American Bosch Arma Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1967

163 N.L.R.B. 650 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
payment, less the tax withholding required by applicable
law:
W. Baldridge $21.94
E. Brown 622.79
J. Buchowski 584.82
K. Buhl 335.81
M. Clark 142.05
E. Diaz 445.66
J. Fuqua 257.25
B. Grimmett 275.33
D. Holcomb 463.38
J. Hunley 137.95
H. Johnson 661.04
L. Johnson 22.46
M. Misiak 1,049.85
M. Myricks 46.54
F. Patrick 276.07
M. Phillips 494.82
C. Porter 76.78
L. Rutherford 23.66
K. Varo 998.87
F. Wollenbecker 604.00
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the Board adopt the foregoing
findings and conclusions.
American Bosch Arma Corporation (Missis-
sippi Division ) and Independent Tool and
Die Makers of Columbus, Mississippi,
Petitioner . Case 26-RC-2563.
March 28,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN,
JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On March 17 , 1966 , the Regional Director for
Region 26 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above -entitled proceeding , finding
that Employer 's toolroom department employees
constitute an appropriate unit which may be served
from the established production and maintenance
unit . Thereafter , in accordance with Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations , Series 8, as amended , the Employer
and the Intervenor , Local 794, International Union
of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO , filed timely request-s for review of the
Regional Director 's Decision on the grounds that the
decision was clearly erroneous with respect to
substantial factual issues and that there were
compelling reasons for reconsideration of an
important Board policy involved in the case. The
Board, by telegraphic order dated April 11, 1966,
I The Petitioner and the Employer have requested oral
argument. These requests are hereby denied as the record and
briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
granted the requests for review and stayed the
election.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the Regional Director's
determination under review and the positions of the
parties set forth in their briefs,' and makes the
following findings:
The Employer manufactures electric motors at its
plant in Columbus, Mississippi, where it employs
approximately 900 employees. In 1954 the
Intervenor was certified as the bargaining
representative of a unit of production and
maintenance employees at this plant. The last of the
successive collective-bargaining contracts covering
this unit expired on February 28, 1966.
Petitioner seeks to sever from the production and
maintenance unit 23 toolroom employees classified
as tool-and-die makers, and tool and cutter grinders.
In directing a severance election, the Regional
Director found, contrary to the position of the
Employer and Intervenor, that the toolroom
employees constituted a separately identifiable
group of skilled craftsmen and that the Petitioner is
a labor organization which qualifies as a
"traditional" representative of the craft involved. In
so holding, the Regional Director rejected
contentions of the Employer and Intervenor that the
Petitioner is not a "true craft union"; the employees
requested do not constitute a separate craft group;
and their severance would be detrimental to the
interests of employees in related crafts who have
comparable skills and to the integrated nature of the
Employer's overall operation.
After reexamining its craft severance policies in
the recent Mallinckrodt2 decision, the Board stated
that it would no longer limit the scope of inquiry to
whether the employees for whom severance is
requested are true craftsmen and whether the union
seeking to represent them qualifies as a traditional
representative. Instead, the Board indicated it would
base its determination upon a balancing of the
various interests affected, weighing all relevant
factors in each case before it.
The toolroom employees were requested to make
and repair tools, dies, jigs, and fixtures for use in the
production operation under the supervision of the
toolroom foreman. They perform similar functions in
connection with research and development work in
the laboratory at which time they work with and take
instructions from engineering personnel. All tool and
die work requiring welding or plating must be taken
to those areas of the plant where such equipment is
located. Toolroom employees also set, adjust, and
repair dies and fixtures on the production floor, and
regularly work alongside production and
maintenance workers "troubleshooting" faulty
z Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Uranium Division , 162 NLRB
387.
163 NLRB No. 80
JEWELL SMOKELESS COAL CORPORATION
equipment and machinery in the production area.
The Employer has no formal apprenticeship
program. The record establishes that the line of
progression to tool-and-die maker has been by
promotion through machinist and tool and cutter
grinder, and 6 of the 23 toolroom employees formerly
were production employees.
While the parties agree that toolroom work
requires specific skills and that the incumbent
employees possess those skills, other employees in
related crafts possess and exercise comparable
skills in such classifications as tool and purchase
inspectors, test equipment mechanics, maintenance
mechanics, and machinists working in engineering.
All skilled employees work in close proximity with
other employees, sharing the same facilities,
working the same hours under similar working
conditions, and enjoying the same benefits. None of
the skilled employees at the plant are represented in
separate craft units.
As noted above, collective bargaining in the
plantwide unit has demonstrated its workability by
producing relatively stable labor relations for some
12 years. Further, the record indicates that this
bargaining has been so oriented as to give
recognition to such special interests and differing
problems as craft employees may have. In those vast
areas where toolroom employees share a substantial
community of interests with other employees in the
existing bargaining unit, they are covered by
common provisions. On the other hand, the seniority
and bumping rights of skilled employees are
governed by special provisions in the contract
between the Intervenor and the Employer.
Moreover, representatives of toolroom employees
have served on the negotiating committee of the
Intervenor, and toolroom employees have
participated in formulating contract demands.
It appears that the formation of the Petitioner
arose as a result of an intraunion dispute. In July
1965 a group of dissidents decided to resign from the
Intervenor and seek separate representation.
Toolroom employees as well as general maintenance
employees and machinists were invited to join in this
effort. Only in December 1965, upon the advice of
counsel to give the appearance of specialized
representation so as to qualify for craft severance,
was participation restricted to toolroom employees.
Petitioner has neither a constitution nor bylaws,
lacks formal organization, and has never
represented any employees for collective-bargaining
purposes. Although this does not detract from its
status as a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, it lends no support to Petitioner's claim to
qualify as a "traditional" craft representative. Thus,
aside from its own assertion as to its intent and
purpose in support of the instant petition, there is no
evidence to establish that Petitioner is particularly
qualified to deal with the special problems of
651
craftsmen, a factor which we consider material,
though not alone determinative.
We view the functional interrelationship of
toolroom employees with other phases of the
Employer's production operation, the frequent
contact and common interests shared with
production employees as well as with other skilled
employees, the 12-year history of successful
bargaining on the broader basis which allowed
flexibility to accomodate any special craft needs,
and the questionable qualifications of the Petitioner
as a specialist in craft representation, as compelling
considerations for continuing the current bargaining
pattern. Therefore, we conclude that it would not be
appropriate to permit severance of toolroom
employees from the existing production and
maintenance unit. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
petition.3
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
3 Holmberg, Inc, 162 NLRB 407
Jewell Smokeless Coal Corporation and Kyle
Reed, an Individual . Case 5-CA-3504.
March 28,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On November 18, 1966, Trial Examiner A. Bruce
Hunt issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions
and brief, and the entire record in this case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
163 NLRB No. 82