Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 917 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

THE ELECTRONICS AND INSTRUMENTATION DIVISION 917
time .2 Accordingly, we find that the current contract of the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor is a bar to the Operating Engineers' petition
and we shall therefore dismiss the petition. For the reason stated
below, we shall also dismiss the Teamsters' petition .3
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
a Mervin Wave Clip company, 114 NLRB 157; Natona Mills, Inc., supra. Cf. Gibson
Refrigerator Company, Division of Hupp Corporation, 117 NLRB 561, wherein the Board
held that a contract signed after the filing of a petition did not constitute a-bar, as the
terms of the agreement provided that it was not to take effect until 3 months after the
parties agreed to the terms of the contract.
3 We find no merit in the contention that the Employer did not have a representative
group of employees in the mine operation on January 2, 1957, at the time the Employer
and Intervenor agreed to the terms of the contract, as the record shows that as of December
13, 1956, there were 26 employees in 16 job classifications and that by April 4, 1957, the
time of hearing when a full complement was reached, there were 49 employees in 23 job
classifications. See Cyclone Sales, Inc., 115 NLRB 431, footnote 1; Decker Clothes, Inc.,
83 NLRB 484.
The Electronics and Instrumentation Division of Baldwin-Lima-
Hamilton Corporation and International Association of Ma-
chinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-4857. July 31,
1957
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 Thomas E. McDonald,
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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
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
employees 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 Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of machine shop em-
ployees at the Employer's Waltham, Massachusetts, plant. It is also
willing to represent other employees in the plant whose skills duplicate
those of machine shop employees. The Intervenor, International
Union of United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, seeks to represent the machine shop
employees, as an appropriate departmental unit. The Employer
118 NLRB No. 115.
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contends that only a production and maintenance unit is appropriate.
There is no valid history of collective bargaining at the plant.'
The Waltham plant began operations in September 1956, as a con-
solidation of the instrumentation and electronics work previously
carried out by the Employer at four different locations. The plant
is engaged in the manufacture of small wire strain gages and varied
types of complex instruments and apparatus used in measuring, testing,
and recording. Approximately 450 production and maintenance
workers are employed in 10 departments, each of which is separately
supervised.
The machine shop is described in the Employer's organization chart
as department 05, and its foreman reports directly to the assistant
director of manufacturing for the plant. It employs about 140 em-
ployees in the following job classifications-instrumentmaker, tool-
maker, machinist specialist-cutter grinder, machinist specialist-hori-
zontal boring mill, machinist specialist-surface grinder, machinist
specialist, sheet metal machinist, machinists A, B, and C, assembler-
erector, and operators A and B. The first three of these classifications
are the only jobs in the plant assigned to labor grade 2, the highest
of the 10 grades presently used. Except for three employees classified
as instrument maker (but at a lower labor grade) in another depart-
ment, there is no duplication of machine shop jobs elsewhere in the
plant. However, a few employees in other departments are occasion-
ally required to use some hand tools and the simpler machine tools.
The machine shop consists of two contiguous areas located at one end
of the single plant building, and is separated from other production
areas by an aisle.
The machine shop employees fabricate the metal parts used in the
equipment and apparatus manufactured at the plant, using customary
precision hand tools and such machine tools as lathes, drill presses,
milling machines, grinders, shapers, boring machines, and honing
machines. Certain heavy testing machines, requiring the fitting of
irregular parts and individual adjustments, are also assembled in the
machine shop. Because of the large number of different types of ap-
paratus manufactured at the plant, it appears that much of the work
of the more highly skilled employees is nonrepetitive in nature.
There is no formal apprenticeship or job progression program at
the plant, but the on-the-job training acquired in many of the lower
graded machinist jobs qualifies the occupants for bidding on the more
highly skilled jobs as they open up. Of the 13 job classifications in
the machine shop, 4 require at least 5 years' experience in the machinist
' The Employer has negotiated with employee representatives chosen by each of the de-
partments , on wages and working conditions , but such negotiations have never been formal-
ized by a written , signed bargaining agreement . The bargaining committee has not sought
to intervene in these proceedings.
THE ELECTRONICS AND INSTRUMENTATION DIVISION 919
or related trades, and 3 require at least 3 years of related experience.
The. jobs of Operators A and B and assembler-erector require only
ability to operate a single machine tool and to make occasional setups
on the machine.
The Petitioner, in effect, contends the unit it has requested is a
machinist craft unit. It is clear from the record, however, that Op-
erators A and B and the assembler-erectors, comprising about 35 of
the 140 employees in the machine shop, do not exercise the craft skills
of machinists and are not in the ordinary line of progression to the
Machinist A, B, and C classifications which require the ability to
perform standard operations on a large number of machine tools.
In view of the fact that a substantial proportion of machine shop
employees do not exercise craft skills and are not in the direct line of
progression to craftsmen's jobs, we find that the proposed unit is not
strictly a craft unit .2 However, the Petitioner's unit request also
encompasses a departmental unit. Although a majority of the ma-
chine shop employees are directly engaged in production work there
are a number of skilled individuals in classifications such as instru-
mentmaker, toolmaker, and machinist specialist-cutter grinder who
perform the more specialized functions of making and repairing tools,
dies, jigs and fixtures, and working on experimental models. The
major function of the machine shop, the fabrication of parts by the
use of metal working machinery, is not duplicated elsewhere in the
plant. Under the plantwide job-posting system in effect at the plant,
there have been some permanent transfers of employees between the
machine shop and other departments, and there are occasional tem-
porary assignments of lathe operators from the machine shop depart-
ment to the assembly calibration department. However, when such
temporary assignments are made, the employees remain subject to
the supervision of their own foreman.
The machine shop department is a separate, functionally distinct
department. Most of its employees are skilled machinists. It is the
kind of department which, the Board has held, may constitute a
separate appropriate unit.' We so find in this case.
We find without merit the Employer's contention that the unit
requested by the Petitioner is based on extent of organization, and
must therefore be found inappropriate under Section 9 (c) (5) of the
Act. Our finding that a departmental unit of machine shop em-
ployees is appropriate is supported by factors wholly unrelated to the
Petitioner's or Intervenor's extent of organization, whereas Section
9 (c) (5) only precludes the Board from giving controlling weight
to extent of organization 4
2 St. Louis Car Company, 108 NLRB 1388.
3 General Refractories Company, 117 NLRB 81 ; Cessna Aircraft Company, 114 NLRB
1191 ; American Bemberg, 111 NLRB 963 , 967; and Kinnear Manufacturing Company,
109 NLRB 948.
1 Kwikset Locks, 116 NLRB 1648,
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer's
plant at Waltham, Massachusetts, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act:
All employees of the Employer's machine shop department (depart-
ment 05), excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Local 1422 , International Longshoremen 's Association , Independ-
ent and Charleston Stevedoring Company, James Doran Com-
pany, Inc., R. F. Kamradt Stevedoring Company, Inc.,
Palmetto Stevedoring Company, Inc.
International Longshoremen 's Association (Independent) and
Charleston Stevedoring Company, James Doran Company, Inc.,
R. F. Kamradt Stevedoring Company , Inc., Palmetto Steve-
doring Company, Inc. Cases Nos. 11-CC-11 and 11-CC-1?.
August 1, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges and amended charges filed by the Charleston Steve-
doring Company, James Doran Company, Inc., R. F. Kamradt Steve-
doring Company, Inc., and Palmetto Stevedoring Company, Inc.,
sometimes collectively referred to as the Charging Parties, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
General Counsel, by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region,
issued a consolidated complaint on January 3, 1957, alleging that the
Respondents, Local 1422, International Longshoremen's Association,
Independent, and International Longshoremen's Association, Inde-
pendent, had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b)
(4) (A) and (B) of the Act. Copies of the consolidated complaint
and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondents.
Thereafter, on March 25, 1957, the parties entered into a stipulation
setting forth an agreed statement of facts. The stipulation provided
that the parties thereby waive their rights to a hearing, to the filing
of an answer, to a Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report and the
filing of exceptions thereto, to the making of proposed findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and the issuance of a proposed order by the
Board. The stipulation further provided that the stipulation, to-
gether with the charges, amended charges, order consolidating cases
and notice of hearing, complaint, and affidavits of service of said
charges, amended charges, order consolidating cases and notice of
118 NLRB No. 109.