Toledo Scale Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 851 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

TOLEDO SCALE COMPANY 851
The Petitioner also contends that because the contract was extended
in March 1951, 5 months after its original date, it has been prema-
turely extended and therefore cannot constitute a bar. Under well
established Board precedent, any contract made during the certifica-
tion year precludes a new investigation of representatives during its
regular term.'
The Petitioner further asserts that the contract contains unlawful
checkoff provisions and therefore cannot bar an election. In ac-
cordance with Board policy, we find that considerations as to the
legality of the checkoff provisions under Section 302 of the Act are
irrelevant and immaterial on a contract bar issue .3 Nor do we find
merit in the Petitioner's contention that, because the contract was
revised during its term, it cannot operate as a bar. The Board has
held that parties to a contract may renegotiate or modify it during
its term without "opening up" such contract to an otherwise prema-
turely filed petition' Accordingly, we find that the current contract
is valid and constitutes a bar to a present determination of represent-
atives, and we shall dismiss the petition.
Because the record does not establish that collective-bargaining
agreements exceeding 2 years' duration are customary in this in-
dustry, we agree with the Petitioner that the contract will cease to
be a bar 2 years after its execution in March 1951.5
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
2 Quaker Maid Co., Inc., 71 NLRB 915.
8 Crown Products Co., 99 NLRB 602.
4 Western Electric Co., 94 NLRB 54.
5 International Brick Co., 91 NLRB 1428.
TOLEDO SCALE COMPANY and LOCAL 4, MECHANICS EDUCATIONAL' SO-
CIETY Or AMERICA,i PETITIONER . Case No. 8-RC-1747. December
8,1952
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 Carroll L. Martin, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
' The name of the Petitioner appears as corrected at the hearing.
101 NLRB No. 15.5.
242305-53-55
852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 consisting of all employees in the
toolroom, model shop, and fabrication methods department, and the
tool inspector in the tool supply department. The Intervenor and
the Employer contend that the requested unit is inappropriate and
that a plant-wide unit is alone appropriate.
The Employer, a New Jersey corporation, is engaged in the manu-
facture of scales and other precision weighing and measuring instru-
ments. Its production and maintenance employees, including those
whom the Petitioner now seeks to represent, had been represented
in a plant-wide unit by the Scale Workers of Ohio, Independent,
from 1940 to 1945 and by the Intervenor since 1945, except for the
period from 1949 to 1951, when there was no contract. The last con-
tract between the Employer and the Intervenor was executed in 1951
and expired in March 1952.
The fabrication methods department includes methods engineers,
tool designers, plant layout men, clerical employees, and a checker who
inspects the work of the designers. The more skilled employees in
this department usually have college degrees and do not undergo any
apprenticeship training program. This department designs tools
and develops techniques for the manufacture of parts. It is located
in a separate area between the engineering department and the pro-
duction control department, and is not physically separated from the
rest of the plant.
The toolroom occupies a separate area in the plant. The employees
therein are classified as group leader, tool and die makers, machine
repairmen, tool and gauge grinder, cutting tool grinders, oiler, clerk,
and toolkeeper. The tool and die makers make and repair tools, dies,
jigs, fixtures, and cutting tools used in the plant; the machine repair-
men are skilled employees and spend the majority of their time in
the plant repairing production machinery ; the grinders sharpen tools
z International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America , CIO, and Its Local 773 were permitted to intervene on the basis of a contract
with the Employer covering a plant -wide unit of production and maintenance employees.
TOLEDO SCALE COMPANY 853
and appear to be semiskilled ; the remaining employees are unskilled
and spend all their time in the toolroom. The tool and die makers
spend the bulk of their time in the toolroom, except for one of them,
who spends most of his time in the sheet metal department. The
toolroom has separate immediate supervision.
The tool inspector is the only employee sought from the tool supply
department. He inspects all new tools which are purchased from out-
side, as well as those which are made or repaired in the toolroom.
The other 11 employees in the tool supply department , such as tool-
keepers and tool order clerks, distribute tools to production employ-
ees and write up requisitions and perform other clerical duties.
The seven model shop mechanics in the model shop, which is also
a separately located department, are primarily engaged in making
parts and assembling models of proposed new products, which are
used on the production line, on the basis of blueprints provided by
the Employer's research engineers. Four of them were formerly
employed as tool and die makers and all of them earn the same
rate as the tool and die makers in the toolroom . The normal line
of promotion for machinists or machine repairmen is either to the
model shop or to the toolroom as a tool and die maker.
Although each of these departments has separate immediate super-
vision, the fabrication methods, toolroom, and tool supply depart-
ments are part of the manufacturing division, whereas the model shop
is part of the engineering division. The fabrication methods depart-
ment employees are salaried and are included in the office payroll;
the remaining employees sought are hourly paid.
Many of these employees perform duties similar to those performed
by other employees whom the Petitioner desires to exclude. The
assembly methods department performs a function similar to that
of the fabrication methods department, in that it devises techniques
for assembling the various parts, whereas the fabrication methods
department is concerned with improving the method of producing
the parts. Both departments are part of the manufacturing divi-
sion. The assembly methods department, like the fabrication methods
department, employs methods engineers and development engineers,
and similar duties are performed by engineers in the engineering
division.
Although the model shop makes individual models which are used
for production purposes, custom orders in small quantities are made
by the machinists in the special machine department, whom the Peti-
tioner would exclude. These machinists are required to serve a 4-
year apprenticeship program and, although slightly lower paid, do
work similar to that of the model shop mechanics.
854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In these circumstances, and in view of the history of collective
bargaining on a plant-wide basis, we find that the employees sought
by the Petitioner do not form a distinct and identifiable group with
common interests and employment conditions. Accordingly, we find
that the multidepartmental unit sought is inappropriate .3
We find, however, that the model shop mechanics, tool and die
makers, machine repairmen, and machinists in the special machine
shop constitute a craft group, such as the Board has generally ac-
corded separate representation, if they so desire, notwithstanding their
previous inclusion in a broader unit .4 We shall, therefore, grant a
self-determination election to all members of this craft group.
We shall direct an election among all tool and die makers, machine
repairmen, machinists, model shop mechanics, and their apprentices,
at the Employer's plant, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have in-
dicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the
Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit
described above, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to
be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a
majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing unit to
be appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a certification of
results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
' In a previous case involving the same parties , 45 NLRB 472, the Board found Inappro-
priate a unit of all employees in the special machine, toolroom , methods, and engineering
departments because of a history of collective bargaining on a broader basis.
' Ludlow Typograph Company , 95 NLRB 2 ; Hughes Aircraft Company, 99 NLRB 1016 ;
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 101 NLRB 1320.
CONSOLIDATED TRIMMING CORP. and .AMALGAMATED UNION LOCAL 102,
?I A W, AFL, PETITIONER
CONSOLIDATED TRIMMING CORP. and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 2-RC-41626 and 2-RC-4757.
De.-ember 8,1952
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated 1 hearing was held be-
I The above-captioned cases were consolidated for purposes of hearing by an order of the
Regional Director.
101 NLRB No. 153.