The Kroger Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 218 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE KROGER Co., and DISTRICT LODGE NO. 34, INTERNATIONAL Associ-
ATION OF MACHINISTS , A. F. OF L., PETITIONER . Ci ase No. 9-PC-178g.
March 2, 1953
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lloyd R. Fraker,
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 a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
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 certain
employees of the Employer 2
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion 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 of maintenance department employees
in the Employer's Cincinnati, Ohio, manufacturing operation, or in
the alternative any such craft unit or units in the maintenance depart-
ment as the Board may find appropriate. The Employer and the
Intervenor contend that the maintenance department unit is inappro-
priate because of a 10-year bargaining history on a broader basis.
In addition, they contend that separate craft units are inappropriate
because none of the employees spend their time working exclusively
at one craft. The Intervenor also contends that there are no true
craftsmen in the unit.
The Employer operates a chain of retail food stores in 19 States.
In Cincinnati it has a branch merchandising operation and a manu-
facturing operation. The branch operation services the Employer's
retail stores in Cincinnati and the surrounding area. The manufac-
turing operation processes and packs various food products for
distribution to all of the Employer's stores. The Intervenor has repre-
sented the production and maintenance employees in the manufactur-
ing operation, including the employees sought by the Petitioner, for
10 years and has had contracts with the Employer during that period
covering these employees.
I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the healing.
2 United Food Workers, Local 390, Retail , Wholesale and Department Store Employees
of America, CIO, intervened at the hearing on the basis of an existing contractual interest.
103 NLRB No. 11.
THE KROGER CO. 219
There are approximately 65 employees in the maintenance depart-
ment who are classified as leadmen, mechanics A, mechanics B, me-
chanics B (stockroom), maintenance helpers, and machine cleanup
men. A number of these employees exercise in the course of their
duties the skills of carpenters, millwrights, electricians, pipefitters,
sheet-metal workers, painters, machinists, and welders. Others per-
form unskilled duties of stockroom attendants, oilers, and cleanup
men. Under Board policy, a unit consisting of all employees in the
maintenance department would be inappropriate in view of the bar-
gaining history for the broader unit.3 However, such bargaining
history does not preclude the possibility that the craft units sought
by the Petitioner, in the alternative, may be appropriate .4
Although there is no apprenticeship program in the maintenance
department, the Employer tries to hire men who have served appren-
ticeships elsewhere in filling jobs with craft duties within the depart-
ment. Employees entering the department with no skills are given
helper classifications and are promoted to higher classifications as they
acquire skill. It usually takes at least 3 or 4 years for such employees
to attain a mechanic A classification. There are no other employees
exercising craft skills working elsewhere in the plant. While there
have been some permanent transfers from production departments to
the maintenance department, they have been few in number and most
of the employees transferred have entered the maintenance depart-
ment in the helper classification. Transfers from the maintenance
department to the production department are rare and have occurred
only at times of layoffs in the maintenance department.
There are approximately 8 electricians in the department who spend
at least 90 percent of their time in electrical work throughout the
plant. In the course of their duties they install conduits, locate and
repair defects in electrical equipment, repair motors, and do various
other kinds of electrical work. These employees are separately su-
pervised and have a separate area assigned to them as a shop and
storage area for tools and materials. We find that these employees
are craftsmen who may constitute a separate appropriate unit, if they
so desire .5
There are 5 millwrights and 2 carpenters in the maintenance de-
partment who spend over 50 percent of their time doing the work of
their craft. The evidence shows that these employees are assigned to
the same crew and are under the same leadmen. While the carpenters
and millwrights each work predominantly at their own craft, they
frequently work together in the installation and rigging of machinery
throughout the plant, and their duties are often similar. In view of
3 United States Time Corporation , 86 NLRB 724.
4 The Atlantic Refining Company, 92 NLRB 651.
5 John F. Jelke Company, 83 NLRB 442.
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the close association between the carpenters and millwrights in the
plant, and traditional association of the 2 crafts, we find that a unit
of both may be appropriate.'
There are three machinists in the maintenance department who
spend most of their time making parts, involving the operation of
various machine tools. In addition there are a number of mechanics
in the maintenance department who are engaged principally in the
maintenance and repair of mechanical equipment in various produc-
tion departments to which they are assigned. They also operate ma-
chine tools, although to a lesser extent, in the course of this work. We
find that these employees are all craftsmen having similar skills, and
may constitute a separate appropriate unit if they so desire 7
There are three painters who perform all the painting required
throughout the plant. While they may be required, to assist in
cleanup work when there is no painting to be done or when necessary
in preparation for painting, these employees work as painters most of
the time, and as such engaged in work requiring craft skills. Ac-
cordingly they may constitute a separate appropriate unit."
There are also 7 pipefitters, 3 sheet metal workers, and 2 welders who
spend most of their time performing duties customarily associated
with these crafts. We find that the employees in each of these groups
are craftsmen, and that each group may constitute a separate appro-
priate unit if it so desires .9
Accordingly, we shall direct that separate elections be conducted
among the following groups 70 of employees in the maintenance de-
partment at the Employer's Cincinnati, Ohio, manufacturing plant,
including in each group all leadmen 11 and helpers 12 working in each
craft, but excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act :
1. All electricians.
2. All carpenters and millwrights.
3. All machinists and machine repairmen.
4. All painters.
° Calumet and Hecla Consolidated Copper Company , 86 NLRB 126.
7We8tinghouse Electric Corporation , 94 NLRB 804.
8 Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, 84 NLRB 298.
ID Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, supra.
10 The Employer and Intervenor contend that each of the proposed craft groups, which
we find may be appropriate, is inappropriate because none of the employees included spend
their time exclusively in duties related to their craft . As we have found in each case
that most of the time of these craftsmen is spent in work associated with their craft, we
reject this contention . Plumbing Contractors Association of Baltimore , Md., Inc., 93
NLRB 1081 at footnote 27.
"The parties agree, and we find on the basis of the record , that none of the leadmen
are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
12 As it appears from the record that helpers are assigned to assist employees working
in one craft only, we will include them in the units of the craftsmen to which they are
assigned. General Electric Company, 86 NLRB 327 at footnote IT.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 221
5. All pipefitters.
6. All sheet-metal workers.
7. All welders.
If a majority in any group votes for the Petitioner, they will be
taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appro-
priate unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certifi-
cation of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the
Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act. If a majority in any group votes for the Intervenor, they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to remain a part of the exist-
ing bargaining unit and the Regional Director will issue a certificate
of the results of the election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, MILWAUKEE WORKS and
ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION No. 494, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER and HARVESTER
FEDERAL LABOR UNION, LOCAL 22631, AFL. Case No. 13-RC-
3027. March 2, 1953
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph Cohen, hearing of-
ficer. 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 a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
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 employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion 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:
103 NLRB No. 13.