Baugh & Sons Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 937 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

BA-UGH & SONS COMPANY 937
to be done as indicated by the production department heads, they
work with their own leadmen , and are basically supervised by one of
the maintenance foremen who is generally known as the electrical
foreman . Most of the Employer 's equipment is electrically driven or
operated and a large part of the electricians ' duties consists of pre-
ventive maintenance work on such equipment . In addition the elec-
tricians repair, overhaul , set up, or relocate electrically operated equip-
ment. In such work , the customary craft tools and testing device&
peculiar to the electrical trade are used.
. - Although the, Employer has no apprenticeship program, it has, in
essence , an on-the-job training program by means of which an em-
ployee can become a full -fledged maintenance electrician . Moreover,
the record indicates that maintenance electricians , when employed, are
required to have substantial training and experience in their trade.
We are satisfied that the maintenance electricians are a homogeneous
group performing distinctive and typical craft tasks. In these cir-
cumstances we find no merit to the Employer 's and Intervenor's con-
tention that the electricians sought do not meet the requirements of the
American Potash case with respect to the exercise of true craft skills.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All electricians , including working leadmen ,8 helpers, and learners
employed at the Employer 's Torrance , California, operations, but
excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
8 The parties stipulated that the working leadmen are not supervisors.
Baugh & Sons Company and Local 473, International Brother-
hood of Firemen, Oilers, Powerhouse Operators, Ice Plant
Employees and Maintenance Mechanics , AFL, Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 4-RC-2696, 4-RC-2697, 4-RC-2698, 4-RC-2699, 4-RC-
2700, and 4-RC-0701. November 7, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held on June
2, 8, and 29, and July 8, 1955, before Charles Sandberg, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
114 NLRB No. 142.
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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. The Employer and the Intervenor, Local 13090, District 50,
United Mine Workers of America, contend that the automatically re-
newable contract between the Employer and International Chemical
Workers Emergency Reorganization Committee, Local 128, effective
until November 23, 1955, together with the May 3, 1955, memorandum
agreement between the parties to the contract and the Intervenor, as-
signing all representation interests in the contract to the Intervenor,
is a bar to the petitions filed on May 9, 1955. Because the contract is
about to expire and we find that for this reason it does not bar the in-
stant proceeding,' we shall not pass upon other issues raised in connec-
tion therewith.
However, no question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner, which presently represents a separate unit of power-
house or boilerroom and engineroom employees, seeks to sever from
the established production and maintenance unit 2 separate craft
groups of (1) electricians; (2) carpenters; (3) pipefitters; (4) mill-
wrights ; (5) automobile garage mechanics ; and (6) locomotive engi-
neers, locomotive brakemen, and/or conductors. The Employer and
the Intervenor oppose the severance for the reason, among others,'
that the Petitioner is not the traditional representative of each of the
separate alleged crafts 4
In determining whether in severance cases there is support for a
union's claim that it traditionally represents the employees sought,
the Board will take into consideration (1) whether the union has sus-
tained "the burden of establishing the facts to justify severance ..." 5
and/or (2) what has been its own administrative experience on the
subject.'
The Petitioner, through testimony of a representative, claims that
it has been the traditional representative of each of the six alleged
'See General Motors Corporation, 111 NLRB 1238. Cf Home Curtain Corp., 111
NLRB 1253 Also see Hamilton Watch Company, 113 NLRB 379.
2 Since 1937 , the Employer has bargained for production and maintenance employees.
In 1949 , by Board election, all boilerroom and engineroom employees were severed from
this unit and the Petitioner herein was certified as their representative.
3 In view of our disposition of the petitions , infra , it is unnecessary for us to consider
these other matters which relate to the craft status of the various groups requested.
4 The Employer and Intervenor rely upon the Board's decision in Amei jean Potash
Chemical Coiporatson, 107 NLRB 1418.
s See Richmond Engineering Company, Inc, 108 NLRB 1659, 1660
3 See American Cyanamid Company, 110 NLRB 89 , 94; Cincinnati Division , Davison
Chemical Company, Division of IV R. Grace if Company, 110 NLRB 85, 87
BAUGH & SONS COMPANY 939
crafts. In support of this allegation with respect to the first five
named groups, it submitted testimony relating to a number of specific
contracts with individual employers or employer associations showing
that it, or a sister local, represented units of employees which in-
cluded among other classifications those of electricians, carpenters,
pipefitters, millwrights, and automobile garage mechanics. It did
not present any evidence or testimony that they had ever represented
any one of these classifications as a separate unit on a craft basis.
Indeed, the witness testifying on the subject admitted that he knew
of no such contract.
In support of its request for a separate unit of locomotive engineers,
locomotive brakemen, and/or conductors, the Petitioner produced
testimony that its International-International Brotherhood of Fire-
men, Oilers, Helpers, Roundhouse and Railroad Shop Laborers,
AFL-and sister locals through that International have represented
railroad employees throughout the United States and Canada; that it
received its charter through this International in 1937; and, that it,
therefore, meets the test of the American Potash case ° as the tradi-
tional representative of these employees. To substantiate this asser-
tion the Petitioner submitted its constitution and bylaws 8 and those
of the above-named International .9
With respect to the evidence presented by the Petitioner as 'proof
of its claim as the traditional representative of each of the first five
named classifications, we do not regard representation through inclu-
sion in a maintenance-type unit as establishing a tradition of repre-
sentation on a separate craft basis. Nor do the constitutions and
bylaws submitted by the Petitioner support its claim as a traditional
representative of locomotive engineers, brakemen, and/or conductors.
Indeed, in our opinion an examination of those documents warrants
a conclusion contrary to the Petitioner's contention.1° The Petitioner
has submitted no other documentary evidence to substantiate its claim
and we cannot accept the mere affirmative allegation in the form of
testimony as sustaining the burden of establishing its assertion that
it is a traditional representative of each of these six groups of
employees."
° See footnote 4, supra.
s Section 2 of this document provides : "This Union shall be composed of Firemen,
Powerplant Operators, Ice Plant Employees , Maintenance Men, Maintenance Laborers and
their allied workers. . . .
9 The International lists among its affiliations the AFL, Railway Employees ' Depart-
ment , Metal Trades ' Department , Union Labor Trades ' Department , Maritime Trades'
Department , and the Trades and Labor Congress of Canada . Section 1 of its constitution
and bylaws states "This organization shall be known as the International Brotherhood of
Firemen and Oilers and shall be composed of Local Unions consisting of competent boiler
operators , oilers, utility men and maintenance laborers, when employed in or around the
boiler and engine room ; ash handlers , coal passers , roundhouse and railroad shop
laborers . . .
10 See footnotes 8 and 9, supra.
11 The fact that the International from which the Petitioner received its charter is an
outgrowth of an organization established in 1898 principally as a railroad employees'
940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With regard to our administrative experience we find from a review,
of many representation cases coming before us that the Petitioner
has not traditionally and historically represented on a separate craft
or departmental basis electricians, carpenters, pipefitters, millwrights,
automobile garage mechanics,12 or locomotive engineers, brakemen,
and/or conductors.i3
Under the circumstances, we deny the request to sever these separate
groups from the existing production and maintenance unit. Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petitions for separate units of electricians,
carpenters, pipefitters, millwrights, automobile garage mechanics, and
locomotive engineers, brakemen, and/or conductors.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
union does not establish that the Petitioner is a union which traditionally represents the
type of railroad employee sought herein Nor does the fact that an affiliate of the Inter-
national-namely the Railway Employees ' Department-may be principally concerned
with representing certain types of railway employees establish that the Petitioner tradi-
tionally represents locomotive engineers , conductors , and brakemen
'' See American Cyanamid Co., and Cincinnati Division, Davison Chemical Company,
Division of W R G? ace & Company, footnote 6, supra Also see Southbridge Finishing
Company, 108 NLRB 54 Cf Crowell Caiton Company , 111 NLRB 528. In addition, we
mote that the Board Hoes not customarily giant craft or depaatmental severance to .auto-
mobile garage mechanics
"See Goodyear Engineering Corporation , 100 NLRB 971 , 973, wherein, although the
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers asserted their representation of heating
plant and powerhouse employees , they did not seek to represent the engineers and brake-
men who were placed in the production and maintenance unit rather than in the machin-
ists and diesel mechanic unit requested by another union ; and St. Johns River Ship-
building, 59 NLRB 415 , 418, wherein the Board noted that "railroadmen differ materially
in skill, function , and interests , from the bulk of operating engineers . . . Also see
Ravenna Arsenal , Inc, 100 NLRB 1129 ; Wcstei n Equipment Company, 96 NLRB 1376;
Gifford -Hill & Company, Inc., et at., 90 NLRB 428 , Southland Paper Mills , Inc, 81 NLRB
330; General Motors Corporation, 64 NLRB 688 , Day & Zimmermann, Inc, 39 NLRB
1313; Utah Copper Company, et al, 23 NLRB 1160, as examples of the types of units of
railway employees and the unions which have sought to represent the various groups.
R. H. Osbrink , M. E. Osbrink and Berton W. Beals as Trustees,
Co-partners , doing business under the firm name and style of
R. H. Osbrink Manufacturing Company and International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple.
ment Workers of America , C. I. O. (UAW-CIO), Petitioner.
Case No. 21-RC-2262. November 8, 1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
On August 19, 1955, pursuant to an Order and Direction of Second
Election issued in the above-entitled proceeding on August 3, 1955,1
'Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
114 NLRB No. 147.