Square D Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 23, 1968

169 N.L.R.B. 1040 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1040 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Square D Company , Cedar Rapids Plant, Cedar Rapids, Iowa and International Association of Tool Craftsmen and its Local No. 16, National Federation of Independent Unions, Petitioner. Case 18-RC-7177 February 23, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Renato J. Della Rocca. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Re- gional Director for Region 18, this case was trans- ferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. Briefs have been timely filed by the Em- ployer, the Petitioner, and the Intervenor. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- firmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pol- icies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organizations' involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of approxi- mately 38 "tool and diemakers, their apprentices, toolroom machinists, leadmen engaged in the manu- facture, repair, altering, or modifying of tools, dies, jigs, fixtures and molds" from the existing unit of 306 production and maintenance employees cur- rently represented by the Intervenor.2 The Employer and the Intervenor oppose severance, contending in the main that the em- ployees sought are neither craftsmen nor members of a functionally distinct department, that integra- tion of the Employer's production processes brings the employees sought into functional alignment with those in the production and maintenance unit, that the employees sought have been adequately represented by the Intervenor for 13 years, and that severance would disrupt the stability in labor rela- tions attained by adherence to the existing pattern of representation. For the reasons set forth below, we find merit in the positions of the Employer and the Intervenor. The Employer manufactures electrical control and distribution equipment at plants throughout the United States. At its plant in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the location involved herein, it manufactures circuit breakers. The employees sought by the Petitioner work in the toolroom of the Cedar Rapids plant, a separate, though not wholly self-contained, area. They build, maintain, and repair tools, dies, jigs, fixtures, and molds. Approximately 90 percent of the toolroom's time is devoted to repair and maintenance. The remainder is divided between the updating and making of tools.3 The repair and maintenance work which comprises the bulk of toolroom work is vital to the Employer's production effort. The tool- room's workload depends directly upon the condi- tion of production equipment. Priorities in toolroom work assignments are determined by production requirements. When, for example, a piece of production equipment breaks down and operations must be suspended until the equipment is repaired, all other toolroom work is put aside in order to get the production line running again. The timing of this repair work requires careful planning and closely coordinated execution of managerial decisions relating to toolroom assignments and production scheduling. Without this attention to detail the plant could not function effectively. Although toolroom personnel spend virtually all of their time in the toolroom performing the above- described work, there are occasions when some of them must perform tasks in other areas of the plant. For example, tool and diemakers have from time to time taken over assignments originally made to mill- wrights and setup men. Such substitution has been prompted by the latter's inability to do these assign- ments, or to carry them to completion. Although this does not establish a pattern of interchange between employees of the same or comparable skills, it does show a significant general relationship between the skills required of toolroom personnel and those possessed by employees in the produc- I Harmony Lodge No. 831, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO , was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest. I The Petitioner also indicated that it would not object to the inclusion in the requested unit of two employees in the "mold polisher" and "tool room utility man" classifications if the Board determines that these posi- tions belong in the unit . The unit , including the classifications accepted but not sought by the Petitioner, would consist of 40 employees. In view of our decision herein , we do not pass upon this alternative unit position. 3 The Employer does not have enough time to manufacture all the new tools it requires. Consequently, many of its tools are made either by other companies or the Employer's production tooling plant at Three Rivers, Michigan. 169 NLRB No. 140 SQUARE D COMPANY tion and maintenance unit. The record also reveals that nontoolroom employees frequently use tool- room equipment, and toolroom personnel must leave their usual work area to use a large shear. In the recent past, about 12 employees have trans- ferred into the tool-and-die maker or toolroom machinist classifications from jobs in the produc- tion and maintenance unit and, in case of a reduc- tion in force, toolroom employees may bump em- ployees in production and maintenance categories. Despite the fact that we are satisfied that the tool and diemakers and toolroom machinists are crafts- men, we nevertheless find that the unit sought is inappropriate for severance purposes under the standards established by the Mallinckrodt case.4 Thus, the work of the toolroom is an essential part of the total production process. The toolroom is also an avenue of promotion for production and maintenance employees. Furthermore, the em- ployees sought by the Petitioner have been adequately represented since 1954 by the Inter- venor as part of the production and maintenance unit. As a result of this history of bargaining, tool- room and production and maintenance employees enjoy the same fringe benefits, working conditions, and privileges, and are subject to the same company rules and regulations. They have the same plant- wide seniority systems for purposes of layoff, and are covered by identical pension, group insurance, and employee purchase plans. They also use the same parking lot, washroom, lunchroom, and timeclock; have common holidays, vacation benefits, recreation programs, and paid rest periods; and must comply with the same rules and regulations relating to discipline and plant safety. But beyond the common benefits, privileges, and working conditions outlined above, the Intervenor has been able to obtain the highest hourly wage rates' in the Cedar Rapids plant for the tool and diemakers. One result of the most recent contract reopening was a greater hourly wage increase for the tool-and-die maker classification than for any other classification in the Intervenor's bargaining unit. Toolroom employees have also enjoyed signifi- cant representation in the Intervenor's higher coun- cils. From 1957 through 1966 the toolroom had at 4 162 NLRB 387. 5 Indeed in 1963 the entire negotiating committee for the Intervenor was comprised of toolroom employees. 1041 least one representative on the Intervenor's shop committee; in 1963 it placed three of its number on this committee;5 and in 1966 five. For 4 of these years a toolroom employee was chairman of the committee. During 7 years of this 9-year period toolroom employees have served as chief stewards on either the first or second shift; in 1 of the 2 remaining years the chief steward position on both shifts was occupied by a toolroom employee. The Intervenor itself is no stranger to the representation of toolroom employees. For exam- ple, in the Cedar Rapids area alone the Intervenor currently represents toolroom employees in ap- proximately six production and maintenance bar- gaining units. In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that the toolroom employees have been afforded and have capitalized upon the opportunity to participate in the Intervenor's affairs. As a result, their special in- terests have been adequately represented under the existing pattern of representation. Furthermore, for at least 13 years they have shared, with their fellow employees in the production and maintenance unit, a wide variety of benefits, privileges, and working conditions. During this period their bargaining representative has demonstrated its sensitivity to the peculiarities of toolroom representation in the Cedar Rapids area. It is clear therefore that the separate community of interests which tool and diemakers and toolroom machinists might enjoy by reason of their skills and training have been largely submerged in the broader community of interests which they share with production and maintenance employees as a consequence of their long and close contact in the existing bargaining unit and the inti- mate connection of the toolroom's work with the Employer's production process. For all of these reasons, we conclude that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining.6 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 8 Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Uranium Division, 162 NLRB 387, Holmberg, Inc, 162 NLRB 407, Universal Form Clamp Co., 163NLRB 184, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 165 NLRB 188, Allen-Bradley Company, 168 NLRB 15