224 N.L.R.B. 1502 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

Beaunit Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 21, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 1502 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Beaunit Corporation and Beaunit Instrument-Electri- cal Council, Petitioner Case 10-RC-10499 June 21, 1976 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER By MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On December 12, 1975, the Regional Director for Region 10 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec- tions in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found that the Employer's electrical mechanics and instrument mechanics constituted separate appropri- ate units which may be severed from the established production and maintenance unit at its Etowah, Ten- nessee, plant involved herein Accordingly, he direct- ed elections among the employees in the two voting groups Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102 67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Interve- nor, International Chemical Workers Union and its Local 831, filed a timely request for review, and a supplement thereto, of the Regional Director's deci- sion on the ground, inter alia, that in concluding that the electrical mechanics and instrument mechanics groups were appropriate for severance, the Regional Director departed from officially reported Board precedent On January 14, 1976, the National Labor Rela- tions Board, by telegraphic order, granted the Intervenor's request for review and stayed the elec- tions Thereafter the Petitioner and Intervenor filed briefs on review The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the parties' briefs on review, with re- spect to the issues under review, and makes the fol- lowing findings At its Etowah, Tennessee, plant, involved here, the Employer is engaged in the continuous production of nylon fiber It operates on a 7-day-per-week, 24- hour-per-day basis, utilizing four shifts of employees At the plant there are approximately 470 hourly paid production and maintenance employees, of which 80 to 85 employees are in the maintenance department The Intervenor has been the certified bargaining agent for the production and maintenance unit since 1968 and has been party to three successive collec- tive-bargaining agreements with the Employer cover- ing that unit, the last agreement having expired on December 26, 1975 Petitioner, a newly formed independent labor or- ganization whose membership is limited to employ- ees in the Employer's electrical and instrument "de- department, filed the instant petition initially seeking to sever a combined unit of "all instrument and elec- trical journeymen, apprentices, and helpers" in the Employer's instrument and electrical departments at the Etowah plant Alternatively, it agreed to proceed to an election among separate units of the employees of those departments if its primary unit request was found inappropriate As indicated, the Regional Di- rector found Petitioner's alternative unit requests ap- propriate for severance and directed elections in two separate voting groups The Employer takes no position on the unit, leav- ing the determination to the Board, whereas Interve- nor opposes severance of the groups involved con- tending that only the certified unit is appropriate Contrary to the finding of the Regional Director, we conclude, based on the record herein, that it would not be appropriate to permit severance of the electri- cal mechanics and the instrument mechanics from the existing production and maintenance unit In our view, a careful weighing of the relevant factors in this case and consideration of the various interests affect- ed, as spelled out in the Board's Mallinckrodt deci- sion,' requires reversal of the Regional Director's di- rection of the severance election here The employees sought by Petitioner are assigned to the Employer's maintenance department, 1 of its 14 departments listed in the recent collective-bar- gaining agreement That department is under the charge of the maintenance superintendent (plant en- gineer) and includes, in addition to the approximate 16 electrical mechanics and 9 instrument mechanics sought by Petitioner, 55 to 60 other "mechanics" in- cluding welders, machinists, painters, carpenters, in- sulators, sheetmetal workers, and automobile equip- ment mechanic Under the plant engineer and reporting to him are a maintenance planner, two area maintenance managers, and the electrical engineer Each of the area maintenance managers has a main- tenance supervisor who supervises "mechanics" other than electricians and instrument men The 16 electrical mechanics and 9 instrument mechanics are presently under the supervision of the electrical su- pervisor, Sweatt, inasmuch as the instrument supervi- sor position has been vacant Most of the mainte- nance department employees are on the day shift, normally working a 5-day, Monday-to-Friday week However, there are also maintenance employees, in- cluding electrical mechanics and instrument mechan- ics, who are assigned to shifts other than the day shift These employees are subject to the direction of their respective shift superintendents inasmuch as the maintenance supervisors work the day shift partments," which are part of the maintenance 1 Mallinckrodt Chemical Works Uranium Division 162 NLRB 387 (1966) 224 NLRB No 198 BEAUNIT CORPORATION 1503 The electrical mechanics and the instrument me- chanics have separate shops in the plant where they report at the beginning of their shift to receive their assignments Although some of their work is per- formed in their respective shops, it appears that most of their work is done throughout the plant wherever their skills are required either for preventive mainte- nance, construction, or necessary repairs to keep the production equipment operating The electrical me- chanics cover the whole range of electrical work re- quired in the plant, and they use the handtools com- mon to their trade, including special test equipment for testing diodes, printed circuit boards, and other components All of the present electrical mechanics are class "A," which is journeyman level, although the collective-bargaining agreement provides for classifications "A, B and C," the latter being the en- try level These same separate classifications are uti- lized for the various types of mechanics throughout the maintenance department and the wage rates are the same for those similarly classified regardless of the particular skill involved The record testimony reveals that there is a "fine line" between the work of the electrical mechanics and the instrument mechan- ics Both groups utilize the same basic tools, i e , me- ters, equipment for checking out gauges and instru- ments, etc The instrument mechanics also use oscilloscopes in their work and testers to test precir- cuit boards In addition, they are involved in pneu- matic controls, however, like the electrical mechan- ics, they are also supposed to handle electrical equipment Employees in both of these groups work together "quite often," each performing their particu- lar function when necessary in order to get the pro- duction equipment operating properly For example, when temperature control problems occur in the spinning operation, the electricians would handle the heaters and the instrument men would work with the controls Such tasks, as do others, require collabora- tion between the electrical and instrument mechanics groups albeit there is no evidence of transfer or inter- change between them The record does not reveal that these skilled employees perform production work or that they are assisted in their duties by pro- duction employees However, it is clear from the rec- ord testimony that "a good percentage" of the work performed by these employees is done to keep the Employer's rather complex production process oper- ating To this end, the assigned shift maintenance employees may be called by the respective shift su- perintendents in most cases, or by operators them- selves, to correct malfunctions in the production equipment The shift superintendents have overall responsibil- ity for the plant during their respective shifts and, except for the day shift, are in charge of the shift maintenance employees assigned to their shifts 2 The superintendents determine the priorities regarding maintenance work to be done during their shift and have authority regarding overtime worked by shift maintenance employees There is also evidence they can discipline such employees, as the record discloses that the night-shift superintendent has sent home an electrician or other mechanic for infraction of the plant rules The Employer does not have an apprentice pro- gram for its maintenance department mechanics, nor does it require that additional courses or training, other than on-the-job training, be obtained in order for an employee to progress to the journeyman level It does require applicants for "mechanics" jobs to take a test to determine their general aptitude for the work involved The test for the electrical classifica- tions would include questions regarding electrical theory, and the further acquisition of such knowl- edge would be necessary to progress to the journey- man level Although the Employer may acquire em- ployees for the maintenance classifications from the outside, the latest collective-bargaining agreement provided that "qualified employees from other areas will be given preference before new employees are hired to fill vacancies in the Maintenance Depart- ment " Thus, jobs available in the maintenance department are posted simultaneously in the depart- ment and throughout the plant, first preference being given to employees within the department The con- tract also provided for departmental seniority and plantwide seniority and there is evidence that in the past, in accordance with the contractual provisions, maintenance department mechanics have "rolled back" into the lowest paygrade plant job, based upon their plantwide seniority, rather than be laid off Em- ployees may also use their departmental seniority to bump the least senior employee in the department in which they worked prior to their progression to their present classification Under the contract, employ- ees, regardless of job classification, received common fringe benefits including insurance, retirement bene- fits, funeral pay, and shift differential, among others The foregoing reveals that the groups sought to be severed are part of the larger maintenance depart- ment and are integrated into the Employer's opera- tions and the overall unit through their work tasks, shift assignments, and in their sharing of the senior- ity and other working conditions and benefits which have resulted from the bargaining history 2 During the day shift the maintenance employees report to their re spective maintenance supervisor The plant manager rather than the day shift superintendent would have the ultimate word regarding priorities in maintenance work during that shift 1504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Regarding the adequacy of their past representa- tion, as indicated, the electrical mechanics and in- strument mechanics have been represented by the In- tervenor in a single production and maintenance unit since the Board certified that unit in 1968 Except for the filing of the instant petition, there is no record evidence that the two groups now sought to be sepa- rately represented have previously taken any formal action with the Board to obtain separate representa- tion, although there is record testimony indicating that these employees have taken steps through the Intervenor which indicate some areas of dissatisfac- tion among them The record shows that an effort was made by them to obtain a separate seniority grouping for the electri- cal and instrument mechanics, apart from other maintenance classifications, which was voted upon and rejected at a union meeting by the members of the Intervenor There was also testimony that the wage rates for the Employer's electrical and instru- ment mechanics are lower than those paid by other employers in the area and this complaint was made known to representatives of the Intervenor Thus, Petitioner's President Cranfield testified that he checked the rates at other plants and found that the rates for journeyman electricians at those plants ranged from approximately $1 08 to $4 more than the hourly rate for class "A" electricians at the Employer's plant His testimony did not reveal the length of time required at each of those plants to obtain the journeyman level, nor did it disclose the specific nature of the work performed by the employ- ees or what fringe benefits those employees obtained Cranfield also testified that at the majority of the companies mentioned, the instrument mechanics came under the same rates as the electricians We note that under the Intervenor's past collective-bar- gaining agreements with the Employer, with the ex- ception of the classification of "lead mechanic," all class "A" mechanics received the highest hourly rate among the unit employees Cranfield further testified that in a meeting with representatives of the Intervenor held in September 1975, which he apparently initiated, employees of the two departments involved herein were present and had an opportunity to express the reasons for their dissatisfaction According to Cranfield, in that meet- ing after the vice president of the International ex- pressed the view that some adjustment in the wages of the skilled employees was warranted at that time, the vice president of the Local said that he would not stand for any increases granted to the skilled employ- ees that were not, at least, equally obtained for the production employees 3 Record evidence shows that increases granted under the contracts have been flat increases for all unit employees There is also testimony by Cranfield that to his knowledge none of the electrical or instrument me- chanics is presently a member of the Intervenor and none has been on the negotiating committee for the past 3 years or is currently an officer of the Interve- nor However, the record also reveals that Tennessee, where the plant is located, is a right-to-work State where membership cannot be required and there is testimony that in order to be on the negotiating com- mittee or an officer of the Intervenor one must be a member Thus the lack of such positions by the em- ployees involved here may have resulted from their own action The record also discloses that in the past Ray Stalans, an electrician, was president of Local 831 for a period of time in 1971 and 1972 and that members of the maintenance department have re- cently been on the Intervenor's negotiating commit- tee 4 Cranfield admitted that the Intervenor has pro- cessed all the grievances from his area (he is a shift electrician) and has never refused to process any He asserted, however, that there is a difference between "processing" a grievance and "speaking up for" the grievance 5 Simmons, who was twice president of the Local, testified that when the electricians and instru- ment mechanics had an opportunity to separate from the other maintenance groups they did not want to because the Employer was laying off by seniority and the electricians were the junior employees While concededly there may be some areas of dis- satisfaction among the employees sought, we are not persuaded on this record that the Intervenor has failed to give adequate representation to the electri- cal and instrument mechanics sought to be severed The record demonstrates that there has been a 7- 1/2-year bargaining history that has proved work- able without interruption or industrial strife and that members of the maintenance department, of which the two groups are a part, have actively participated in the affairs of the Local as officers and negotiating team members, and have not been deprived of repre- sentation in processing their grievances Nor is the evidence that the electrical and instrument mechan- ics sought to obtain a separate seniority group apart 3 There is record testimony by Personnel Superintendent McQuam that in the recent negotiations toward a new contract the Intervenor proposed a $1 across the board increase for the maintenance employees and 75 cent per hour increase for the rest of the unit employees Petitioner in its brief states that the Intervenor took such action after knowing of the employees dissat isfaction and that the agreement ultimately reached provides for a continua tion of the past policy of across the board increases 4 There is testimony that Horace Williams a mechanic is a member of the current negotiating committee and that in the 1972 negotiations two mechanics from the maintenance department were on the negotiating com mittee 5 Cranfield noted that in a 3 year period less than a dozen grievances were filed (apparently from the electrical and instrument mechanics) how ever he only specifically related to one which he filed in which the union was not successful There is no evidence as to the outcome of the others BEAUNIT CORPORATION 1505 from other unit employees sufficient to support the severance petition here Further, we note that at the Employer's plant in Elizabethtown, Tennessee, elec- tricians and instrument mechanics are included in the production and maintenance unit there repre- sented by another union At the Employer's Child- ersburg, Alabama, plant, although the electricians are separately represented, the instrument employees are included in the production and maintenance unit In agreement with the Regional Director, we find there is no probative evidence presented as to the history or pattern of bargaining in the industry which would support the severance requested here With regard to the qualifications of the Petitioner to represent the electrical and instrument mechanics we note, as did the Regional Director, that it is a newly created organization, without prior experience in representing similarly classified employees Thus, while it no doubt had its genesis among the skilled employees sought to be severed, it is not an organiza- tion which has "traditionally" represented such em- ployees Although Petitioner has established bylaws providing for membership requirements, dues, meet- ings, officers, and other attributes of a labor organi- zation, which the Regional Director correctly found it to be, there is no evidence that it is particularly qualified to deal with the special problems of the skilled employees involved, a factor which the Board finds material in its determinations in the severance area, though not alone determinative of the issue 6 6 American Bosch Arma Corporation (Mississippi Division ) 163 NLRB 650 (1967) Upon our review of the record as a whole, we con- clude that even assuming the craft status of the elec- trical and instrumentation mechanics sought, it will not effectuate the purposes of the Act to permit the disruption of the existing production and mainte- nance unit by directing elections for separate repre- sentation of the two groups of employees Rather, we find that, among other factors, in view of the rela- tionship of the essential duties of the mechanics sought to the overall production processes of the Em- ployer, the separate administrative structure of the Employer's maintenance department as a whole, the successive contracts which provide for the mobility of employees from production to maintenance and vice versa in "roll back" situations, the 7-1/2-year collective-bargaining history resulting in three suc- cessive contracts, and the absence of any substantial countervailing considerations, the interests served by maintaining stability in the existing production and maintenance unit outweigh the interests served by permitting the separate severance elections directed by the Regional Director In view of the foregoing and the record as a whole, we find that the units sought are inappropriate under the Mallinckrodt tests and we shall dismiss the petition 7 ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed 7 See Lear Siegler Inc 170 NLRB 766 (1968) American Pipe and Con struction Co 169 NLRB 1024 (1968) See also Dow Chemical Company Rocky Flats Division 202 NLRB 17 (1973) Union Carbide Corporation Nu clear Division 205 NLRB 794 (1973)