Cyclops Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 312 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bowman Building Products Division and Allegheny
Strapping Division of Cyclops Corporation, Em-
ployer and Petitioner and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO
Bowman Building Products Division of the Cyclops
Corporation andUnited Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 6-RM-334,
6-UC-13, and 6-UC-14
March 13, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
Upon separate petitions duly filed pursuant to
Section 9(b) and (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, a consolidated hearing was
held before Hearing Officer F. J. Surprenant. Fol-
lowing the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8,
as amended, by direction of the Regional Director
for Region 6, these cases were transferred to the
National Labor Relations Board for decision. Briefs
have been filed by the Employer-Petitioner and the
Union-Petitioner.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases 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 these cases, including
the briefs filed by the parties, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3, No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of certain employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the follow-
ing reasons:
The Employer is a Pennsylvania corporation en-
gaged in the manufacture and sale of steel
strapping, steel strapping tools, steel roof deck, and
steel forms for pouring concrete, all of which are
used for industrial and commercial building, con-
struction, and other purposes. Its main plant and of-
fice are at Heidelberg, Pennsylvania. It also has a
plant at Arden Industrial Park near Washington,
Pennsylvania.
The Employer's employees at the Heidelberg
plant are represented by the Union in a production
and maintenance bargaining unit.
Prior to 1959, the Employer manufactured
strapping tools at the Heidelberg plant for use on
steel strapping. In 1959, the Employer decided to
discontinue the manufacture of strapping tools, and
from then until 1965 it purchased such tools from
Tool Room Products, Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio,
which manufactured, packaged, and shipped the
tools to the Employer's customers. In 1965, the
Employer considered whether to resume the manu-
facture of strapping tools and entered into discus-
sions with the Union concerning such a resumption.
The parties entered into a "Memorandum of Un-
derstanding Regarding Box Strapping Tools and
Devices" which provided that any work done in the
tool department, such as repair, assembly, or manu-
facture "shall be considered a new product as
manufactured on new equipment after April 7,
1964; the equipment used to perform such work
shall be considered new equipment and such work
shall be considered a product not manufactured by
the Company prior to April 7, 1964, as referred to
under Section 15 of the July 1, 1962, Company-
Union Agreement, as amended by the Revised
Memorandum of Agreement, dated August 20,
1964."
Following the Memorandum of Understanding,
the shipping and packing and minor repair of
strapping tools were returned to Heidelberg. The
strapping tools themselves were still obtained from
Tool Room Products, but were now sent to the
Heidelberg plant, from where they were sent
together with the strapping, in one bulk shipment to
customers. This work added three jobs which were
included in the existing production and main-
tenance unit.
In April 1967, the Employer announced the
establishment of a new plant at Arden Industrial
Park to manufacture strapping tools. Arden is
about 18 to 20 miles from Heidelberg. Since the
opening of this new plant the Employer has con-
tinued the practice of having the finished tools sent
to Heidelberg, where they are given a final inspec-
tion, packaged, and mailed out with the steel
strapping.
The Union demanded recognition as bargaining
representative of the employees at Arden as part of
s' In light of our disposition of these cases, we deny the Employer-Peti-
tioner's "Motion to Reopen Record."
170 NLRB No. 30
BOWMAN BUILDING PRODUCTS DIVISION
the unit in existence at Heidelberg, claming that the
work done at Arden was a return of work done at
Heidelberg until 195,9 and thus an accretion to the
Heidelberg unit. The Employer refused recognition
on the ground that the work was not an accretion
to the existing unit, but was a new operation.
The existing bargaining unit is "All employees of
the Company employed in or about the Company's
manufacturing plant in Heidelberg, Pennsylvania,
excluding salaried employees , foremen , assistant
foremen, watchmen, guards, or such others mu-
tually agreed upon." The Employer filed a petition
for an election in Case 6-RM-334 for all produc-
tion and maintenance employees at the Arden
plant, excluding all office clerical employees and
guards, professional employees, and supervisors.
However, the Union, in requesting recognition as
bargaining representative for the employees at
Arden, had requested only that they be a part of
the existing unit at Heidelberg. There being no
request to represent the employees at Arden in a
separate unit, we find that no question concerning
representation has been raised in Case 6-RM-334,
within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act, and, accordingly, we shall
dismiss the petition.'
4. The Employer also filed a petition in Case
6-UC-13, requesting that the unit at Heidelberg be
clarified by providing for the specific exclusion of
"All production and maintenance employees at the
Company's plant at the Arden Industrial Park in
Washington County, Pennsylvania." On the other
hand, the Union, in Case 6-UC-14, filed a petition
for unit clarification, seeking to include these
production and maintenance employees of the
Arden, Pennsylvania, facility with the employees at
Heidelberg.
While the Arden plant will ultimately employ 12
persons, it had a work force of 6 as of the date of
the hearing. All of these employees were new hires,
none of whom had worked at Heidelberg. Only the
plant manager and foreman were transferred from
Heidelberg. However, the hiring of personnel was
carried on by the Employer's director of personnel
relations, who was also manager of industrial rela-
tions for the Heidelberg plant, and by the Em-
ployer's director of research and development. The
director of research and development has the
overall responsibility for the operations at the
Arden plant and reports directly to the president of
the Company. In like manner, the plant manager at
Heidelberg reports directly to the company pre-
sident.
313
The principal piece of equipment at Arden is a
new machine which has been on the market for
only 3 years, called "Milwaukee Matic," which is a
tape controlled machine. While the nature of the
tools being produced at Arden (strapping tools
which tighten, join, and cut steel bands) may be the
same as those produced prior to 1959 at
Heidelberg, the majority of such tools are now
pneumatically or electrically powered, whereas for-
merly they were handtools.
There are some factors which would tend to sup-
port the position that the employees at Arden are
an accretion to the contract unit at Heidelberg. The
job categories that will be in use at Arden are
production machine operators, assemblers, electri-
cal and mechanical repairmen, shipping and receiv-
ing clerk, tool-and-die man, and control machine
operators. Those former tool department em-
ployees, who are still employed at Heidelberg, were
machine operators, setup men, tool-and-die
makers, and assemblers. Thus, it would appear that
some categories to be used at Arden were formerly
used at Heidelberg. The product being produced is
for the same purpose as that which was formerly
produced; however,.it is of an advanced technologi-
cal nature. Also the tools produced at Arden will be
sent to Heidelberg, where they will be shipped to
customers; however, the same procedure was fol-
lowed when the tools were produced by a contrac-
tor. Finally, paychecks are made up at Heidelberg,
although it would appear that the records of Arden
employees are kept at Arden and that such em-
ployees are paid at Arden.
Upon consideration of the entire record, how-
ever, we believe that the employees in the Em-
ployer's new strapping tool production operation at
Arden are not an accretion to the existing unit at
Heidelberg. We note especially the changed and
advanced nature of the process by which the
strapping tools are manufactured as well as the sub-
stantially different nature of the tools themselves.
Also we note that the operation at Arden has been
staffed, below the level of foreman, entirely with
new employees, and that there is no employee.4n-
terchange between the Arden and Heidelberg
plants. The Arden plant was stocked with new
equipment. The two plants are separately super-
vised by higher management officials, and there is
an 18-to 20-mile distance between them. The
parties' collective-bargaining contract contains no
provision requiring its application to the Arden
operation and the wages, hours, fringe benefits, and
other working conditions at Arden are substantially
2 Amperex Electronic Corporation, 109 NLRB 353
314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
different from those at the Heidelberg plant. In all
the circumstances, we find that the Arden plant is
not an accretion to the Heidelberg plant unit,' and
we shall accordingly dismiss the Union's petition
for unit clarification in Case 6-UC-14.
It is thus clear that, as contended by the Em-
ployer, the appropriate unit consists of only the em-
ployees at the Heidelberg plant, and since the unit
description as it appears in the contract clearly is
limited to the Heidelberg plant employees, we find
it unnecessary to issue an order in connection with
the Employer's petition in Case 6-UC-13 for unit
clarification, and therefore dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions in Cases
6-RM-334, 6-UC-13, and 6-UC-14 be, and they
hereby are, dismissed.
a See Pullman Industries, Inc., 159 NLRB 580.