American Tobacco Co, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 3, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1211 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1211
AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INCORPORATED and
LODGE 681, DISTRICT LODGE 27, INTERNATIONAL ASSO-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner
AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INCORPORATED and
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN PLUMBERS &
PIPEFITTERS, LOCAL 522, AFL, UNITED ASSOCIATION
OF JOURNEYMEN PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS AND
APPRENTICES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA,
AFL, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 9-RC-2084 and 9-RC-2088.
June 3, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Harold M. Kennedy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. i
Upon the entire record in these cases the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer. 1
3. The Intervenor contends that its contract with the Em-
ployer of October 21, 1953, extending an existing contract
constitutes a bar to the Pipefitters' petition, which was filed
on October 28, 1953. It does not assert a contract bar as to the
IAM's petition. However, as the Employer and Intervenor also
executed a special agreement on October 21, 1953, specifically
excluding from the new contract the employees sought by the
Petitioners pending a resolution by the Board of the instant
petitions, there is clearly no contract bar to a current de-
termination of representatives. 3
Although the Pipefitters did not request recognition prior to
filing their petition, the Employer refused at the hearing to
recognize the Pipefitters. In view of that refusal, the failure to
request recognition before filing the petition provides no basis
for dismissing the Pipefitters' petition.4
Accordingly, we find that questions affecting commerce exist
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.
1The hearing officer referred to the Board the motions of the Employer and Intervenor to
dismiss the Pipefitters' petition on the ground that there was no request for recognition and
to dismiss both petitions on the ground that the proposed units are inappropriate, as well as the
Intervenor's further motion to dismiss on contract-bar grounds. For the reasons hereinafter
stated, the motions are denied.
z International Tobacco Workers Union, Local247, AFL. herein called Intervenor, intervened
on the basis of its current contract.
3 Gabriel Steel Company, 88 NLRB 201.
4Advance Pattern Company, 80 NLRB 29.
108 NLRB No. 167.
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The IAM seeks to represent a unit comprised of all
machinists , machine adjusters , welders, and their apprentices
and helpers . The Pipefitters seeks to represent a unit com-
prised of all pipefitters and their helpers, refrigeration
mechanics , and refrigeration operators and their helpers. The
Employer and Intervenor contend that the unitsproposedby the
IAM and the Pipefitters are inappropriate because of the history
of collective bargaining on a broader basis and the integration
of the Employer ' s operation . The Employer contends also that
the welder and machine adjusters should be excluded from the
proposed IAM unit and that the refrigeration operators and
refrigeration mechanics should be excluded from the proposed
Pipefitters ' unit . The Intervenor opposes the proposed units
on the additional grounds that the employees involved do not
comprise homogeneous groups and that they interchange with
other employees.
The Proposed IAM Unit
There are 9 machinists , 2 machinists helpers, and 1 welder 6
employed in the Employer ' s machine shop and about 57 machine
adjusters in the proposed IAM unit. The employees in the
machine shop , separately located and separately supervised,
are engaged in maintaining and repairing machinery and fabri-
cating machinery parts , and constitute a traditional department
group who we have held may bargain as a separate unit if they
so desire . Moreover the Petitioner herein is aunion which has
traditionally devoted itself to serving the special interest of
these employees.
The machine adjusters are not part of the machine shop and
therefore may not be included in the machine shop unit. As to
the craft status of the machine adjusters , the record shows the
following : Machine adjusters are supervised by production
supervisors and work on the production floor repairing and
adjusting the production machinery . Although the adjuster's pay
scale is the same as that of machinists in the machine shop,
most of the adjusters come from the ranks of the machine
operators and achieve proficiency as an adjuster in about 1
year . Although some of the adjusters are able to work on several
types of machines , most of them are skilled in the repair of one
type only . Under these circumstances, we find that the machine
adjusters are not craftsmen and that they may not be severed
from the existing unit as craftsmen . It therefore appears that
there is no basis for granting the proposed severance of
machine adjusters.
Accordingly , we find that all machine shop employees, ex-
cluding machine adjusters , guards, all other employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act may constitute a separate
5 The separate room in which the welder works is a part of the machine shop.
AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INCORPORATED ' 1213
appropriate unit , if they so desire , despite a history of bar-
gaining on a broader basis.6
The Proposed Pipefitters' Unit
The Pipefitters seeks to represent aunit composed of 4 pipe-
fitters , 1 pipefitters ' helper , 4 refrigeration operators, and 1
refrigeration mechanic . The pipefitters are supervised by a
foreman under the assistant engineer who also supervises the
refrigeration operators , refrigeration mechanics , and other
maintenance employees . The pipefitters have their own work
shop in a building adjoining the powerplant . Although the Em-
ployer has no formal apprenticeship program , it usually trains
its own pipefitters . About 22 to 3 years are required for a pipe-
fitter to become proficient at his work , which includes instal-
ling , replacing , and repairing steam , water , hydraulic, and
air pipes . In view of these facts , it appears that the pipefitters
are craftsmen . As to the pipefitters ' helper the record dis-
closes that he works only with pipe fitters.
The refrigeration operators whom the Pipefitters seeks to
include in the unit are trained in 2 or 3 months . Their duties
consist of checking and adjusting air-conditioning equipment
to maintain proper temperature and humidity in the plant.
Except for minor repairs , maintenance work of the equipment
is done by someone other than the operators. Although under
the same assistant 'engineer as the pipefitters , the operators
are not supervised by the pipefitters ' foreman . They are lo-
cated apart from and do not work with the pipefitters.
The refrigeration mechanic works principally in the power-
plant maintaining various refrigeration devices including
pumps, motors , and switches . Although formerly a pipefitter,
the refrigeration mechanic is no longer working as a pipefitter.
Under these circumstances we find that all pipefitters in-
cluding the pipefitters ' helper , but excluding the refrigeration
operators and the refrigeration mechanic, comprise a craft
group which the Board has traditionally found may constitute
a separate appropriate unit, and that they are sought by the
Union which traditionally represents them. Accordingly, we
conclude that the pipefitters and pipefitters ' helper may con-
stitute a separate unit, despite a history of bargaining on a
broader basis.?
In view of these findings we shall direct elections in the
following voting groups:
(1) All machine shop employees excluding adjusters , all other
employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) All pipefitters and the pipefitters ' helper excluding re-
frigeration operators, the refrigeration mechanic, all other
employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
6American Potash and Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418.
?American Potash and Chemical Corporation , supra
I Z14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. If a majority of the employees in a voting group select
the Union seeking to represent them separately, these em-
ployees will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute
a separate bargaining unit and the Regional Director is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor
organization selected by the employees for that unit, which the
Board in such circumstances finds to be appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining. In the event a majority in either
or both groups vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the
existing unit including such group or groups to be appropriate
and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results
of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
BUSCH KREDIT JEWELRY CO., INC. and WILLIAM KUL-
MATYZKI
BUSCH KREDIT JEWELRY CO., INC. and EDWARD Mc-
DONALD
DEPARTMENT AND SPECIALTY STORE EMPLOYEES UNION,
LOCAL 1499, RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION, AFL and EDWARD McDONALD. Cases Nos. 2-CA-
2632, 2-CA-2652, and 2-CB-831. June 4, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 3, 1953, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the
Respondents had not violated the Act in connection with the
discharge of Edward McDonald and recommended the dis-
missal of that allegation of the complaint. Thereafter, both
Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
supporting briefs. The Company also requested oral argu-
ment. This request is denied, as the record, the exceptions,
and the briefs, in our opinion adequately present the issues and
the positions of the parties.
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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
108 NLRB No. 170.