A. O. Smith Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 1328 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Twin City area, and all the categories in question would be encom-
passed.by this designation.,
Under all the circumstances of this case, we find that the coordina-
tors sought by the Petitioner constitute only a segment of a broader
group of employees with similar skills, duties, and interests. The
Board will not add such a fragmentary group to the Petitioner's exist-
ing unit,13 nor establish it as a separate appropriate unit 14 Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petition.15
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
'Boeing Airplane Company, 94 NLRB 344.
it Otia Elevator Company, 116 NLRB 262.
151n view of the above disposition of the ease, we deem it unnecessary to resolve the
other unit contentions of the parties.
A. C. Smith Corporation, Granite City, Illinois, Frame Plant and
Local 309, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 14-1C-2953. October 15, 1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (e) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph H. Solien, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and. are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor, International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Help-
ers, Local 575, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations claiming to rep-
resent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) andSection2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever a group of some 30 electricians from
the plantwide unit currently represented by the Intervenor. In the
alternative, Petitioner seeks a department or any other unit of elec-
tricians which the Board may, find appropriate.' The Employer and
the Intervenor contend that the unit sought by the , Petitioner is in-
appropriate because the employees in question do not comprise a true
1As will hereinafter-appear, we are not granting a department of electricians ; we find
no necessity for considering the Employer's objections to the egtablishment of such
department.
116,NLRR Noy 1861
A. 0. SMITH CORPORATION 1329
craft group, within the standards laid down in the American Potash
case.2
This is the second time the Petitioner is seeking to represent a group
of electricians at this plant. On the previous occasion, we dismissed
the petition on the ground that the record as a whole failed to estab-
lish that the employees sought to be represented constituted a skilled
craft group entitled to separate representation 3 The Employer and
Intervenor moved to dismiss the instant petition on the ground that
Petitioner failed to adduce evidence showing that conditions in the
plant had changed to justify a reversal of our former ruling. For
reasons hereinafter appearing, we deny the motion to dismiss.
The electricians, whom the Petitioner seeks to sever, are employed
in the maintenance department, and work on 3 shifts consisting of
some 160 men. The record shows that the maintenance men are classi-
fied as A, B, or C, and that the electricians are classified as AE, BE,
or CE, the "E" standing for "electrician," and the A, B, or C for the
grade in the electrician group.4 Some 12 of the 30 electricians testi-
fied at the hearing. Their testimony shows that with the possible ex-
ception of one man, these electricians have substantial training and/or
experience in all phases of electrical work and that they are now
engaged exclusively or primarily in exercising the skills of the elec-
trician's craft.' Their work includes maintenance of all electrical
equipment, trouble shooting, work on conduits, installing wires, cables,
panel boards, substations, bus ducts, automatic controls of all kinds,
work on motors, bearings, air compressors, conveyors, refrigeration
equipment, and all types of lighting equipment. Although the men
are assigned to designated production areas where they are needed,
they do not perform any production work or exchange work with pro-
duction employees. The electricians use blueprints and follow the
rules of the national electrical code. They use the customary tools
and testing devices of the electrician's trade. In the main, their
testimony shows that they work under the direction of specifically
designated electrical foremen qualified to direct them.
The Intervenor and the Employer contend that conditions in the
plant have not changed since the last hearing and that there is no
evidence of the existence of an electrician's craft. They urge that
8107 NLRB 1418.
8 111 NLRB 200, 202
4 The other job classifications in the maintenance department include machine repair
floor (MFR) ; pipefitters (P) ; welders, woodworkers, and painters
5 At the close of the hearing, the Employer introduced in evidence a list of some
30 employees in the maintenance department who have electrical background , but whom
the Petitioner does not seek to represent , implying that Petitioner is seeking to represent
only a segment of an alleged craft. As the testimony shows, these men are not classified
as electricians and as the Employer failed to adduce evidence in support of a contention
that these men are engaged primarily in electrical work, we find no merit in the
Employer 's contention.
405448-57-vol. 110-85
1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
only a good general maintenance background is required for all main-
tenance men, that crafts in the maintenance department overlap, and
that the men work more than one craft. There is no apprenticeship
requirement or equivalent training and the Company does not require
the degree of skill possessed by journeymen craftsmen. Furthermore,
major electrical jobs are contracted out.
We find that the electricians, here sought to be represented by a
union which traditionally represents craft electricians, constitute a
craft of the type to which we customarily permit separate representa-
tion. Our finding in this respect is based on a much more extensive
and complete record than was the case when we made our earlier de-
termination. Indicative of the difference in the evidence as to craft
status on the record now before us as compared with the former record
is the fact that at the prior hearing only one witness, a journeyman
electrician, testified as to his experience, with no showing as to the
training or experience of the other electricians, whereas the present
record contains the testimony of numerous electricians with respect
to their craft duties and experience.
Although the Employer has no apprenticeship program, it has, in
essence, an on-the-job training program by means of which an em-
ployee can become a full-fledged maintenance electrician. Moreover,
the record indicates that maintenance electricians, when employed,
have had substantial experience in their trade. We are satisfied that
the electricians herein sought are primarily engaged in electrical
work requiring the performance of typical craft tasks. In these cir-
cumstances, we find no merit in the Employer's and Intervenor's con-
tention that the electricians sought do not meet the requirements of
the American Potash case with respect to the exercise of true craft
skills.6
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be conducted in the
following group of employees at the Employer's Granite City, Illinois,
plant:
All maintenance and construction electricians, their apprentices
and helpers, excluding office clerical employees, professional employ-
ees, guards, watchmen, all other employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for the
Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be
represented in a separate unit, and the Regional Director conducting
the election directed herein is instructed, in that event, to issue a
certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which
e Harvey Aluminum , A Division , of Harvey Machine Company , Inc., 114 NLRB 935;
Ketchtikan Pulp Company , 115 NRB 279; 'American Tobacco Company, Incorporated,
115 NLRB 218 ; Marinette Paper Company, 114 NLRB 1452, Mallinckrodt Chemical
Works, 115 NLRB 730.
UNION ALUMINUM COMPANY, INC. 1331
the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining. In the event a majority does not vote
for the Petitioner, these employees shall remain part of the existing
production and maintenance unit, and the Regional Director is in-
structed to issue a certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Union Aluminum Company, Inc., and /or Southern Metals Com-
pany, Inc. and Aluminum Workers' International Union , AFL-
CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC-3198. October 15, 1956
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued in the above-
entitled proceeding on October 14, 1955,1 an election by secret ballot
was conducted on October 28, 1955, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, among the em-
ployees in the unit heretofore found appropriate. At the conclusion
of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots. The
tally showed that of approximately 234 eligible or allegedly eligible
voters, 227 ballots were cast. Of these, 92 ballots were for the Peti-
tioner, 118 ballots were against the Petitioner, and 17 ballots were
challenged.
On November 3, 1955, the Petitioner filed timely objections to con-
duct affecting the results of the election. After investigation, the
Regional Director, on January 27, 1956, issued his report on election,
objections to election. In this report, the Regional Director con-
cluded that there was merit in the Petitioner's first objection and he
recommended that the election be set aside and a new election
ordered.2 On February 6, 1956, the Employer filed exceptions- to
these findings and recommendations of the Regional Director.
On April 4, 1956, the Board found that substantial and material
issues had been raised by the Employer's exceptions and issued an
order directing hearing. On May 15, 1956, a hearing was held before
Lloyd Buchanan, hearing officer. On June 4, 1956, the hearing officer
issued his report and recommendations on objections to election, a
copy of which is attached hereto. Like the Regional Director, the
hearing officer found that the Employer had interfered with the em-
ployees' free choice of a bargaining representative and therefore rec-
ommended that the results of the election be set aside and that a new
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
2 As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director 's finding that the Petitioner's
second objection lacked merit , this finding is adopted and the objection is hereby overruled.
116 NLRB No. 184.