumbers A and B, tool designers, tool planners, tool schedulers, technical typists, office clerical employ- ees, watchmen, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in voting group I vote for the Plumb- ers they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of repre- sentatives to the Plumbers for that unit which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bar- gaining. In the event a majority of the employees in group I do not vote for the Plumbers which is seeking to represent them in a separate unit, that group will be appropriately included in group II, the pro- duction and maintenance unit, and their votes shall be pooled with those in group II,` and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor or- ganization selected by a majority of the employees in the pooled group, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be a single unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. [The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 21-RM-311.] [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] nt Socony-Vacuum Oil Company, Incorporated , 99 NLRB 268, 280; J. P. Stevens cE Co., Inc., 93 NLRB 1513, 1515. 13 The term plant clericals includes office duplicator operators and typists. 34 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner: the votes for the Plumbers shall be counted as valid votes , but neither for nor against either of the unions seeking the more comprehensive units ; all other votes are to be accorded their face value , whether for representation by a union seeking the comprehensive group or for no union.