Aluminum Foils, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 806 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ists and repairmen as expressed in the election hereinafter directed.
If a majority of such employees vote for the Petitioner, they will be
taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit.
In accordance with the foregoing, we shall direct that an election be
held among the following employees :
All maintenance machinists and repairmen in the machine shop of
the Employer at its Little Rock, Arkansas, plant, Woodrow and
Roosevelt Road, Little Rock, Arkansas, excluding office clerical, tech-
nical, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
ALUMINUM FOILS, INC. (Old INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN-
ISTS, LODGE No. 72 ,1 PETITIONER . Case No. 32-RC-300. May 23,
1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Anthony J. Sabella, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
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.'
The petition herein was originally filed by the International Association of Machinists.
alone . In its brief , the IAM moved to amend the petition to show the Petitioner as Inter-
national Association of Machinists , Lodge No . 72, on the grounds that the employees con-
cerned will be represented by, and are now members of, this Lodge As Lodge No. 72
presently appears to be the real party in interest , the motion is granted . Spandsco.
Oil and Royalty Company, 88 NLRB 1406 ; The Colson Corporation , 70 NLRB 1235.
2 At the hearing , the Employer and the Intervenor , International Council of Aluminum
Workers, AFL , moved to dismiss the instant petition on the ground that the unit sought
is inappropriate . Ruling on this motion was reserved for the Board. For the reasons
stated in Section 4 , infra, the motion is hereby denied.
3 The hearing officer permitted the Intervenor to intervene on the basis of the existing
contractual relationship between that organization , its Local 24780, and the Employer.
The Petitioner objected on the ground that the Intervenor's interest was based on an
"illegal" contract ; and, in its brief , the Petitioner asserts that the Intervenor should
therefore be denied a place on the ballot . We find no merit in these contentions. The
Intervenor 's contract , concerning which no unfair labor practice charges have been filed,
entitles it to participate in this proceeding for all purposes and, subject to the condition
set forth in footnote 16, its name may appear on the ballot. Cf Shepherd Manufacturing,
Company, Inc , 90 NLRB 2196 ; Aluminum Company of America, et al., 85 NLRB 915.
94 NLRB No. 125.
ALUMINUM FOILS, INC. 807
• 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 of skilled maintenance employees
and their helpers at the Employer's Jackson, Tennessee, plant.' The
unit requested is composed, in substance, of five machinists, one
machinists' helper, one roll grinder, one roll grinder trainee, three
electricians, and a pipe fitter. The Employer and the Intervenor
contend that only a plant-wide unit is appropriate, and that, in any
event, the unit sought is inappropriate because of its multicraft
character.
The Employer is engaged, at the plant involved herein, in the manu-
facture of aluminum foil. Its raw materials consist mainly of alumi-
num coil received from the Alcoa, Tennessee, plant of the Aluminum
Company of America. The present operation was begun in about.
August 1950, and there has been no controlling history of collective
,bargaining.'
The Employer's plant is a "cold rolling" operation 6 and functions.
generally as follows : Aluminum coil of .026 inch gauge, is passed
through a number of rolling mills,' until the single sheets cannot be-
further reduced in gauge. These sheets are then doubled in a doubling
machine and returned to the rolling mills for further reduction to.
the gauge of aluminum foil. The foil, which at this stage is in the
form of double sheets, is then placed in separating machines which
separate the two sheets. The single sheets are thereafter wound on
iron cores and the wide rolls of foil may be shipped in this form; or-
the sheets may be sent through slitting machines, which cut the foil
into widths of 1 to 12 inches, and the foil, on aluminum cores, may
be shipped in the narrower forms The foil is used by the Employer's
customers as condenser foil or foil for candies, chewing gum, and
the like.
The rolling mills in this plant are not in a straight line or "tandem,"
but are in two parallel rows of four machines, approximately 12 feet
4 Alternatively , the Petitioner requests any unit or units that the Board finds appropriate.
8 The Petitioner made its demand for recognition on October 11, 1950, and filed its-
petition on November 24, 1950. On January 3 , 1951, the Employer entered into a contract
with the Intervenor and its Local 24780 covering all the plant employees , including the-
maintenance employees , without "prejudice" to the Petitioner' s claim This contract
is not asserted as a bar and is without controlling significance as to the issues involved.
Brown Equipment & Manufacturing Co., Inc., 93 NLRB 1278 Cf. Reynolds Metals
Company, 93 NLRB 721 ; General Electric Company, 81 NLRB 476; West Tacoma Newsprint
Co , 81 NLRB 961.
8 While the Employer asserts that it contemplates adding a "hot line" section , no definite
plans have been made for such addition.
7 A "rolling mill" is a machine with rolls through which the aluminum is fed and,
which reduces the gauge of the metal.
8 At some point in the manufacturing operations the aluminum is softened in the heat-
treating or annealing department , but this is not further explained in the record.
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
apart. There is no evidence as to how the aluminum sheets are moved
between the mills. The plant operates on an 8-hour, 1-shift basis.
Administratively, the Employer's plant, with its approximately 81
employees, is divided into the receiving, heat-treating, rolling, sepa-
rating, slitting, packing,, and, maintenance departments. The main-
tenance department consists of the machinists, machinists' helper, roll
grinder, roll grinder trainee, electricians, and pipe fitter requested by
the Petitioner. These employees work under the separate super-
vision of the plant engineer, who does not supervise any production
workers. Their functions are generally as follows:
The machinists and the machinists' helper.-The Employer's five
machinists, including the machinists' working foreman, are primarily
maintenance men who assemble, disassemble and adjust machines
under the immediate direction of the working foreman.9 Their duties
include repairing machine parts, adjusting the production machines,
and roll changing. They divide their time between the production
floor and the machine shop which is located in the northeast section
of the plant and is separated from the production departments by
a 7-foot partition."' They are not assisted in their work by the pro-
duction employees. The machinists presently employed are journey-
men machinists who work to close tolerances and are recognized by
the Employer as skilled craftsmen. There is no apprenticeship pro-
grain for the machinists at the Employer's plant.
The machinists' helper also works under the immediate direction
of the machinists' working foreman. He is engaged mainly in oiling
and greasing the production machines, usually performing these
duties while the machines are in operation.
The roll grinder and the roll grinder trainee.-The roll grinder
grinds the mill rolls to the specific gauges necessary to reduce the
aluminum coil to foil. He works to close tolerances on a specially
built lathe with an attached grinder; is classified as a machinist; and,
along with a journeyman machinist assigned to him for training,
appears to spend almost all his time in an area, separated by a wire
screen, located behind the mills.
The electricians.The two electricians are journeymen who work
under the direction of a working foreman, repairing and maintaining
motors and switches used on the production machines. They spend
9 The machinists ' working foreman and the electricians ' working foreman , referred to
hereinafter , have no authority to hire or discharge. They may recommend disciplinary
action, promotions , and other changes in personnel status, subject, however , to independent
investigation . Although they are paid at a higher hourly rate than the craft personnel
with whom they work, they assign and direct work without exercising independent judg-
ment or discretion We find, in agreement with the parties , that these working foremen
are not supervisors as defined in the Act.
19 The Employer estimates that 75 percent of their time is spent in the production area,
while an employee witness testified that one machinist spends all his time in the machine
shop and estimates that from 40 to 50 percent of the other machinists ' time is spent
away from the production floor.
ALUMINUM FOILS, INC. 809
about 95 percent of their time on the production floor and the remain-
der in an area in the northwest section of the plant at the switch gear
station. In the latter section, they make repairs on electrical parts
that cannot be repaired on the production floor.
The pipe fitter.-This employee, who is classified by the Employer
as a machinist, cuts, threads, and installs pipe for oil circulating lines.
He works under the direction of the machinists' working foreman and
spends about ten percent of his time working with the machinists.
There are no other employees in the plant performing duties similar
to those of the above skilled maintenance employees. Although the
maintenance personnel enjoy working conditions and benefits similar
to those of the production employees, they are paid, with the excep-
tion of the helper, at a substantially higher hourly rate; there is
no interchange of employees between the maintenance department
and the production departments; and there has been no transfer of
employees.
As already mentioned, the Employer and the Intervenor contend
initially that only a plant-wide unit is appropriate. They rely, in
this connection, on the Board's decisions in the Permanente and Reyn-
olds (Hurricane Creek Plant) cases 11 In the Permanente case, the
employer's operations extended from the reduction of alumina
through the manufacture of finished products, in a continuous and
integrated production process. The Board there denied craft sev-
erence because such operations were analogous to those in the basic
steel industry and because of the history of collective bargaining in
the industry on a predominantly industrial basis. In Reynolds
(Hurricane Creek Plant), similar factors were considered in denying
craft severance in a plant engaged in the conversion of bauxite to
alumina.
The instant case, however, is distinguishable on its facts from both
the cited decisions. Here, the Employer is engaged solely in the
production of aluminum foil from coil, an operation which is essen-
tially that of a fabricator, rather than a basic processor, of alumi-
num 12 Moreover, the record fails to reveal an inseparable integra-
tion of maintenance personnel and functions with those of the pro-
duction group. And the history of bargaining on a plant-wide basis
has been of only limited and recent duration.13 In view of the fore-
going, and upon the entire record in the case, we find that the nature
11 The Permanente Metals Corporation, 89 NLRB 804; Reynolds Metals Company ( Hurri-
cane Creek Plant ), 92 NLRB 156
^ The Board has frequently recognized that the fabrication of commercial products is
not within basic industry operations either in the steel or aluminum industry See, e g,
Standard Steel Spring Company, 90 NLRB 1805; Detroit Steel Corporation, 90 NLRB No.
62; Victor Metal Products Corporation , 90 NLRB No. 144
13 See footnote 5, supra.
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Employer's operation does not preclude the establishment of
separate craft units.14
While the Employer and the Intervenor also contend that the
multicraft character of the unit sought by the Petitioner renders it
inappropriate, the Board has previously held that, in the absence of
a controlling history of bargaining, such a unit embracing all skilled
maintenance personnel may be accorded separate representation is
However, we shall not make any final unit determination until we
have first ascertained the desires of the employees concerned.
We shall direct an election in the following voting group : All
skilled maintenance employees, and their helpers, at the Employer's
Jackson, Tennessee, plant, including the machinists, machinists'
helper, roll grinder, roll grinder trainee, pipe fitter, electricians, and
machinists' and electricians' working foremen, but excluding all other
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority select
the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be
represented in a separate appropriate unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
" Cf. Reynolds Metals Company, 93 NLRB 721.
16 Armstrong Cork Company, 80 NLRB 1328 ; General Electric Company, Circleville Lamp
Works, 89 NLRB 949 ; Halliburton Portland Cement Company , 91 NLRB 717; and
.Aerovoa Corporation , 93 NLRB 1101.
REILLY ELECTROTYPE COMPANY, DIVISION OF ELECTROGRAPHIC COR-
PORATION and NEW YORK AUXILIARY UNION LOCALS NOS. 1 AND 100,
INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS' AND ELECTROTYPERS' UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-3067. May
,03, 1951
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 Eugene M. Purver,
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
Reynolds] .
94 NLRB No. 120.