Sturtevant Mill Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 577 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

STURTEVANT MILL COMPANY 577
In support of its contention that the above clauses are unlawful
because they do not conform to the union - security limitations
imposed by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Petitioner argues that
new and old employees are not given the required 30-day grace
period in which to join the Intervenor . We do not agree. It is
clear that the second paragraph gives all employees the re-
quired 30 days for acquiring or retaining union membership
before sanctions may be imposed for nonmembership in the
Intervenor . The first paragraph requires all new employees,
as a condition of employment, to signify their intention in
writing to join the Intervenor upon the expiration of their first
30 days of employment . While this requirement is not specif-
ically authorized by the Act, it is noted that the prospective
employee is not required prematurely to pay dues or actually
apply for membership; nor does he otherwise incur any obliga-
tion incident to membership. Realistically viewed, the applicant
for employment is prospectively agreeing only to abide by the
contract, which provides that if his employment continues after
the expiration of 30 days, he is required to join the Intervenor.,
In these circumstances , we do not find that the union - security
provision constitutes an unlawful condition of employment. We
therefore find that the contract operates as a bar to an imme-
diate election and we shall dismiss the petition.3
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2Cf New Castle Products, Incorporated, 99 NLRB 811, wherein the Board held invalid
a provision which required new employees to "signify their intention to become members
[of the Union] by signing applications and becoming initiated ," at the time of hiring.
3At the hearing the Petitioner also contended that the contract is no bar because it in-
cluded guards within the bargaining unit We find no merit in this contention , as the record
shows that guards are not included in the unit Moreover, assuming the correctness of the
Petitioner's claim, it is not sufficient to remove the contract as a bar See American Dye-
wood Company, 99 NLRB 78
STURTEVANT MILL COMPANY and LOCAL 501 OF THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUC-
TURAL, AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL, Peti-
tioner and LODGE 264 OF DISTRICT 38, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL. Case No. 1-RC-3089.
June 12, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert S.
Fuchs, hearing officer. The hearing officer ' s rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
105 NLRB No. 73.
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A 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.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to the Employer's
ironworkers . The Employer contends that only a unit embracing
all its employees is appropriate . The Intervenor is neutral.
At its Dorchester , Massachusetts , plant, the Employer
makes machines for grinding , crushing , separating , and mixing.
Its plant is composed of a yard and three buildings designated
as shops A , B, and C. Fabrication and assembly take place in
shops B and C, where ironworking machinery is located and
where welding , final assembling , and crating also done. Most
of the employees in these two shops are ironworkers and their
helpers. They are classified as first -, second -, andthird-class
ironworkers . They perform the rough work of cutting large
sheets or iron stock , and they do welding , assembling, and
crating . Although the Employer has no formal apprenticeship
program , it seeks experienced ironworkers when recruiting
for these 2 shops, and it has a policy of progressively ad-
vancing men through the 3 grades as they become more
skilled.
Shop A, a separate building , houses a machine-tool shop.
Most of the workers here are machinists and their helpers.
After the rough work is performed by the ironworkers in shops
B and C, the machinists do all machining required , including
the making of driving mechanisms and machined parts.
The manufacturing process for most of the machinery pro-
duced at the plant involves all three shops, and , in the case of
the largest machines produced , final assembly is completed in
the yard . Thus, raw materials may be received in one or more
of the shops and, in order to accomplish the various steps in
the manufacture , the machine being produced is sent back and
forth among the shops until it is finally completed , crated, and
shipped.
Ordinarily , no machinists work in shops B and C, and, except
for an occasional crane operator, no ironworkers regularly
work in shop A. However, machine repairmen from shop A
frequently go to shops B and C to repair production machinery
operated there. On rare occasions , machinists have worked
several days in shops B and C, and ironworkers have some-
times worked in shop A--when the machine being manufactured
could not practically be moved from one shop to another. How-
ever, there appears to be no interchange of individual em-
ployees between ironworker jobs and machinist jobs. Large
machines are assembled in the yard by men from one or both
STURTEVANT MILL COMPANY 579
groups, depending on the nature of the work. It appears from the
record that there has never been and there is not now any
disagreement among the parties as to which employees are
machinists and which are ironworkers, or as to what jobs are to
be done by each group. But for a few miscellaneous employees
assigned to 1 of the 3 shops, these 2 large groups of machinists
and ironworkers comprise the Employer's entire production
force.
In 1946 , following a consent election , the Intervenor was
certified as bargaining representative for all production and
maintenance workers in the plant . Annually thereafter it made
a contract with the Employer covering all the employees. How-
ever , beginning in 1948 , and each year thereafter through 1952,
both the Intervenor and the Petitioner were recognized as the
second party to the contracts . I The contracts in each instance
provided for signatures of representatives of both unions al-
though, on occasions , some of them failed to sign. The contracts
expressly authorized both unions to handle grievances and,
pursuant to other contractual provisions, the Employer checks
off dues for 57 machinists on behalf of the Intervenor and for
39 ironworkers on behalf of the Petitioner. Furthermore, all
new employees are required to read and sign a notice informing
them that, as a condition of employment under the contract,
they must pay initiation fees and dues to either the Petitioner
or the Intervenor, whichever is appropriate, within 30 days.
In justification of its request to represent the ironworker
group apart from the other employees, the Petitioner asserts
that they are craftsmen and that in reality they have been
represented separately in the past. There are many facts in the
record pointing to a true craft status of these employees, in-
cluding their progressive classifications based on skill, the
specialized type of work they do, and the degree of training
and experience which the Employer admits it requires before
hiring employees into the group. It is not necessary, however,
IIn pertinent parts, the contracts provided
Agreement entered into on the .. between the Sturtevant Mill Company, Dorchester,
Mass., hereinafter called the " Company", and the Grand Lodge of the INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, and Lodge Number 264 of District No. 38 of the IN-
TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, with Local 501, Iron Workers , herein-
after called the "Union", on behalf of itself and its members now employed or to be
employed in the future by the company.
The Company recognized the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining represen-
tative for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment , and all other conditions pertaining to employment of all the employees
in the unit hereafter set forth
The Company agrees to recognize the Department Committeemen , the Grievance
Committeemen, and representative of the International Association of Machinists or
Local 501, Ironworkers, as the official representative of the Union, in connection with
any problems which may arise between the Company and the Union under this agreement
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in this case to find that the ironworkers are craftsmen as
ordinarily defined by the Board, for all the parties, by their
recognition of the Petitioner's authority to act on behalf of
these employees , have in effect over the years recognized
their distinctive interests and the appropriateness of separate
bargaining for them. Indeed , notwithstanding the single con-
tract made each year for both machinists and ironworkers,
both Unions and the Employer, to all intents and purposes,
carried on their collective-bargaining relations as though the
ironworkers were a separate bargaining unit. We think it is
clear, therefore, that the special skills of the ironworkers
coupled with the Employer' s recognition in the past of the
Petitioner's right to look after their distinctive interests
generally, amply support the conclusion now that the iron-
worker group may constitute a separate bargaining unit. We
also believe that, in view of the original certification of the
Intervenor for all the plant employees and the joint character
of later bargaining relations, a single overall unit could also
be appropriate.
We shall therefore make no final unit determination at this
time, pending the outcome of the election directed herein.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election among all ironworkers
and their helpers employed by the Employer at its Dorchester,
Massachusetts, plant in the ironshop departments designated
as shops B and C, excluding all machinists and their helpers,
clerical and professional employees, guards, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit,
and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner
for this voting group, which the Board, under such circum-
stances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining. In the event that a majority vote for the Intervenor,
they will be deemed to have indicated a desire to be included
in the existing production and maintenance unit represented by
the Petitioner, and the Regional Director will issue a certifica-
tion of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
SHOWELL POULTRY COMPANY and CONGRESS OF INDUS-
TRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, Petitioner and LOCAL 199,
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER
WORKERS OF N.A., AFL. Case No. 5-RC-1224. June 12,
1953
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On March 3, 1953, pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted
105 NLRB No. 70.