Buffalo Weaving and Belting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 71 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

BUFFALO WEAVING AND BELTING COMPANY 71
in 1947 and amended in 1949, 1950, and 1952. At the time of the
hearing it had been reopened and the parties were in the process
of negotiating new terms. In 1950, while United operated as
Atlas, the Board found appropriate a unit of production and
maintenance employees at the Hayward can plant and held Hunt
and Atlas to be a single employer within the meaning of Section
2 (2) of the Act. In 1951 the petitioning union lost the Board-
conducted election and Union No. 768, the historical repre-
sentative of these employees , was certified as their collective-
bargaining representative.
All parties except the IAM stipulated at the hearing that the
employees of the Hayward can plant continued tobe covered by
the CP & G contract, as they were prior to the certification.
The IAM contends that the CP & G contract has not been
applied to the employees of United because United is not a
signatory to this contract . In view of the Board's finding in
the Atlas decision that Hunt and Atlas constituted a single
employer, the stipulation of the parties in this case that Hunt
and United are, for the purposes of this proceeding , one em-
ployer, and the lack of evidence of any change in the relation-
ship between Hunt and United since the prior Board decision,
we find that Hunt and United constitute a single employer
within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. We therefore
find that it is immaterial that United is not a signatory to the
CP & G contract . The signature of Hunt to that contract as the
employer of these employees affords a sufficient basis to find,
and we do, that the CP & G contract has covered , in form as
well as practice , the employees of the Hayward can plant since,
at least, 1951.
The foregoing facts show that the production and maintenance
employees of the Hayward can plant have a history of bargain-
ing on a multiemployer basis. The Employer desires to con-
tinue to bargain on a multiemployer basis. It is well settled
that in these circumstances , severance of a craft unit must be
coextensive with the existing production and maintenance unit.3
Accordingly, we find that the craft unit at the Hayward can
plant sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate , and shall dis-
miss the petition herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3Pioneer Incorporated , 86 NLRB 1319 ; Byrant ' s Marina , Inc., et al ., 92 NLRB 718.
BUFFALO WEAVING AND BELTING COMPANY and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 8-RC-1904 . May 28, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles A.
Fleming, hearing officer. The hearing officer ' s rulings made
105 NLRB No 12
291555 0 - 54 - 6
72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Boards finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning 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 Petitioner seeks to sever from the plantwide unit,
which has been represented for 11 years by the Intervenor,
International Brotherhood of Foundry and Metal Employees,
Local # 110, Independent,' a unit of all toolroom and mainte-
nance department employees at the Employer's Alliance, Ohio,
plant, or, in the alternative, any unit or units of these em-
ployees which the Board finds appropriate. The Employer and
the Intervenor contend that severance should be deniedbecause
of the bargaining history on a plantwide basis, a community of
interests among all employees, and integration of plant oper-
ations. We reject this contention as none of the grounds ad-
vanced in support thereof is sufficient in the instant case to
preclude severance of appropriate craft units.'
The Employer is engaged in machining and stamping aircraft
and automotive parts. The plant occupies 1 building, originally
a carbarn, consisting of 3 main bays with free passageways
between them. The Employer at present employs about 252
production employees and 58 maintenance employees in its
plant.
The Petitioner, in its primary unit request, would include in
a single unit all jig, tool, and die makers, machinists, special
machine builders, precision grinders, and tool grinders, com-
prising the toolroom employees, and all electricians, car-
penters, millwrights, and maintenance mechanics, mechanic-
welders, and their oilers, helpers, and apprentices, as the
maintenance department employees.' The Intervenor contends
that this unit is inappropriate because it constitutes a hetero-
geneous group of employees. As this proposed unit would com-
bine unrelated craftsmen among the Employer' s maintenance
employees in the face of a plantwide bargaining history, we
find such a unit inappropriate.4 We shall, however, consider
the Petitioner's alternative unit request.
t The Intervenor's current contract with the Employer, which expires on June 16, 1953, is
not raised as a contract bar.
z Kimble Glass Company, 102 NLRB 933.
'The Employer does not now employ carpenters, or mechanics' helpers and apprentices;
nor is the "rmllwright" classification used, although mechanics are commonly referred to as
millwrights in plant parlance.
,4See Kimble Glass Company, supra.
BUFFALO WEAVING AND BELTING COMPANY 73
There are 39 toolroom employees, comprising 9 jig, tool,
and die makers, 5 machinists, 1 special machine builder, 12
precision grinders , and 12 tool grinders , workingina separate
area occupying 30 percent of 1 of the bays in the plant and
separately supervised by the toolroom foreman who also has
overall supervision of the maintenance department. While the
duties of all but the grinders may entail working in the produc-
tion areas an average of 1 hour a day, the toolroom employees
have and exercise the skills of the related machinist and tool
and die maker crafts and are engaged exclusively in making
and repairing jigs , tools , and parts used in plant production
operations .5 In the maintenance department, in addition to the
3 electricians discussed below, there are 13 mechanics, 1
mechanic -welder, and 5 oilers . The mechanics and oilers are
under separate immediate supervision. The mechanics and the
mechanic-welder 6 have a separate work area and spend about
90 percent of their time in the plant performing the usual mill-
wright duties of repairing , installing , and moving machinery,
as well as occasional pipefitting duties. The oilers are un-
skilled, have no designated work area, and spend most of their
time oiling and greasing machines under the direction of the
mechanic's foreman or production foremen.
The toolroom and maintenance department employees do no
production work,' do not interchange with production workers,'
and do not, like production workers, receive incentive pay.
Under all the circumstances of this case, we find that the
toolroom employees together with the maintenance department
mechanics,' all of whom perform skilled related operations
under the same overall supervision , comprise a distinct, homo-
geneous group of related craftsmen who may, if they so desire,
constitute a separate appropriate unit.'°
The electricians work in a separate enclosed area and have
separate immediate supervision. They divide their time about
equally between their shop and the production areas perform-
ing all the Employer's electrical maintenance work. Although
one electrician is probationary, all are qualified electricians.
We find that the electricians comprise an identifiable, homo-
geneous group of craftsmen who may, if they so desire, consti-
tute a separate appropriate unit.U
5 The tool grinders, who are less skilled than the other toolroom employees, use the tools
and instruments of mechanics and advance to the pay rate of precision grinders
6 The mechanic-welder, in addition to his millwright duties, does all the repair welding for
the plant.
7Except for the oilers who occasionally assist in production work
8 However, under the existing seniority system, when layoffs occur, toolroom and mainte-
nance employees may displace production workers.
9 We shall exclude the oilers from this group as their interests are more closely identified
with those of production workers Ingersoll Products Division of Borg-Warner Corporation,
100 NLRB 1531.
10 Emerson Electric Company, 102 NLRB 303; Ford Motor Company, 96 NLRB 1075; John
Deere Plow Works, 94 NLRB 1286; Layne & Bowler, Inc , 90 NLRB 1872; and A. C Spark
Plug Division, 88 NLRB 1214.
ii Norris-Thermador Corporation, 103 NLRB 1625; The Standard Register Co., 100 NLRB
981; and A C Avery & Sons Company, 86 NLRB 24.
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly , we shall direct elections among employees of
the Employer at its Alliance , Ohio, plant, in the voting groups
set forth below, excluding from each group office clerical
employees , professional and experimental employees , watch-
men, all other employees, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act:
(1) All jig , tool , and die makers , machinists , special machine
builders , precision grinders , and tool grinders in the tool-
room, and all mechanics , including mechanic-welders but ex-
cluding oilers , in the maintenance department.
( 2) All electricians.
If a majority of the employees in either group vote for the
Petitioner , " they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional
Director conducting the elections directed herein is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for
such unit or units, which the Board , under such circumstances,
finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
In the event a majority in either group vote for the Intervenor,
they will be taken to have indicated a desire to remain part of
the existing bargaining unit , and the Regional Director will
issue a certification of results of election to such effect.
[ Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Member Peterson , dissenting:
Because the petitioning IAM has not shown why the collec-
tive-bargaining interests of the toolroom craftsmen or the
electricians would be better served by separate unit repre-
sentation or have not been fairly and adequately served as part
of the overall unit, I would , for reasons stated in my dissenting
opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627, dismiss
the petition.
It may be conceded , as my colleagues find, that the toolroom
employees and the electricians are, respectively , " a distinct,
homogeneous group of related craftsmen " and "an identifiable,
homogeneous group of craftsmen ." But their craft status is the
only factor I can find , in the record or the majority opinion,
favoring severance . Against this , the record shows that these
employees have been included for 11 or 12 years in a plantwide
unit represented by the intervening Independent;" there is a
close community of interest among all employees ; and plant
operations are closely integrated and in physical proximity.
Although my colleagues refer to these factors , they conclude,
without more , that none " is sufficient in the instant case to
preclude severance of appropriate craft units ." To my mind,
12 As the Employer stated at the hearing that it planned to recall certain temporarily laid-
off toolroom and maintenance department employees , including those who , under the seniority
provisions of the existing contract, chose to take production jobs, such laid-off employees in
either voting group may vote in the elections directed herein
13 Toolroom employees have participated in this bargaining Two or three of them have
been president of the independent's local and they have also served as members of its con-
tract negotiation and grievance committees.
MOTHER'S CAKE AND COOKIE COMPANY 75
each of these considerations is important and in combination
they are sufficient to deny craft severance when that result is
supported by nothing more than the craft status of the em-
ployees proposed to be split off. Accordingly , I would dismiss
the petition.
MOTHER'S CAKE AND COOKIE COMPANY and CHARLES H.
DUTHIE AND LAWRENCE HEALY. Case No. 20-CA-691.
May 28, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 31, 1953, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report. 1
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 [Members Murdock, Styles, and
Peterson] .
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Ex-
aminer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent's ex-
ceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Re-
spondent , Mother's Cake and Cookie Company, of Oakland,
California , its officers , agents, successors , andassigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership of any of its employees in
International Association of Machinists , Local Lodge 284, AFL,
or any other labor organization , by discriminating in any
manner in regard to any term or condition of employment of
any of its employees.
I On May 1, 1953, the Respondent filed a motion alleging that complainant Healy voluntarily
resigned from the Respondent's employ after the close of the hearing and, in substance, re-
questing that the findings and order herein be so amended as to reflect the fact of Healy's
resignation. The motion is denied. The fact of such resignation and its effect on the appro-
priateness of the remedy prescribed herein can best be resolved in the compliance stage of
this proceeding.
105 NLRB No. 23.