Saco-Lowell Shops

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 590 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SACO-LOWELL SHOPS' and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 1-RC-
3320 . December 28, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Leo J. Hal-
loran, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the
following reasons.
The Petitoner seeks to represent a unit limited to production
and maintenance employees in the Employer ' s Edwards plant
at Saco, Maine . The Employer and the Intervenor , Textile
Workers of America, CIO , contend that only a unit comprising
all production and maintenance employees employed in the
Employer's operations in the Saco - Biddeford area, including
those at Edwards , can be appropriate.
The Employer is primarily engaged in the manufacture of
textile machinery . Before the construction of the Edwards plant
in 1951, all its operations in Maine were carried on in a group
of buildings clustered along both banks of the Saco River, which
separates the cities of Biddeford and Saco . Although some of
the buildings were in Saco and some in Biddeford , they were
operated as a single plant, hereinafter referred to as the
Saco-Biddeford plant . The Textile Workers was certified as the
bargaining representative of the production and maintenance
employees at this plant in 1941, and has continuously repre-
sented them since then.2
During World War II the Saco-Biddeford plant was , to some
extent, engaged in defense work . After the return to normal
operations the Employer found that the design of the plant,
particularly the fact that many of its buildings were multi-
iThe Employer's name appears in the caption as corrected at the hearing
2 The last complete contract between the Employer and the Textile Workers was dated
January 5, 1948. By a supplement dated October 14, 1950, this agreement with changes
was extended to September 15, 1955 It is not contended that this agreement constitutes a
bar to the present proceeding.
107 NLRB No. 130.
SACO-LOWELL SHOPS 591
storied, was a handicap to effective competition in its field
of manufacture . A plan of gradual replacement by single-
storied buildings was decided upon . As a first step, the Em-
ployer, in the spring of 1950, bought the nearest suitable
tract of land in Saco, which happened to be about 2 miles from
the old plant . Plans for a new building to constitute the first
unit were ordered . However, the outbreak of hostilities in
Korea made it uncertain whether construction could be under-
taken at that time if the building was to be used for the manu-
facture of textile machinery . The possibility of defense work
was therefore explored with Government representatives,
although no commitments were made at the time construction
was started late in November 1950 . In April 1951 , actual
negotiations with the Government were started looking to a
contract for the manufacture of machineguns. The contract
was signed in August 1951 , when the new building was nearing
completion . Under the contract the Government provided most
of the machinery 3 and the Employer began installing it in the
fall . Actual production did not start until January 1952, and
the first shipments were made in May 1952 . Performance
under the contract , as extended , will be completed by March
or April 1954 , if the Government does not exercise its privilege
of terminating the agreement before that date . The Employer
has not yet been able to determine what operations will be
carried on at Edwards after the completition of the contract
for machineguns.
The high degree of similarity of the manufacturing proc-
esses as well as of skills requisite to the production of
textile machinery and machineguns was the inducing cause
for the award of the machinegun contract to the Employer.
Accordingly , it was anticipated that there would be many
transfers ,, for the Employer ' s convenience , from the old
plant to the new . Therefore, some months before operations
began at Edwards the Employer ' s agreement with the Textile
Workers was extended to the new plant . 4 Under the terms of
the agreement there is a uniform job-evaluation system, in-
centive pay system , pension system, and hospitalization and
other insurance benefits , for employees of both plants.
There is a single manager of industrial relations who is
responsible for personnel administration of all departments
whether at Saco-Biddeford or Edwards. Working and other
personnel rules not covered by the agreement are centrally
formulated and uniformly circulated to all departments re-
gardless of location . Similarly a single employment manager
located in one of the buildings in Biddeford does all the
hiring for both plants . Employees at Fdwards are paid from
3Of the 1,100 machines in Edwards ' plant, 1 , 000 are Government owned and the Employer
is obligated to provide storage for them for a period of 3 months after the termination of the
contract
4Several modifications in the terms of the agreement with the Textile Workers were agreed
to both before and after operations began at Edwards . These were principally modifications
of the seniority system designed to protect the old employees
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a separate bank account because of Government accounting
requirements , but the payrolls for all departments are pre-
pared at Saco-Biddeford. The executives in charge of pur-
chases and general administrative matters serve both plants
from offices at Saco-Biddeford. There is also an apprentice
program administered on a uniform basis.
There is some degree of independence in the operation
of the two plants in that both have their own manufacturing
superintendents 5 with the customary lower echelons of super-
vision responsible to them . However, the superintendents of
both plants report directly to the same vice president in
charge of manufacturing operations.
As anticipated, most of the 1,190 employees now at Edwards
have been drawn from Saco-Biddeford, 324 by direct transfer
and 596 by recall while in layoff status . Only 270 are new
hires.6
Although the manufacturing operations at the 2 plants are
substantially similar, there is a greater percentage of routine
operations in the production of machineguns which is reflected
in the existence of some job classifications not common to the
2 plants T and a difference in the percentage distribution of
labor grades. Thus, although the 13 labor grades are uniform
for Saco-Biddeford and Edwards the number of employees in
the 3 lowest grades at Edwards is twice that at Saco-Biddeford.
Similarly the number in the 3 highest grades at Saco-Biddeford
is 3 times that at Edwards. 8
The Intervenor actively represented employees at Edwards on
the same basis as those at Saco-Biddeford for more than a
year before the instant petition was filed. The vice president
of the Intervenor's local at Saco-Biddeford is an Edwards em-
ployee and other Edwards employees have been canidates for
local offices in elections held after operations began at Edwards.
Operations at Edwards have been limited since their inception
to production of machineguns under the Employer's contract
with the Government, but a substantial amount of work under the
contract has been performed at Saco-Biddeford although the
latter continued to be primarily engaged in the production of
textile machinery. At the present time, however, with the con-
tract approaching termination, the only work in relation to the
machinegun contract now being performed at Saco-Biddeford is
the manufacture of boxes for packing the guns.
s At Saco-Biddeford there is a foundry and consequently a foundry superintendent. Edwards
has no foundry.
6 Transfers have not been limited to those occuring in the initial stages of operations at
Edwards. Between January and September 1953, 255 transfers were made from Saco-
Biddeford to Edwards and in the same period 85 from Edwards to Saco-Biddeford
7 Over 75 percent of Edwards employees work in the 90 job classifications which are
identical to those at Saco-Biddeford. There are 40 job classifications at Edwards, however,
which do not exist at Saco- Biddeford These are largely identified directly with the manufacture
of particular machinegun parts and in general are semiskilled jobs.
8 This is partially due to the fact that currently production of textile machinery is low in
volume, but the Employer has retained a larger proportion of its skilled employees hoping for
an improved condition
PACIFIC COAST MARINE FIREMEN 593
The mere establishment of a new plant does not of itself
justify holding a separate election among the employees of such
plant to determine their bargaining representative. In the
present case , the circumstances connected with the erection of
the Edwards plant, its geographical nearness to the Saco-
Biddeford plant, its integration with that plant, the uniformity of
wages, hours, and working conditions of the two plants, the simi-
larity in working skills, the interchange of employees between
plants, and the centralized managerial control of operations, all
indicate that a unite limited to Edwards plant employees is not
appropriate.' As the Petitioner has not made an adequate show-
ing of interest in the larger unit which the Employer and the In-
tervenor contend is appropriate, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
9 See Hawthorne- Mellody Farms Dairy of Wisconsin , Inc., 99 NLRB 212.
PACIFIC COAST MARINE FIREMEN, OILERS, WATER-
TENDERS AND WIPERS ASSOCIATION, IND. and JAMES J.
PETRESSEN. Case No. 2-CB-878. December 29, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 14, 1953, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaged in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the modifications and exceptions noted below.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent, in
violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, restrained and
coerced the charging party, Petressen, and other applicants
for employment by operating a discriminatory hiring hall in
the manner set forth in the Intermediate Report, despite its
agreement with Pacific Maritime Association to furnish
specified unlicensed personnel without discrimination because
of membership or nonmembership in its organization.' To
IAs no exception has been taken to the Trial Examiner's refusal to find that the foregoing
conduct also violated Section 8 (b) (2), we adopt his determination pro forma, without passing
upon the merits of that allegation.
107 NLRB No. 126.