A. O. Smith Corp. of Texas

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 12, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 56 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prisals if he did withdraw the petition as requested. Thus, although
the Employer may not have threatened Householder with reprisals
to secure the filing of the petition, it does not follow that House-
holder's fear of reprisals by the Employer if he withdrew the peti-
tion was unfounded or merely conjecture on his part. At least House-
holder's statement to Johnson belies the fact that the maintenance
of this proceeding was voluntary on the part of the Petitioner.
The Board has held that an employer may not foster or take an ac-
tive part in the filing of a decertification petition.' Thus, in the. Gold
Bond case, 'the Board found that the employer took an active part in,
and fostered, the filing of the decertification petition, by advising the
employees about the matter and furnishing them with legal advice
and it rationalized its dismissal of the petition as follows :
As the statutory provisions for decertification proceedings pro-
vide a remedy exclusively for and on behalf of employees, and
not of employers, we cannot, as a matter of policy, permit an em-
ployer to do indirectly that which we would not permit him to do
directly.
The circumstances surrounding the filing of the petition and the
maintenance of this proceeding before the Board convince me that
this decertification proceeding was instituted at the behest and for
the benefit of the Employer rather than the employees, and that its
maintenance does not represent the free and voluntary act of the
Petitioner.
Accordingly, in my opinion, the same policy considerations that
caused the Board to dismiss the petition in the Gold Bond case re-
quire dismissal of the petition in this case.
2 Gold Bond, Inc., 107 NLRB 1059.
A. O. Smith Corporation of Texas and District 37, International
Association of Machinists, AFL,' and Pipe Fitters Local 211,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the U. S. and Canada,
AFL,2 Petitioners. Cases Nos. 3.9-RC-894 and 39-RC-395. Sep-
tember 12,1955
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION.
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
C. L. Stephens, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed,
Hereafter referred to as Machinists.
2 Hereafter referred to as Pipefitters.
114 NLRB No. 17.
A. O. SMITH CORPORATION OF TEXAS 57
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 em-
ployees 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) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Machinists seeks to sever two units from the established pro-
duction and maintenance unit at the Employer's Houston, Texas,
plant. The first unit would include all employees assigned to the ma-
chine shop, including A, B, and C machinist`s, tool grinders, and the
toolroom welder. The second unit would include all machine repair-
men A and B, pump operators and oilers, or in the alternative, all ma-
chine repairmen A and B. The Pipefitters seeks to sever a unit that
would include all pipefitters A and B and pipefitters' helpers 4 The
Employer and the Intervenor contend that the units requested by the
Machinists and Pipefitters are inappropriate.
The Employer's Houston, Texas, plant, is engaged in the manu-
facture of steel pipe. All of its operations are conducted in 1 build-
ing and normally there are approximately 290 employees. The In-
tervenor has been the bargaining representative for all production and
maintenance employees since shortly after the plant opened in 1950.5
The Employer's mechanical maintenance department is located in the
southwest end of the plant and all employees that the Machinists and
Pipefitters seek to represent are assigned to this department.
There are 15 employees classified as either machinist A, B, or C, or
tool grinder assigned to the machine shop. Although the machine
shop is not physically separated from the rest of the maintenance de-
partment, there is a clearly defined area in the southwest end of the
plant that is generally known as the machine shop. The majority of
the machine tools used by the machinists and tool grinders are located
in this area, and the employees assigned to the machine shop work
there the major portion of their working time. On the first and sec-
3 United Steelworkers of America , . CIO, hereafter referred to as the Intervenor, was
allowed to intervene on the basis of its current contractual interest.
' In its original petition the Pipefitters sought to sever a unit that included all em-
ployees engaged in pipefitting and maintenance welding. However , after the close of the
hearing, the Pipefitters moved that it be permitted to amend its unit description so that
it would include only the pipefitters A and B and pipefitters ' helpers. The Employer
stated in its brief that it does not consent to the motion or wish to waive any Board re-
quirement which may render the motion improper or untimely . We find that there is
nothing in the Rules and Regulations that prevents a party from filing a motion to amend
a unit description after the hearing has been closed . Accordingly , the Pipefitters ' motion
is granted
5 Following a consent election in 1950„ the Intervenor was certified as the bargaining
representative for all production and maintenance employees , except the electricians. In
the same case , the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL , was certified
as the bargaining representative for the electricians whom they currently represent.
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and shifts they are separately supervised by a machine shop foreman.
Employees in the machine shop have separate departmental seniority
and a separate line of progression. Thus, employees advance from
tool grinder to C, B, and then A machinist. Three employees pres-
ently classified as A machinists started as tool grinders and advanced
to their present classification through this, line'of progression. The
employees in the machine shop do no production work. Their time is
devoted exclusively to the manufacture and repair of parts for the Em-
ployer's machinery and equipment. In addition to the machinists and
tool grinders, one maintenance welder is regularly assigned to the ma-
chine shop. He is supervised by the machine shop foreman and does
all the welding work for the machine shop.
. On the basis of the above facts we find that the A, B, and C
machinists, tool grinders, and the one maintenance welder constitute
the personnel of a clearly defined, if not physically separated, machine
shop. As machine shops have been considered traditional depart-
mental units entitled to severance from production and maintenance
units if the employees so desire, and as the Machinists have tradi-
tionally represented such units,.we find that severance may be appro-
priate here.6
The machine repairmen and the pipefitters, as well as the oilers,
pump operators, and maintenance welders, are supervised by a
mechanical maintenance supervisor. At the present time there are 8
employees classified as machine repairmen A, and 9 employees classi-
fied as pipefitters A. There are no machine repairmen B or pipe-
fitters B, and neither classification has regularly assigned helpers.
There is no apprentice program and the two classifications share the
same general line of progression. Thus, an employee after advancing
from oiler to pump operator may then, choose between advancement
to machine repairman B or pipefitter B. While employed as an oiler
or pump operator an employee may be assigned to either the machine
repairmen or pipefitters as a helper. One employee presently classi-
fied as a machine repairman A, was transferred from the pipefitter A
classification. Another machine repairman A has been transferred
to the welder A classification. In addition, one employee presently
classified as a pipefitter A, was transferred from the arbor repair
group,' while a production employee reached the pipefitter A classi-
tion after working as an oiler for only 3 months.
As noted above, oilers and pump operators are usually assigned as
helpers to the machine repairmen and the pipefitters. However, dur-
R. D. Werner Co., Inc, 110 NL1tB 1049.
4 The butt welding machines are the most important machines in the production process.
As a result , the Employer has established a special arbor repair group which services and
maintains these machines . Employees assigned to this group do no other work.
A. 0. SMITH CORPORATION OF TEXAS 59
ing a changeover,' a major repair operation, or a major installation
project, production employees are also assigned as helpers. Moreover,
on two installation projects the machine repairmen were supervised
by production supervisors. Although the machine repairmen devote
a major portion of their time to repairing the plant's machinery and
equipment, and the pipefitters devote a major portion of their time to
pipefitting maintenance and installation work, both classifications also
regularly perform work that is not a part of machine repairmen's
or pipefitters' duties. As an example, the machine repairmen do iron
and rigging work while the pipefitters light burners and do some
brick work. In addition, the arbor repair group regularly performs
machine repair and pipefitting work;, however, there is no contention
made that these employees are machine repairmen or pipefitters.
On the basis of the above facts, and on the record as a whole, we
find that neither the machine repairmen nor the pipefitters comprise
a distinct and homogeneous group of skilled journeymen craftsmen,
working as such, together with their apprentices and/or helpers.
Accordingly, we find that the units of machine repairmen and pipe-
fitters sought to be severed by the Machinists and the Pipefitters are
not appropriate, and we therefore deny their unit requests with respect
to these employees .9
We will direct that an election be held among the following group
of employees at the Employer's plant :
All machine shop employees, including machinists A, 13, and C, tool
grinders, and the machine shop welder, but excluding all other em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority in the voting group vote for the Machinists, they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit,
which the Board finds under the circumstances to be appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining, and the Regional Director is
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner
for such unit. If the majority vote for the Intervenor, they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to remain a part of the existing
plantwide unit and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certi-
fication of results of election to that effect.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 39-RC-895.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 Whenever the diameter of the pipe is changed the whole production line is closed
'down so that the necessary adjustments can be made . This process , known as a change-
over, occurs 2 or 3 times a week.
9 See A. 0. Smith Corporation of Texas, 104 NLRB 977.