Automatic Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1125 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

13
AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC COMPANY • 1125
AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC COMPANY and CHICAGO JOURNEY MEN PLUMBER'S
UNION, 130 UA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-1799. June 6,
1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Irving M. Friedman, hearing
oflicer_ 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all plumbers, pipe fitters, and their
apprentices, at the Employer's Chicago, Illinois,. plant, excluding all
other employees and supervisors. In terms of the Employer's classi-
fications, this unit would be comprised of the three maintenance pipe
fitters in the building engineer department. The Employer and the
Intervenor contend that, for various reasons, including the past bar-
gaining history on a more comprehensive basis and the lack of separate
craft characteristics, the unit sought is inappropriate.
For over 4 years, the Employer has executed collective bargaining
agreements with the intervenor covering, in general, all production
and maintenance employees at the Chicago plant, excluding operating
'eiigilieers, carpenters, electricians, and jaiitoi's.3 Although the main-
tenance pipe fitters involved herein were not specifically ilientioned
in those contracts, the record indicates that these employees were con-
sidered as included within a listed category of "maintenance" men
I At the hearing. the Inteiien or, District No S, Intel national Association of 11achinists,
moved to dismiss the petition on the ground, inter aloe, that the unit sought is inappropri-
ate Also at the hearing, the Petitioner moved for an uninediate direction of election
Both motions were reter,ed to the Board For the reasons stated in paragraph numbered 3,
ui a, the Intervenor's motion to dismiss is granted, and the Petitioner's motion is denied
2 The Employer and the Inter venor also contend that their existing contract constitutes
a bar However, in view of our deteruunation heiem, we find it unnecess•uy to pass upon
this contention
3 The operating engineers, carpenters, electricians, and Janitors have been separately
represented
94 NLRB No 170
1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or "millwrights (maintenance)"; that they received benefits under
such contracts; and that, in the past, two of the three maintenance
pipe fitters served as shop stewards for the Intervenor, representing
themselves, as well as the maintenance millwrights, oilers, and beltmen.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of communications
equipment at its Chicago plant. The plant consists of 9 buildings
and is divided, administratively, into departments, t of which is the
building engineer department. The latter department performs gen-
eral building and machinery maintenance functions under the super-
vision of the building engineer. It is composed of approximately 75
employees, referred to as maintenance machinists, maintenance elec-
tricians, operating engineers, maintenance pipe fitters, beltmen, and
oilers. Each of these groups has its own lead man, except for the
maintenance pipe fitters who serve under the same lead man as the
operating engineers.'
The maintenance pipe fitters have their headquarters in the boiler
room in one of the buildings of the plant and perform duties relating
to the maintenance of sanitary fixtures, pipes, and valves throughout
the plant. One of these employees is assigned principally to the main-
tenance of sanitary fixtures, such as drinking fountains, toilet bowls,
flush boxes, and the like. The other two are principally concerned
with the maintenance of steam, gas, air, and water lines. All three
occasionally work together on a particular job and, in some instances,
are assisted by other employees .5
The employees in question were all transferred to their present
duties from laborer or other unskilled work at the plant. They were
not required to undergo any formal apprenticeship or training pro-
gram," and they are not licensed. For any major plumbing and pipe
fitting installation work, the Employer hires outside licensed per-
sonnel. The maintenance pipe fitters are subject to substantially the
si me conditions of employment as other production and maintenance
employees. And the record shows that the Employer's operating
engineers regularly perform some pipe fitting maintenance work simi-
lar to that of the maintenance pipe fitters?
4 The chief operating engineer serves as lead man for the operating engineers and
maintenance pipe fitters, and transmits orders from the building engineer to the men
under his direction.
" All three pipe fitters do "roughing in" as part of their maintenance duties, which includes
work such as breaking concrete to draw pipe through a wall or floor , or other general
labor. The pipe fitters often perform such general labor themselves , or sometimes it may
be done by others at the pipe fitters ' request.
6 The pipe fitter charged with the maintenance of the sanitary fixtures testified that he
worked with a "layout" man foi 2 Sears , before going "on his own " as a pipe fitter.
Another pipe fitter testified that he was immediately classified as a pipe fitter despite his
lack of previous training , that he merely learned his work "from day to day" : and that
such work "didn ' t require a great deal of skill."
7 According to uncontradicted testimony in the record, "a good deal" of pipe maintenance
in buildings three and six is handled by the operating engineers
EVANS MILLING COMPANY 1127
The Petitioner asserts that, as the maintenance pipe fitters have
served over 5 years at their respective assignments, they may be deemed
journeymen. However, as already mentioned, these employees have
undergone no formal training or apprenticeship program and it ap-
pears that they neither possess, nor exercise, the wide gamut of skills
of journeymen craftsmen. Under all the circumstances, we are of
the opinion that the three maintenance pipe fitters do not comprise a
true craft group. Moreover, the requested unit fails to include other
employees working under the same immediate direction and regularly
performing some like duties. As we perceive no compelling reason
for severing the maintenance pipe fitters on a craft or other basis, we
shall dismiss the petition herein.8
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant petition be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
8 See Monsanto Chemical Company , 78 NLRB 1249 : Sylvania Division , American Viscose
Corporation, 84 NLRB 202 . Cf. Sawyer Biscuit Company , Division of United Biscuit
Company of America, 92 NLRB 1447 ; The Nestle Company, Inc., 92 NLRB 1250.
EVANS MILLING COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GRAIN
MILLERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 35-RC-428. June 6, 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 Alan Sinsheimer, Jr., hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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.2
3. The Intervenor, following a Board-directed election, was certi-
fied on September 6, 1.949, as the collective bargaining representative
1 The Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of contract bar was
referred by the hearing officer to the Board . This motion is hereby denied for the reasons
stated in paragraph numbered 3, infra. The hearing in this matter closed on November
9, 1950. Thereafter the Employer moved that certain evidence arising after that date,
which purports to show that the Intervenor is an active labor organization , be incorpo-
rated into the record . The Petitioner also moved , after the close of the hearing , that the
Board consider evidence of the granting of a new wage scale by the Employer in December
1950 ,- which allegedly opens up the contract so as to warrant an election . In view of
our holding herein , we deem it unnecessary to rule upon these motions.
2 The hearing officer properly granted intervention to the Employees Association, Inc.
of Evans Milling Company, herein called the Intervenor , on the basis of a contractual
interest.
94 NLRB No. 164.