Beloit Eastern Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 27, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1407 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

13ELOIT EASTERN CORPORATION 1407'
Beloit Eastern Corporation and United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Beloit Eastern Corporation and Pattern Makers League of North
America, Philadelphia Association , AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Beloit Eastern Corporation and Local 152, American Federation
of Technical Engineers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos.
4-RC-3504, 4-RC-3509, and 4-RC-3521. January 27, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, hearings were held before Morris Mogerman,
hearing officer. The cases were consolidated by the Board. The hear-
ing officer's rulings made at the hearings 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 Bean].
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) The Employer and Intervenor contend that their most recent
contract executed on January 18, 1957, and effective from February 4,
1957, to January 12, 1959, is a bar to the petitions which were filed by
the Pattern Makers League, Steelworkers, and Technical Engineers,
respectively, on October 9, October 3, and November 4, 1957. The
bargaining history between the Employer and Intervenor is set forth
in our recent decision in Beloit Eastern Corporation.2 In that proceed-
ing we found that the agreement between the Employer and Intervenor
ran from January 6, 1956, to January 13, 1958. Thus, it is clear that
the contract executed on January 18, 1957, and extending the termina-
tion date until January 12, 1959, is, within the Board's contract-bar
doctrine, a premature extension of the earlier agreement. As the
petitions were timely filed with respect to the Mill B date of the earlier
1956-58 agreement, they are not barred by the 1957-59 contract.'
Accordingly, we find that questions affecting commerce exist concern-
1 Brandywine Employees Association intervened onthe basis of its current contract
covering the employees in the requested units.
2117 NLRB 329.
3 See, Wyman-Gordon Go., 117 NLRB 75, at 77.
119 NLRB No. 173.
1408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
(4) The Steelworkers seeks to represent the plantwide unit cur-
rently represented by the Intervenor. The parties agree that this unit
is appropriate. The Pattern Makers League wishes to sever from that
broad unit a craft unit of patternmakers and their apprentices, while
the Technical Engineers seeks to sever a unit of technical employees.
in the engineering department. The Steelworkers raises no objection
to the severance of such units. The Employer contends, however, that
the existing, overall unit is alone appropriate.
The Pattern Makers League unit: Though objecting to severance
of patternmakers, the Employer concedes that it maintains a separate
pattern shop where it employs patternmakers and their apprentices.
No party disputes that the patternmakers are craftsmen such as the
Board has heretofore deemed to be severable from a larger unit.' As
the Pattern Makers League has traditionally represented the pattern-
makers' craft, we find that the employees sought by that union may,
if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit.
The Technical Engineers unit: The Technical Engineers seeks a
unit composed of draftsmen 1st, 2d, and 3d class, blueprint operator,
and process clerks. It seeks to sever these employees from the overall
unit on a craft basis. It is clear, however, that the requested employees:
are not craftsmen within the meaning of the Board's craft severance
doctrine, and severance on that ground is thus denied. However, if'
the proposed unit meets the Board's standards for a technical unit,,
the employees may if they so desire be separately represented on that
basis.
The draftsmen are engaged in tool and plant layout designing and
detailing. To qualify as a first-class draftsman an employee usually
must have had 2 or 3 years of college education or its equivalent and
11/2 to 2 years' experience in the Employer's type of work. The second--
class draftsman generally needs a year of college and some experience
in the Employer's particular product and machine design problems,.
while the third-class draftsman should have a high school education
and some technical training and experience in drafting. In view of
the foregoing; we find that the draftsmen are technical employees."
As for the blueprint operator, he runs and maintains an automatic
type print machine which produces prints from original drawings.
He is not required to have knowledge of drafting other than the
ability to read the symbols from the prints. The process clerks, or as,
otherwise classified, the file clerks in engineering, are involved pri-
marily in filing drawings and tracings according to symbol and draw-
4 See, Traylor Engineering & Manufacturing Company, 110 NLRB 334, at 335.
5 Hancock Electronics Corp ., 116 NLRB 442 , at 443; The Firestone Tire and Rubber
Company, 112 NLRB 571, 'at 572.
BELOIT EASTERN CORPORATION 1409
ing number and taking tracings from the files for the blueprint oper-
ator for prints. They also keep records of tracings distributed to
draftsmen and others. These clerks need some knowledge as to var-
ious size prints and symbol systems, but they need not engage in any
drafting. In view of the work performed by the blueprint operator
and file clerks, we find they are not technical employees. As it does not
appear from the record that there are technical employees in the Em-
ployer's plant other than the draftsmen, we find that the draftsmen
may constitute a separate appropriate unit if they so desire s
In view of the foregoing we shall direct that elections be conducted
in the following groups of employees employed at the Employer's
Downingtown, Pennsylvania, plant; excluding, in each case, profes-
sional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(a) All employees, excluding salaried employees, cost, payroll, and
personnel department employees, patternmakers and their apprentices,
and draftsmen 1st, 2d, 3d, class.
(b) Patternmakers and their apprentices.
(c) All draftsmen 1st, 2d, and 3d class, excluding the blueprint
operator, and process clerks.
If a majority of the employees in voting groups (b) or (c) select
the union seeking to represent them separately, those employees will
be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bar-
gaining unit and the Regional Director conducting the election is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organ-
ization selected by the employees in each group for such unit, which
the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining. On the other hand, if a majority of
the employees in either voting group (b) or (c) do not vote for the
union which is seeking to represent them in a separate unit, that group
will appropriately be included in the production and maintenance unit
and their votes shall be pooled with those in voting group ( a) ,7 and
the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives to the labor organization selected by a
majority of the employees in the pooled group,' which the Board, in
such circumstances, finds to be a single unit appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
9 La Pointe Machine Tool Company, 109 NLRB 514, at 517.
7 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for
a union seeking a separate unit shall be counted as valid votes, but as neither for nor
against the unions seeking the plantwide unit; all other votes are to be accorded their
face value, whether for representation by a union or for no union.
8At the hearing, the Steelworkers stated that it did not wish to appear on the ballot
in the election for patternmakers and their apprentices . In view of our decision to pool
the ballots under the circumstances described above, we shall accord the Steelworkers a
place on the ballot in the election directed for voting group (b).
476321-58-vol. 119-90