A. O. Smith Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1952

97 N.L.R.B. 1570 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
coercive. Except for the proscriptions of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act there
is no limitation upon a peaceful primary strike for recognition and lawful picket-
ing incident thereto. The announcement , even if made by a union representative,
that the Union would continue to exert economic pressure in the event of defeat
at the polls cannot be unlawful if the intended economic pressure itself is
lawful.
Even were it to be found that Jefferson informed Morris that he would be
laid off if he did not vote in favor of the Union the election should stand. When
viewed in the light of the Company 's assurances made on July 6 and on the day of
the election it is difficult to envisage a coercive effect. The Union was cer-
tainly not in a position to carry out this threat , and the record reveals that
employees were clearly informed of this. In any event Jefferson was not at
this time connected with the Union other than as an active member and this fact
must be weighed in considering any possible coercive effect of his remarks.'
The undersigned concludes that none of the remarks addressed to Morris can
be said to have been reasonably calculated to have affected the results of the
election. The undersigned concludes that there is no evidence of conduct on
the part of the Union or its agents affecting the results of the election so as to
warrant its being set aside and, therefore , it is recommended that the objections
be dismissed and the Union certified as the representative of the majority
of-the employees of the Company in the unit hereinbefore found appropriate.
D Mallinckrodt Chemical Company, supra.
A. 0. SMITH CORPORATION and LOCAL 4, MECHANICS EDUCATIONAL
SOCIETY OF AMERICA, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-130-1. Feb-
ruary 6,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Bernard Ness, 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 Houston and Murdock].
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:
, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, CIO, and American Federation of Labor were permitted to intervene.
97 NLRB No. 245.
A. 0. SMITH CORPORATION 1571
The Petitioner seeks to represent separate units of the Employer's
tool and die makers and related categories, tool inspection employees,
and maintenance employees. As an alternative, it would represent
the three groups in a single unit. The Employer and Intervenors
contend that the petition was prematurely filed and that there is at
present no representative group of employees within the unit or units
requested by the Petitioner.
The Employer is in the process of establishing a substantial plant
for the production of landing gears for military aircraft. In January
1951 it leased an old plant and started to rehabilitate, modernize, and
build some additions to it to suit its purposes, and to acquire and in-
stall therein the necessary machinery and equipment.
The Employer planned to begin the construction of a model of its
product in January 1952, and to engage in regular production work by
the end of 1952. However, because of shortages in certain raw mate-
rials, the uncertainty as to whether all the necessary machinery and
equipment would be delivered to the plant as originally scheduled,
and also uncertainty that the necessary skilled manpower would be
available, it was unable to state definitely that its original plans
would be carried out as scheduled.
At the time of the hearing,2 neither the rehabilitation of the plant
nor the installation of machinery and equipment had yet been com-
pleted. Although some 50 percent of the machinery had been deliv-
ered to the plant, not all of it had been finally placed. At least one-
half of the undelivered machinery would not duplicate or resemble
any of the machinery then in the plant.
Out of a scheduled labor complement of 1,700 to 1,800 employees,
there were only 168 then employed, including employees of various
skills, and a substantial number who had no experience in any trade.
For administrative convenience, the Employer placed these em-
ployees into two pools: (1) maintenance and (2) a common pool of
labor available for tasks of any sort throughout the plant .3 In the
first, the Employer has placed all the employees capable of performing
the usual maintenance tasks, such as electricians, carpenters, painters,
powerhouse employees, and others. All other newly hired employees
have been placed in the common pool. The Employer expected to have
about 250 employees by the end of 1951, about 700 by the end of the
first quarter of 1952, about 1,200 by the end of the second quarter of
1952, and its complete labor complement by January 1953 when it
expects to attain normal production.
The maintenance employees have not as yet been segregated into a
separate location. There is little of the type of maintenance work that
s November 7, 1951.
' For accounting purposes , the Employer designated the common pool as department 48.
1572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
usually accompanies the normal operation of a plant, because com-
mercial production has not yet begun. The maintenance employ-
ees are now mainly occupied with rehabilitation of the plant, the re-
pair and setting up of machinery and equipment, the removal of sur-
pluses, and the receipt of incoming materials. The Employer expects
to make use of a reduced maintenance group when the plant attains
normal ' production. The tasks and classifications of the permanent,
group have not yet been determined.
The general pool of employees includes both skilled and unskilled
employees. The Employer expects to draw from this pool most of its
supervisory personnel. While there are in this group several tool and
die makers as well as other craftsmen, and although some of them do
make dies and jigs for experimental and training purposes, the tool
and die makers do not work as a craft group and are not identifiable
as such a group. The skilled and experienced employees are mainly
occupied in doing experimental work and in training the unskilled
employees. As yet, the Employer is unable definitely to predict in
what capacity any of these employees will eventually work.
In view of the fact that most of the anticipated employee comple-
ment has not yet been employed, and as the record indicates that the
composition of the unit or units sought by the Petitioner has not yet
become fixed, and the employees at present, engaged in rehabilitation,
training, and- experimental work are not definitely representative of
the anticipated work force, we believe that the present petition is pre-
mature.4 We shall therefore dismiss the petition without prejudice to
its refiling at an appropriate later date.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
4 Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 85 NLRB 1519 ; Coast Pacific Lumber Company, 78
NLRB 1245 Cf. Ford Motor Company, Aircraft Engineer Division , 96 NLRB 1045 ;
Bell Aircraft Corporation , 96 NLRB 1211.
SIR JAMES, INC. and CUTTERS' LOCAL # 84, INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GAR-
MENT WORKERS' UNION, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER . Case No. 01-RC-
2086. February 6,1950
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 George H. O'Brien, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
97 NLRB No. 246.