Continental Can Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 276 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find no merit in the Employer's argument that because the
parties have in the past ignored district lines, the Board must now do
likewise and join certain stores in an adjoining district to those here
involved. Although there is no interchange between the employees in
the eight rural stores and those in the other stores in District 405, and
the two groups are otherwise distinguished by certain minor differences
in their working conditions, the appropriateness of the eight store unit
in this case rests upon its residual character, and not on other factors.
No persuasive reason appears, therefore, for crossing the administra-
tive boundaries which normally delineate the scope of appropriate
units for this type of employee. For this same reason, we also reject
the Employer's further contention that these meat department em-
ployees may only be represented in a broader unit of such employees
embracing some, but not all, of the districts in its St. Louis branch.
No issue is raised respecting the composition of the unit. The Board
has long recognized the craft skills of meat department employees in
chain grocery stores, and for that reason has placed them, upon request,
in bargaining units apart from other store employees .3 The record
here shows no reason for departing from that practice in this case.
Accordingly, we find that all meat department employees in the
Employer's stores in Trenton, Waterloo, Mascoutah, Lebanon, Dupo,
Carlyle, New Athens, and Breeze, all in the State of Illinois, excluding
all other employees, guards, professional employees, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
of the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
3 The Kroger Company, 77 NLRB 370; Colonial Stores, Incorporated , 84 NLRB 558.
4Uncontradicted testimony of the Employer 's representative shows that head meat
cutters have supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act. Head meat cutters are
therefore excluded from the unit as supervisors . The record also shows that the head
meat cutter in the Carlyle store is the sole meat department employee assigned here. As
he has no subordinate working under him and therefore has no occasion to exercise any
supervisory authority, he is included in the unit.
CONTINENTAL CAN CO., INC. and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,
C. I. 0., PETITIONER, Case No. 5-RC-684. February 14, 1951
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 John J. A. Reynolds, Jr.,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
93 NLRB No. 31.
CONTINENTAL CAN CO., INC. 277
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, Murdock, and Styles].
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 employees of
the Employer.'
3. Local 341 and the Employer are at present parties.to an auto-
matically renewable contract of which the effective date is April 15,
1949, and the expiration date is April 15, 1951. As the contract is
nearing the end of its term, we consider it unnecessary to pass upon
the contract bar contentions. Accordingly, we find that a question af-
fecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees
of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The parties are agreed that the unit of production and maintenance
employees sought by the Petitioner is appropriate, but the Machinists
contends that "all tool and die makers, machinists, their helpers and
apprentices," constitute a craft group and should be given an oppor-
tunity to vote for representation as a separate appropriate unit. The
Employer and the Petitioner contend that the unit sought by the
Machinists is inappropriate because the work of these employees is
closely integrated with that of the production employees. Local 341
took the same position at the hearing but subsequently requested the
Board to withdraw its objections to the unit sought by the Machinists.
The Employer employs approximately 42 machinists, 8 die makers,
and 3 to 5 engine lathe and grinder operators.2 The common aim of
all these employees is to maintain the production machinery of the
plant at all times. The die makers and the engine lathe and grinder
operators work exclusively in the machine shop, as do 5 of the ma-
chinists. Twenty-two of the machinists spend only about one-quarter
of their time in the machine shop and the remainder out in the pro-
duction areas. Fifteen of the machinists spend all their time in
the production areas, except for occasional trips to the machine shop.2
'Motions to intervene at the hearing were granted to International Association of
Machinists , hereinafter called the Machinists, and to Local 341 of Internatonal Brother-
hood of Firemen & Oilers, A. F. L, hereinafter called Local 341.
3 The Machinists is willing either to include or exclude the engine lathe and grinder
operators , who work at,specialist branches of the machinist trade As these employees
work on the same parts as the machinists, in conjunction with them , and work entirely
within the machine shop , we shall draw no distinction between them and the general
machinists.
3 Transfers of personnel may be made between the three groups of machinists , but there
is no exchange of personnel or duties between any of these employees and the production
employees . In the course of their maintenance duties, machinists may occasionally
operate production machinery for the purpose of adjusting or improving its function.
278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All the employees exercise a high degree of skill acquired in the course
of a 4-year training plan at the Employer's plant or its equivalent
elsewhere. Their rate schedule is higher than that of any other group
of employees of the Employer except the lithographers. Notwith-
standing the bargaining history on a broader basis and the partial
supervision of machinists working in the production areas by produc-
tion supervisors, we find that these employees possess and exercise
the high degree of skill normally found in their craft, and may, if
they so desire, constitute a separate bargaining unit .4 Accordingly,
we shall direct that separate elections by secret ballot be held among
the employees of the Employer's plant number 16 at Baltimore, Mary-
land, in the following voting groups :
(1) All tool and die makers, machinists, their helpers and appren-
.tices, including engine lathe and grinder operators, but excluding all
other employees, guards, and supervisors.
(2) All production and maintenance employees, excluding all em-
ployees included in voting group (1) above, office clerical and profes-
sional employees, guards, and supervisors.
If the employees in voting group (1) select the Machinists, they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bar-
gaining unit.°
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4National Biscuit Company, 88 NLRB 313 ; Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, 85
NLRB 559; Continental Can Co., Inc , 76 NLRB 131 , National Container Corporation,
Inc., 75 NLRB 92.
5 As the Machinists indicated at the hearing that it did not desire , to represent the
employees in a plant -wide unit , we shall not place its name on the ballot in voting group
(2).
E. H. PERRY , E. H. PERRY, JR., T . A. HARRIS, AND E. H. PERRY, JR.,
TRUSTEE D/B/A SOUTHWEST TABLET MANUFACTURING COMPANY' and
LOCAL UNION No. 46 , DALLAS PRINTING PRESSMAN AND ASSISTANTS'
UNION, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 16-RC-634. February 14,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before H. Carnie Russell,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
I The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
93 NLRB No. 37.