The B. F. Goodrich Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1033 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

B. F. GOODRICH CHEMICAL COMPANY 1033
which were due on the first of each month were not collected for the
month of October. Both Burton and Garnett testified without con-
tradiction that the Independent is no longer a functioning organiza-
tion and that there is no existing segment of the Independent capable
of administering the current contract. Moreover, although the Inde-
pendent was served with notice of the hearing, it did not attempt to
intervene herein nor did it appear at the hearing. Its compliance
with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) lapsed on June 30, 1951, and has not
since been renewed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, plus the fact that
the Petitioner submitted a 100 percent showing of interest among the
employees on the Employer's payroll of October 8, 1952, in the unit
hereafter found appropriate, we conclude and find that the Independ-
ent is no longer a functioning labor organization capable of adminis-
tering its contract with the Employer. Accordingly, we find that
the existing contract does not bar a representation election at this
time.3
4. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties we find that all
production and maintenance employees at the Employer' s Kansas
City, Missouri, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisory employees as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
a Ordill Foundry d Mfg. Co., 98 NLRB 412, On October 29, 1952 , 21 days after the
hearing a document entitled motion to dismiss petition and signed by a number of in-
dividuals purporting to be members of the Independent was filed with the Board. The
name Thomas Blake appears thereon as president. As found above Blake resigned as
president of the Independent sometime before the execution of the June 1, 1952, extension
agreement. The document also contains the names of Charles Garnett and Webster
Burton. This unsworn untimely filed statement has little if any probative value as evI-
dence and in any event is Insufficient to overcome the sworn testimony in the record upon
which our finding of defunctness Is based. It is not entitled to consideration on the merits
as a motion to dismiss the petition as it was not filed by a party to the proceeding.
Moreover, we find that the Interests of the employees will best be served by the direction
of an election.
B. F. GOODRICH CHEMICAL COMPANY, A DIVISION OF THE B. F. GOOD-
RICH COMPANY and LODGE 681, DISTRICT 27, INTERNATIONAL Asso-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, PETITIONER and UNITED RUBBER,
CORK, LINOLEUM & PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER.
Cases Nos. 9-RC-1720 and 9-RC-1731. December 12, 195
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before William G.
101 NLRB No. 167.
1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wilkerson, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 1
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act. J
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) andSection2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Employees of the Employer's Louisville plant, here involved, have
been represented under three contracts executed in April and May of
1950 with the three Intervenors, one with Local 369, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, covering maintenance elec-
tricians and instrument mechanics,2 one with Local 522, United Asso-
ciation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe
fitting Industry, AFL, covering maintenance pipefitters,a and one with
Synthetic Rubber Workers, Local 72, Distillery, Rectifying and Wine
Workers' International Union of America, AFL, covering the remain-
ing hourly rated production and maintenance employees. By amend-
ment these contracts have a term extending to November 11, 1952,
automatically renewable subject to 60 days' notice. The petitions
herein-that of the Machinists filed August 28 and that of the Rubber
Workers filed September 5--were timely with respect to the automatic
renewal date of these three contracts. Supplemental 5-year contracts
between the Employer and the three Intervenors covering benefits
programs, dated June 1, 1950, are urged by the Employer and the
Intervenors as a bar to this proceeding. We hold that these supple-
mental contracts are no bar to the instant petitions. Assuming that
contracts of such limited subject matter might be considered as consti-
tuting a bar, we note that not only have these already run more than
the 2-year period customarily recognized by the Board for bar pur-
poses,4 but that after June 1, 1952, the contracts themselves are subject
'The hearing officer properly overruled the Employer 's objection to the consolidation of
the two cases . The question of a machinist unit , involving as it does severance from the
existing production and maintenance unit, cannot be said to involve a "separate and
distinct issue " We see no prejudice to the parties in the consolidation and the manner
in which the evidence was presented.
A Certifications for maintenance electricians and for instrument mechanics , respectively,
were issued June 25, 1948, and August 2, 1949, in Cases Nos. 9-R -2501 and 9-RC-401.
• Certification was issued August 2, 1949 , in Case No. 9-RC-436.
See Interstate Brick Company , 91 NLRB 1428.
B. F. GOODRICH CHEMICAL COMPANY 1035
to termination by the parties, hence are now terminable at will and
constitute no bar to a representation petition.5
4. The unit sought by the Rubber Workers. The Rubber Workers
petitioned for a unit of "all production and maintenance employees,
including electricians, instrument mechanics and pipefitters." At the
hearing, however, it indicated a willingness to represent these em-
ployees in three separate units, conforming to the present contractual
groups, or to represent production and maintenance employees, exclud-
ing electricians, instrument workers, and pipefitters, as the AFL
Synthetic Rubber Workers has been doing. In any event it would
include the machinist group now sought by the IAM. Inasmuch as
the evidence indicates that there has been no essential change in the
duties of the employees as to whom the Board has already certified
craft units (see footnotes 2 and 3), no reason now appears to preclude
separate representation for these employees.,' This leaves for con-
sideration the question whether a residual production and maintenance
unit should continue to include the machinists sought by the IAM.
The unit sought by the Machinists. The Machinists requests a unit
of all machinists, mechanics, their helpers and oilers. The Employer's
maintenance department includes a machine shop with a general
foreman in charge. The 10 machinists employed are assigned to this
shop. They are paid the "top craft rate." They construct and repair
"all kinds of metal parts, tools and machines," and are expected to
have 4 to 6 years ' machine shop experience when hired. The Machin-
ists also seeks 15 employees classified as mechanics. These men spend
three-quarters of their time working throughout the plant maintaining
plant equipment, and the balance of it in the machine shop using the
lathes, boring mills, and similar machines. They are also skilled
machinists, paid at the "top craft rate," but only half of them are
subject to supervision by the general foreman of the machine shop,
the remainder being assigned to the electrical shop and subject to
supervision of its general foreman. The Machinists would also include
the 4 mechanics helpers who are assigned to the machine shop and
work under the supervision of its general foreman, and 4 oilers-
apparently all the oilers employed at the plant-likewise assigned to
the machine shop and subject to the foreman's supervision despite
their work throughout the plant. The record indicates that the work
of oiler requires no training or prior experience.
The Employer contends that the proposed machinist unit is inap-
propriate because the work of the classifications sought is "entirely
related and interdependent upon the work performed in the plant as a
whole"-an argument which lacks conviction in the circumstances, both
b See Great Lakes Carbon Company , 92 NLRB 507.
9 We note also that the Rubber Workers has made an insufficient showing of interest in
these separate craft groups to support separate elections in them.
1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because of the Employer's failure to specify examples of interde-
pendence, and the existence of craft units at the plant. The Rubber
Workers stated generally that it opposed the carving out of this group
as a separate unit, but that it would wish to appear on the ballot if
that is done. The Machinists indicated a desire to represent whatever
combination of the employees sought the Board might find appro-
priate as a unit.
We think that the machinists, the mechanics,' and the mechanics
helpers assigned to the machine shop, form a traditional craft group
to which the Board customarily grants the opportunty of voting for
separate representation 8 In these circumstances we shall direct an
election in the two voting groups.
We direct that the questions concerning representation which have
arisen be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among the
employees in the following voting groups :
1. All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at
its Louisville, Kentucky, plant, including oilers, but excluding elec-
tricians, instrument mechanics, pipefitters, machinists, mechanics,
mechanics helpers assigned to the machine shop, office clerical em-
ployees, chemists, all salaried employees, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. All employees of the Employer at its Louisville, Kentucky, plant,
classified as machinists, mechanics, and mechanics helpers assigned to
the machine shop, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act, and all
other employees.
If the employees in group 2 select a bargaining representative dif-
ferent from that selected by the employees in group 1, the Board finds
that the group 2 employees constitute a separate appropriate unit;
and if, in these circumstances the employees in group 1 also select a
bargaining agent, the Board finds that the employees in group 1 con-
stitute an appropriate unit. If the employees in the two groups select
the same bargaining agent, the Board finds that together they con-
stitute an appropriate unit. The Regional Director conducting the
elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the union or unions in the unit or units which may result
from the election. If either group selects no bargaining agent, the
Regional Director shall issue a certificate of results of election to
such effect.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 Inasmuch as the mechanics in question , whether or not assigned to the machine shop,
are skilled machinists and do machinist work, we shall include them in the voting craft
group See Hughes Aircraft Company, 99 NLRB 1016.
8 We exclude the oilers from this craft group See Hudson Pulp & Paper Corporation,
94 NLRB 1018, 1021.