A. O. Smith Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 11, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 466 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of A. O. SMITH CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and DISTRICT
LODGE No. 37, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETI-
TIONER
Case No. 39-RC-92.-Decided October 11, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Joseph A_
Jenkins, hearing officer. At the hearing, the Employer and the Steel-
workers moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that : (a) an.
existing contract is a bar to this proceeding ; and (b ) the units sought
by the Machinists and the Boilermakers are inappropriate. For
reasons discussed below , the motion is denied , except that we find
inappropriate the unit sought by the Boilermakers. 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Hezrog, and Members;
Reynolds and Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. District Lodge No. 37, International Association of Machinists,.
herein called the Machinists ; Local Lodge 649, International Brother -
hood of Boilermakers , Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers of America,.
AFL, herein called the Boilermakers; and United Steel Workers of
America, CIO, and its Local Union 3316, herein called the Steel-
workers, are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Steelworkers contend that a collective
bargaining contract which they signed on July 30, 1948 , for a term to.
expire on September 30, 1950, is a bar to this proceeding.
On July 18, 1947 , the Employer and the Steelworkers signed a
collective bargaining contract covering all production and mainte-
nance employees for a 2-year term expiring on July 18 , 1949. On.
86 N. L . R. B., No. 67.
466
A. 0. SMITH CORPORATION 467
July 30, 1948, the contracting parties signed a supplemental agree-
ment which, among other things, extended the termination date of the
original contract to September 30, 1950. The Machinists filed its
petition May 12, 1949, before the original expiration date of the 1947
agreement. Under these circumstances, we find that the 1948 exten-
sion agreement is not a bar, because it was a premature extension of
the original contract, whose term has expired and as to which the
Machinists timely filed its petition.'.
We find that 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 Machinists seeks to represent a unit of machinists, machin-
ists helpers-handlers, and apprentices,2 excluding supervisors. The
Boilermakers, which intervened in this proceeding, desires to repre-
sent a unit of lay-out men, assemblers, cutters, testers, inspectors, elec-
tric welders, helpers and handlers, excluding supervisors. The Em-
ployer and the Steelworkers assert that both units are inappropriate,
because of the integration of the Employer's operations and because
of a 5-year bargaining history on a plant-wide basis.
The Machinists unit
The Employer is engaged in the fabrication of steel pressure vessels
for the oil, gas, and chemical industries. Its operations are carried
on in three interconnected buildings.
The unit proposed by the Machinists consists of 6 machinists who
are assigned to Department 10, 17 machinists who are assigned to
Department 30, and 2 helper-handlers who are assigned to Depart-
ment 30. Departments 10 and 30 together comprise the machine
department which employs all the plant machinists. The machine
department is located in Building No. 3 and is separately supervised
by a machine shop foreman. Machine department employees make
replacement parts and repair machines. In the performance of their
duties, they use the machines and precision tools of the machinist
trade and exercise a high degree of skill. They are not interchanged
with other employees.
We reject the contention of the Steelworkers and the Employer that
because of the integrated nature of the Employer's operations there
is no justification for severing these employees from the plant-wide
unit. While there is necessarily some integration between the various
.departments to achieve a finished product, the machine department
is not so integrated as to make integration the controlling factor in
I See Matter of Republic Steel Corporation., 84 N. L. It . B. 483 , and Matter of Doehler-
Jarvis Corporation (Doehler Die Casting Division ), 81 N. L . R. B. 1097.
1 The Employer does not employ apprentices.
468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
determining the appropriateness of the Machinists unit.' These em-
ployees constitute a homogeneous, identifiable craft group of the type
that we have frequently found appropriate, notwithstanding a bar-
gaining history on a broader basis.4 They may therefore, if they
desire, constitute a separate unit. We shall include the helper-han-
dlers in the machinists voting group because, although they are not
machinists, they work in close association with, and under the same
supervision as, the machinists.
The Boilermakers unit
As previously stated, the Boilermakers assert that a unit of lay-out
men, assemblers, cutters, testers, inspectors, electric welders, helpers
and handlers is appropriate. At the hearing, however, it advanced
no reason for severing these employees, who do not constitute a craft
group, from the existing plant-wide unit. In these circumstances, we
find that the unit sought by the Boilermakers is inappropriate.
We shall direct that an election be held among machinists and ma-
chinists helper-handlers in the machine department of the Employer's
Houston, Texas, works, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act.
However, we shall make no final unit determination until we have
ascertained the desires of the employees as expressed in the election
directed herein. If a majority of them vote for the Machinists, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
appropriate unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 5
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
voting group described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
s Matter of Aluminum Company o f America, 83 N. L. R. B. 398, and cases cited therein.
Matter of E. 1. DuPont de Nemours and Company , 83 N. L. R. B. 865 , and cases cited
therein.
6 Local Union No. 3316 , United Steel Workers of America, CIO, Is omitted from the
ballot because of Its failure to comply with the filing requirements in Section 9 (f), (g),
and (h ). In the event that Local 3316 effects compliance with the filing requirements
of the Act within 2 weeks of the date of this Direction , the Regional Director is Instructed
to accord Local Union No. 3316, United Steel Workers of America , CIO, a place on the
ballot in the election directed herein.
A. 0. SMITH CORPORATION 469
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain-
ing, by District Lodge No. 37, International Association of Machinists.
869351-50-vol. 86-31