Buddy L Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 17, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 808 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Buddy L Corporation and Local No. 1, International
Association of Tool Craftsmen , National Federa-
tion of Independent Unions, Petitioner. Case
38-RC-195
October 17, 1967
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On January 20, 1966, the Regional Director for
Region 13 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the instant proceeding, finding a group of
toolroom employees at the Employer's East
Moline, Illinois, plant may constitute a separate ap-
propriate unit and directing a self-determination
election. Thereafter, in accordance with Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the
Intervenor' filed a timely request for review of such
Decision and Direction of Election on the ground
that the Petitioner had not established facts justify-
ing craft or departmental severance. The National
Labor Relations Board, by telegraphic order dated
March 14, 1966, granted the request for review and
stayed the election. On March 29, 1967, the Board
remanded the case to the Regional Director for Re-
gion 13 for further hearing "in the light of the
criteria set forth in the Board's Decision in
Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Uranium Division,
[162 NLRB 387]."
On May 3, 1967, a supplemental hearing was
held before Hearing Officer Glenn A. Zipp. After
the hearing was closed, the Petitioner and the Inter-
venor timely filed briefs in support of their respec-
tive positions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of
the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, and with
special consideration of the criteria as set forth in
our Mallinckrodt decision, we find:
The Employer's Operations
The Employer manufactures toys at its s, igle
plant in East Moline, Illinois, with a work force
which varies according to seasonal requirements
from 70 to 500 hourly and piecework employees,
including the toolroom employees here sought. The
majority of pieceworkers are women who perform
simple assembly tasks. The Employer's production
' Local Lodge 2045, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene on the basis
of a recently expired contract.
process is not a continuous flow-type operation
although it does follow a certain sequential pattern.
Thus, sheetmetal is received in the Employer's
shear department where it is cut to various shapes
and sizes for the punch press department. There the
metal pieces are shaped into toy components and
sent to the subassembly department for partial as-
sembly. Next, these items are painted, baked, and
sent to the assembly department for final assembly
before they are packaged for shipment.
The Employer purchases virtually all of its dies
and molds from outside firms. These dies and molds
are delivered to the toolroom where they are
checked and adjusted, modified, or adapted, as
necessary, by the toolroom employees. The die or
mold is then carted to the appropriate production
equipment and installed by one of the production
employees known as a diesetter. A toolroom em-
ployee oversees the test operation of the equip-
ment, performs work as necessary to ensure proper
operation, and certifies the equipment to the tool-
room supervisor who then releases it to production.
Toolmakers as Craftsmen
There is no contention that the toolroom em-
ployees are not traditional craftsmen of their class.
The record amply justifies a finding that the tool-
room employees possess and exercise the tradi-
tional skills of their craft. We find, therefore, that
the toolroom employees are craftsmen.
Petitioner's Qualifications as a Representative of
Toolroom Employees
The parties stipulated that the Petitioner
represents only toolroom employees. According to
uncontroverted testimony the Petitioner was
formed in 1953 for the purpose of representing
workers engaged in the tool-and-die making trade
and is party to collective-bargaining agreements
which provide for representation of tool-and-die
makers on a separate unit basis. All parties herein
stipulated that the Petitioner represents only tool-
room employees. Accordingly, and as established
by the foregoing, we find that Petitioner qualifies as
traditional representative of toolroom employees of
the kind involved in this case.
Coo'dination of the Toolmakers in the Production
Process
The Petitioner contends that the toolroom em-
,)ioyees have not been " integrated" into the Em-
ployer's production process as there is no fusion of
functions , skills, and working conditions between
the toolroom employees and the production em-
167 NLRB No. 113
BUDDY L CORP.
ployees; neither the Employer nor the Intervenor
takes any position on this factor.
The toolroom, an enclosed area in one corner of
the plant with an access door capable of being
closed and locked , contains toolroom machinery
and a toolcrib. The complement of toolroom em-
ployees working in the toolroom is comprised of
four tool -and-die makers and one toolmaker
machinist . These employees are separately super-
vised by the toolroom supervisor who reports
directly to the Employer 's service manager.
There was uncontroverted testimony adduced at
the hearing to show that the toolroom employees
spend approximately 5 percent of their working
time in the production area overseeing the test
operation of newly installed or newly repaired dies
and molds and effecting minor repairs to dies and
molds in place on the equipment . The remainder of
their working time is spent in the toolroom where
they repair dies , molds, jigs, and fixtures used in the
punch press department . The toolroom employees
repair approximately 75 percent of the dies and
molds which break down, while approximately 25
percent are repaired in outside shops. The repair of
a die generally entails making either a new die or the
component part of the die that was damaged.
In view of the foregoing, and particularly in light
of the nature of their work , their small number as
compared to the Employer 's total work force, their
separate supervision , and the Employer ' s practice
of buying all of its molds and dies from outside
sources and sending a substantial part of its dies and
molds to outside shops for repair , we conclude that
the toolmaker 's role in the Employer 's production
process is not so uniquely and integrally a part upon
which the production flow is dependent as to com-
pel a finding that a separate toolroom employee unit
is inappropriate.
Bargaining History
The Intervenor has been the recognized bargain-
ing representative of all production and main-
tenance employees , including toolroom employees,
employed at the Employer ' s plant since December
5, 1955. Prior to that time, from approximately
December 9, 1946 , the Employer had recognized
the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers
of America, Local No. 814, herein called UE Local
No. 814 , as the bargaining representative of all its
production and maintenance employees , until UE
Local No. 814 affiliated with the Intervenor on
December 2, 1955. The bargaining unit has
remained substantially the same since December 9,
1946.
Prior to 1964, some of the Employer ' s toolroom
employees took part in the internal affairs of the In-
tervenor. Thus, the record shows that one of the
toolroom employees served 2 years as the Inter-
venor 's chief steward at the Employer's plant and,
as a member of the negotiating committee, signed
809
the 1957 and 1959 contracts between the Inter-
venor and the Employer ; another was president of
the Intervenor in 1960 ; and, in 1957 , two of the
toolroom employees were members of the execu-
tive board of the Intervenor . During this period the
toolroom employees also held positions with the In-
tervenor serving as steward for the hourly paid em-
ployees, as shop committee chairman , and on the
safety and grievance committee . During negotia-
tions between the Intervenor and the Employer,
prior to the 1966 bargaining negotiations , the tool-
room representative submitted proposals to the In-
tervenor 's bargaining committee concerning the
wage rate desired by the toolroom employees but
these proposals were voted down by the Inter-
venor 's representatives who subsequently based
their bargaining demands on the interests of the
production - workers. The record contains no
evidence that since 1964 any of the toolroom em-
ployees have participated in the Intervenor 's inter-
nal affairs or have participated in collective-bar-
gaining negotiations ; in fact , it appears that they
have dealt directly with management concerning
grievances during that period , instead of utilizing
the contractual grievance procedure.
History and Pattern of Collective Bargaining in the
Toy Industry
The Intervenor contends that the practice of the
toy industry, at least in the State of Illinois, is to
bargain on a plantwide unit. It adduced evidence to
show that it represented tool-and -die makers as part
of an overall group of production and maintenance
employees at the plants of two toymakers in the
State of Illinois. The Petitioner testified that other
local unions affiliated with its affiliate, the National
Federation of Independent Unions, represented
tool-and-die makers as a separate unit in some toy
manufacturing plants in other areas and further
testified that it represented toolmakers as a separate
unit in three other plants in the "Quad-City" area.
It appears to us that the history and pattern of col-
lective bargaining in the toy industry is inconclu-
sive , favors neither Petitioner ' s nor Intervenor's
position herein, and that it cannot be found that the
establishment of a separate unit of toolroom em-
ployees would disturb industry stability insofar as
labor relations are concerned.
As we observed in Mallinckrodt, unit determina-
tion without regard to balancing the effect on indus-
trial stability and resulting benefits of a historical
plantwide bargaining unit against the wishes of a
few members of the unit for separate representation
could well lead to an instability in labor relations
that could endanger the desirable goals that Con-
gress sought to achieve and bring on the evils that
it sought to avoid as set out in its policy declarations
in the National Labor Relations Act. However, to
deny separate representation where to do so ad-
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vances the cause of stability little, if at all, might
also carry the seeds of instability. We think that it
might do so in the present situation, and, we also
think that to deny separate representation in the
present case would be contrary to the policies of the
Act as it would deny employees the freedom of
choice Congress considered as equally essential, in
proper circumstances, to achieve the peace and sta-
bility necessary if our commerce is to flow without
interruption.
In view of all the foregoing, we conclude, in
agreement with the Regional Director, that the Peti-
tioner's proposed unit constitutes an identifiable de-
partmental group of employees engaged in the tool-
and-die making craft which may have a separate
community of interest for bargaining purposes.
Further, notwithstanding the bargaining history of
inclusion of such employees in a broader unit, it is
apparent that they have retained their separate
identity, both functionally and collectively, in pur-
suit of their interests as highly skilled employees.
We cannot, on the evidence before us, conclude
that the community of interest which the toolroom
z A corrected election eligibility list, containing the names and ad-
dresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the
Regional Director for Region 13 within 7 days after the date of this
Decision on Review. The Regional Director shall make the list available
to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be
employees share with each other by virtue of their
skills and separate function has been irrevocably
submerged in the community of interest shared by
the other production and maintenance employees.
Accordingly, we hereby remand the case to the
Regional Director for Region 13 for the purpose of
holding an election, pursuant to his Decision and
Direction of Election, except that the period for
determining eligibility shall be the payroll period
immediately preceding the date below.2
Member Fanning, concurring:
I concur in my colleagues' decision to remand
this case to the Regional Director for the purpose
of conducting an election among the Employer's
toolroom employees, who possess and exercise
these skills of their craft. See Member Fanning's
dissent in Holmberg, Inc., 162 NLRB 407. The
evident failure to represent the toolroom employees
from 1964 to date not only removes this case from
the class of typical "severance" cases, it gives a hol-
low ring to the contentions of the Employer and the
Intervenor that the toolroom employees should be
denied an opportunity to select the Petitioner as
their collective-bargaining representative.
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances.
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the election whenever proper objections are filed. Excelsior Underwear
Inc., 156 NLRB 1236.