Certain-Teed Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1324 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CERTAIN -TEED PRODUCTS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS , DISTRICT LODGE No. 115, LOCAL LODGE No. 824,
AFL , PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 20-RC-1844, 20-RC-1863 , and 00-
RC-1864. February 12, 1953.
Supplemental Decision
On December 18, 1952, the Board issued its Decision and Direction
of Elections in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding' finding
appropriate for separate representation three units of certain of the
Employer's employees. The unit found appropriate in Case No. 20-
RC-1844 consisted of a departmental grouping of machine-shop em-
ployees from which various employees were specifically excluded.
Subsequently, all the parties hereto jointly filed a motion to reopen
the record and to incorporate therein certain new evidence contained
in stipulations appended to the motion, and to reconsider, in the light
of this new evidence, the includibility in the machine-shop unit of
the excluded employees. We hereby grant the motion to reopen the
record, and the stipulations as to facts jointly signed by the parties
are received into evidence and made a part of the record. We shall
proceed, in the light of this additional evidence, to reconsider our
unit findings in Case No. 20-RC-1844 in accordance with the request
of the parties.
The machine-shop unit in question included a nucleus of journey-
man machinists and other classifications of employees in the shop
with interests closely related to those of the machinists. The em-
ployees specifically excluded were a machinist A, a welder, and a tour
boss who work in the plant mill and are administratively not a part
of the machine-shop force, and the following mechanical department
employees : The machinist A (who repairs lift trucks) ; the carpenter;
the machinist B who works in the toolroom and the mechanic's helper
who assists him; the maintenance man (oiler) ; and the maintenance
man who sweeps the factory. Except for the last-mentioned em-
ployee and the tour boss, the motion before us seeks the inclusion in
the unit of all these excluded employees.
With respect to the machinist A. and the welder, who work in the
mill, the parties stipulate that the mill superintendent is due to retire
and that the Employer accordingly plans "within the next few
months" to transfer these employees to the machine shop. We are
satisfied that when they are administratively transferred to the ma-
chine shop for duty under the master mechanic who heads this shop,
these employees will become part of the machine-shop unit. We can-
1 1 01 NLRB 1110.
102 NLRB No. 142.
CERTAIN-TEED PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1325
not, however, at this juncture include them in this unit and accord
them voting eligibility in the election to be conducted among the em-
ployees in the unit as their contemplated transfer to the machine shop
is too remote and speculative. We shall, therefore, for the reasons
stated in our decision in this matter presently exclude them from the
unit.
The machinist A (who repairs lift trucks), the carpenter, and the
maintenance man (oiler) had been excluded from the unit principally
because they appeared to operate out of separate shops which were
independent from the machine shop and did not appear to be a part
of the machine-shop force grouped about the nucleus of journeyman
machinists. As to this machinist A, the parties now stipulate that
the lift-truck repair shop where he works is physically separate from
the machine shop only for reasons of safety and convenience; also
that the machinist A and 2 machinists who frequently assist him 3 or
4 months each year are drawn from the machine shop. We conclude
from these circumstances that the lift-truck repair shop is in fact an
adjunct to the machine shop and that the machinist A, who works at
this location, is part of the machine-shop force. We shall, therefore,
include him in the unit. Regarding the carpenter, we had indicated
that this employee, working out of his separately located carpenter
shop, spent half his time at carpentry work and the rest of his time
performing millwright duties of a mechanical type together with the
machinists in the machine shop. The parties now stipulate that he
spends approximately 70 percent of his time performing these me-
chanical duties under the supervision of the master mechanic. We
find that the carpenter, despite his classification, performs essentially
the functions of a millwright of a type whom we customarily include
in units of machine-shop employees. Accordingly, we shall include
him in the unit. As to the maintenance man (oiler), the parties show
that he had formerly done his slitter-knife sharpening work in the
machine shop, but that these operations had been moved to a separate
shop at another location because of a space shortage. Moreover, the
Employer is considering moving the electricians who now occupy
part of the machine shop to other quarters and relocating the knife-
sharpening operations in the machine shop. As noted in our de-
cision, a machinist from the machine shop sharpens slitter knives dur-
ing vacations of the maintenance man (oiler). The stipulations show
that a machinist also performs these duties during his absences for
illness or upon the termination of employment of the maintenance
man (oiler). We are satisfied that the slitter-knife sharpening shop
is an adjunct of the machine shop and that the maintenance man
(oiler) is part of the machine-shop work force. We shall include
him in the unit.
1326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As to the machinist B who works in the toolroom, we indicated that
he spends most of his time in the toolroom adjacent to the machine'
shop issuing supplies to mechanical and production department em-
ployees. The stipulations show that he spends 75 percent of his time
in the toolroom and that most of his work there consists of issuing
tools and parts to machine-shop employees. The rest of his time is
spent assisting the machinists and electricians in the mechanical de-
partment. Concerning the mechanic's helper who assists the foregoing
machinist B, the parties stipulated that he spends 25 percent of his
time cleaning the machine shop and 50 percent of his time in the tool-
room where he, too, issues tools and parts mostly to the machinists.
The rest of his time is spent checking and repairing fire equipment in
the plant. We find from these facts that the machinist B and his
assistant, the mechanic's helper, are part of the machine-shop force
and shall include them in the unit.
Pursuant to the foregoing findings, we hereby amend the unit de-
scription in Case No. 20-RC-1844 so that the appropriate unit in that
case is as follows :
All employees in the machine shop of the mechanical department
at the Employer's Richmond, California, plant including the head
mechanic, all machinists A including the machinist A who repairs lift
trucks, the pipefitter, the welder, the carpenter, all machinists B in-
cluding the machinist B who works in the toolroom, the maintenance
man (oiler), and the mechanic's helper, but excluding the maintenance
man who sweeps the factory, the machinist A, welder, and tour boss
who are presently supervised by the mill superintendent, and all other
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Supplemental Decision.
AIRCRAFT ENGINE SERVICE, INC. and TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 10-RC-2107. February 12,
1953
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John H. Garver, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made 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].
102 NLRB No. 132.