Cameron Iron Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 9, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 797 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

CAMERON IRON WORKS
Cameron Iron Works, Inc. and International Die Sink-
ers Conference. Case 23-RC-3631
March 9, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer John P. Cearley.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and by
direction of the Regional Director for Region 23 this
case was transferred to the National Labor Relations
Board for decision. Briefs have been timely filed by the
Employer, the Petitioner, and the Intervenor.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are free
of prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations' involved claim to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of certain employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act for the following reasons.
Petitioner filed the instant petition seeking to sever
a unit of approximately 9 die sinkers from the existing
multiplant unit of approximately 2,000 production and
maintenance employees currently represented by the
Intervenor. At the hearing the Petitioner indicated that
it would proceed to an election in any unit found appro-
priate for severance by the' Board, The Petitioner in its
brief to the Board virtually abandoned its original unit
contention and now contends that the record militates
in favor of the appropriateness of a broader unit con-
sisting of all die sinkers, EDM die sinkers, tool-and-die
makers, toolroom specialists, die grinders, EDM tool-
' Lodge 15, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene on the basis of the existing
contract between it and the Employer
' The parties stipulated that the Intervenor is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act Employer declined to stipulate that the Petitioner
is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act although the Inter-
venor did so stipulate William E. Derderber testified without contradiction
that the Petitioner represents employees who perform work on dies and
parts of dies for a number of employers and that it negotiates with these
employers on behalf of such employees in regard to wages, hours, and
conditions of employment We find that the Petitioner is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
195 NLRB No. 137
797
makers, and all general laborers including forklift oper-
ators in the tool and die department in Employer's
North Shop, but excluding all die inspectors, all other
employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as
defined in the Act. This larger unit consists of 78 em-
ployees. Petitioner'contends the broader unit is appro-
priate for severance as it includes all of the employees
who work on dies.
The Employer and the Intervenor oppose severance,
contending, inter alia, that neither the petitioned-for-
unit nor the enlarged unit constitute a functionally dis-
tinct group of skilled craftsmen and, in the case of the
enlarged unit, that it does not include all of the like or
related craftsmen in the bargaining unit.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of forg-
ings, oil tools, mill products, and extrusions at its mul-
tiplant complex located at Katy and Silber Roads in
Houston, Texas, and at another facility, the Cypress
plant, located approximately 12 miles west of the Katy
plant. The Intervenor, or its predecessor, has been cer-
tified as the representative of the Employer's
production and maintenance employees since the early
1940's.
The unit as proposed in the petition consists of seven
die sinkers and two EDM die sinkers. All of these
employees are located in the Employer's North Shop,
a large metal building containing no partitions and
including both a toolroom and a large production area.
These employees are part of the toolroom. In that de-
partment, in addition to the die sinkers, are a number
of other employees who also work on dies including the
tool-and-die makers and the toolroom specialists. Also
working on dies, when required by the workload, are
the machinists in the production area of the North
Shop. The die sinkers make dies or parts of dies having
irregular configurations and the tool-and-die makers
make dies having round and/or straight configurations.
All dies made by the Employer are made in the North
Shop. Some dies are worked on by both die sinkers and
tool-and-die makers. Approximately 85 percent of the
die work is performed by tool-and-die makers while
approximately 15 percent is performed by die sinkers.
Die sinkers spend approximately 90 percent of their
time sinking dies. On some occasions die sinkers and
tool-and-die makers run each others' machines. Die
sinkers are not grouped in one location but are inter-
spersed throughout the toolroom area. Die sinkers in-
struct and work with die grinders, another classifica-
tion located in the toolroom area of the North Shop. A
normal promotion progression for die sinkers is from
machinist to tool-and-die maker and then to die sinker.
In case of reductions in force, die sinkers have the right
to bump tool-and-die makers and machinists on a com-
panywide basis. As noted above, Petitioner in its brief
has virtually abandoned its contention that the die sink-
ers alone are an appropriate unit for a severance elec-
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion. In any case we find that the die sinkers are not a
functionally distinct group and therefore the peti-
tioned-for unit is not an appropriate unit for severance.
As noted, Petitioner has indicated a willingness to
proceed to an election in any unit found appropriate for
severance and contends the. record supports severance
of a unit consisting of the employees in the toolroom of
the North Shop.' In addition to the die sinkers and
tool-and-die makers, the unit would include toolroom
specialists, die grinders, EDM toolmakers, and all la-
borers in the North Shop.
This alternative proposed unit is a department with
a large craft nucleus. Petitioner's contention that this
department is functionally distinct rests on the fact that
the 9 die sinkers in the toolroom work primarily on dies
and the 54 tool-and-die makers in the toolroom also
spend a substantial portion of their time working on
dies. Petitioner further asserts that all of Employer's
die work is performed in the North Shop toolroom.
Tool-and-die makers in the North Shop toolroom
spend a substantial portion of their time working on
dies. However, they also spend a substantial portion of
their time performing several other functions, includ-
ing machine repair work, making parts for machine
repairs, production work, and making jigs, fixtures, and
tooling required in production areas.' These functions
are also performed by employees in other departments.
In particular, the Employer also has tool-and-die
makers in the South Shop who perform the same or
similar work as the nondie work performed by the
tool-and-die makers in the North Shop, including
maintenance work, making jigs, fixtures, and gauges,
and production work. The South Shop tool-and-die
makers receive the same rates of pay, etc., as the em-
' In 1968, Petitioner sought a severance of this unit in Case 23-RC-3135
(unpublished) The Regional Director dismissed the petition and the Board
denied review stating, "The Board has carefully considered your Request for
Review of the Regional Director's dismissal of the petition in the above case
and concluded that as the evidentiary facts considered as a whole indicate
that the unit sought to be severed from the multiplant P & M unit does not
include all employees in the same classification, and performing the same
functions at the Employer's other plants, the Regional Director's dismissal
of the petition on the grounds that the unit sought to be severed was inappro-
priate, was warranted Universal Form Clamp Co, 163 NLRB 184, Trico
Products Corporation, 169 NLRB 287 See also General Motors Corpora-
tion, 120 NLRB 1215 "
° Some of the tool-and-die makers work almost full time doing work other
than die work
ployees in the North Shop. North Shop and South Shop
tool-and-die makers can transfer between any of Em-
ployer's plants having that classification.'
As noted the North Shop tool-and-die makers per-
form some production work. This work is performed
on lathes, boring mills, and equipment of that nature-
the type used by machinists in the production areas of
the North Shop.' Depending on the workload, machin-
ists, using their regular production machines, perform
some die work.' As previously noted, in the case of a
reduction in force, the progression is from die sinker to
tool-and-die maker to machinist. Bumps can be made
on a unitwide basis. Promotions are from machinist to
tool-and-die maker, also on a unitwide basis.
In our opinion the enlarged proposed unit is not a
functionally distinct department in that a substantial
number of the functions performed by the nucleus of
craft employees in the department are also performed
by employees in the remainder of the bargaining unit,
including employees in the same or like classification.
Therefore, this enlarged unit is not appropriate for sev-
erance.8
Although the Petitioner states that it is willing to
represent any unit appropriate for severance, the record
does not provide a basis for a finding that any other unit
is appropriate for that purpose.' For the reasons dis-
cussed above, we conclude that severance is not jus-
tified. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition."
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
' Two employees have recently done so On one occasion a North Shop
tool-and-die maker bumped to the same classification in the South Shop On
another occasion a South Shop tool-and-die maker transferred to the same
classification in the North Shop
a Machinists spend most of their time on production
For the 3 months prior to the hearing, machinists had been performing
some of the tool-and-die makers work, mainly round-type dies
Goodyear Tire & Rubber, 165 NLRB 188, Universal Form Clamp, 163
NLRB 184, General Motors Corporation, 120 NLRB 1215
The Petitioner cites various cases, and particularly Jay Kay Metal Spe-
cialties Corp., 163 NLRB 719, in support of its claim for a severance unit
We find such cases clearly distinguishable
11 In view of our disposition of this case we find it unnecessary to pass
on Employer's and Intervenor's contention that an election in the enlarged
unit would be barred by their contract