Dirilyte Co. of America, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 104 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
history or lack thereof of the very group of employees concerned
should not, we believe, be ignored by giving binding effect to the pat-
tern established by another group not directly involved. Considering
the lack of bargaining history for guards, their special attributes, the
wide geographic dispersal of the Employer's plants, the degree of
local control, and the nature of their present organization, we believe
that a unit of guards at one of the Employer's plants and related
warehouses would also be appropriate.
The Petitioner here has asked for a unit of Lawrenceburg plant
and Milan warehouse guards, but is also willing to include the guards
at the Kings Mills and Middletown warehouses. As these warehouses
bear the same relation to the Lawrenceburg plant as that at Milan,
we believe that the guards at all three warehouses should be included
in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that all guards at the Employer's Lawrence-
burg, Indiana, plant, and its Milan, Indiana, and Kings Mills and
Middletown, Ohio, warehouses, excluding supervisors as defined in
the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER MURDOCK, dissenting :
I am convinced that the Board's decision in the earlier Seagram
case' was correct. The majority, in reversing that decision, has, in
my opinion, discarded a salutary principle of representation case law
that has been instrumental in furthering industrial harmony. Accord-
ingly, I would, for reasons detailed in the former decision, dismiss the
petition filed herein on the ground that the unit sought by the Peti-
tioner is inappropriate.
B Joseph E . Seagram k Sons, Inc., 83 NLRB 167.
DIRILYTE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. and METAL POLISIIERS , BUFFERS,
PLATERS AND HELPERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 24, AFL,
PETITIONER . Case No. 13-RC-2852. October 27, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Helene Zogg, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
101 NLRB No. 35.
DIRILYTE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC . 105
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peter-
son].
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 certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Employer, an Indiana corporation having its principal office
and sole place of business in Kokomo, Indiana, is engaged in the manu-
facture and sale of tableware, hollowware, and airplane and rocket
parts.
The Petitioner seeks to add to its present unit the following em-
ployees : All final inspectors and all employees operating belt-polishing
machines in the forging inspection department?
In 1946 the Petitioner was certified as the representative of a unit
of metal polishers, buffers, platers, helpers, and apprentices. In 1947
as a result of self-determination elections entered into by agreement
of the parties, "inspectors" 3 were added to the unit for which the
Petitioner was previously certified and the Intervenor was certified
as the representative of the production and maintenance employees.4
As noted above, the present petition proposes to enlarge the Peti-
tioner 's existing unit by adding to it final inspectors and forging
department inspectors.
The Final Inspectors
There are two employees whose duties are visually to inspect table-
ware for polishing, buffing, or other defects, and to wrap it into pack-
ages for shipping. Their work consists of about 70 percent inspecting
and 30 percent packing. Prior to the 1947 certifications, these em-
ployees were classified as shippers and packers; sometime thereafter
I United Steelworkers of America , CIO, Local 3535, was permitted to intervene at the
hearing.
2 The latter employees will be hereinafter referred to as forging inspectors.
3 The only classification of inspectors in the Employer 's plant at that time was rough
inspectors . These employees have been bargained for by the Petitioner since the "Globe"
election in 1947. Their duties consist of the visual inspection of flatware and hollow-
ware, already processed through the various other departments , for flaws and poor
workmanship.
At the same time, the International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North
America was certified as the representative of the foundry employees.
106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOIt RELATIONS BOARD
they were reclassified as final inspectors, but the record fails to show
any substantial change in their duties. Until now, they have been
considered a part of the unit represented by the Intervenor. Indeed,
in August 1949 the Employer, Petitioner, and Intervenor agreed that
the Petitioner would represent the rough inspectors and the Inter-
venor the final inspectors.
Petitioner claims that the final inspectors have been omitted from
its unit through oversight .5 Intervenor contends that these employees
bear no relation to the polishers and that their representation by the
Intervenor since 1947 prevents their inclusion in the present polishers'
unit.
Although the Petitioner seeks to sever the final inspectors from an
established production and maintenance unit and to add them to its
existing craft group, it makes no attempt to show that these employees
are craftsmen. Nor does it appear from the record that these em-
ployees possess any craft skills.6 Because final inspectors fail to meet
any of the recognized tests for severance, we conclude that the Peti-
tioner's request must be denied 7
The Forging Inspectors
There are nine employees who comprise the department of forging
inspectors, organized within the past 18 months. These employees,
unlike the two other groups of inspectors, work principally with
defense items, such as rocket fins. The four forging inspectors on the
first floor clean, wipe, inspect, and rack these fins. The fins, after being
sent to other departments, reach the five forging inspectors on the
second floor who perform work consisting of straightening and de-
burring fins and inspecting." The rate of pay and working conditions
are the same for all forging inspectors. Although it appears that three
forging inspectors do all the deburring work on the three belt ma-
chines, two continuously and one part-time, the Employer's production
manager testified that all these inspectors are able to operate such
machines. The Petitioner seeks to add three of the total of nine
forging inspectors to its craft unit. The other six appear to have the
same skills and have, at times, interchanged duties with the three
employees in question.
8 This contention appears to be refuted by the agreement of August 1949 in which the
Petitioner expressly agreed to the Inclusion of final inspectors in the Intervenor's unit.
8 The final inspectors operate no machines and do no work similar to that done by the
employees in the Petitioner 's unit. The record fails to show that any special skill or
training period is a prerequisite to holding such position.
'+ General Electric Company , 89 NLRB 726 , 742, 751, 752, 757; International Harvester
Company, 87 NLRB 317; United Growers, Inc., et at, Sr. NLRB 583 ; see Kennecott
Copper Corporation, 96 NLRB 1423.
8 The Employer stated that the primary duties of the first floor forging inspectors are
stacking and racking and the primary duty of those on the second floor is inspection.
CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 107
The Petitioner contends that, as the three forging inspectors on the
belt machines work in a manner similar to the polishers, they should
be added to the Petitioner's present unit. The Employer contends
that all nine forging inspectors should be placed in the same unit .9
The Intervenor contends that the group sought to be included in the
Petitioner's unit is inappropriate and that any single unit of in-
spectors would also be inappropriate.10
As the three forging inspectors sought by the Petitioner constitute
only an arbitrary segment of a group of employees performing the
same type of work, we find that a unit limited to them is inappro-
priate." Because it appears that the requested unit is inappropriate
upon a craft or other basis and because the record affords no justifica-
tion for directing a self-determination election for either final in-
spectors or forging inspectors,- we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
9In the alternative , the Employer asks for one unit , encompassing all inspectors.
"It should be noted that the Intervenor appears to have made a demand on the Em-
ployer to recognize it as the bargaining representative for all nine forging inspectors.
"Gunnison Homes, Inc., 98 NLRB 1048 ; D. B. Thornton Co., 94 NLRB 1188.
79 Although a separate election for all forging inspectors is not precluded by a broader
bargaining history, the Intervenor has submitted no showing of interest as a basis for
holding an election In this group. Moreover, we will not establish a separate unit of all
forging inspectors , as neither the Petitioner nor the Intervenor seeks such a unit.
CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL,1 PETITIONER
CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and LODGE 681,
DISTRICT LODGE 27, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
AFL,' PETITIONER
CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and ELECTRICAL
WORKERS UNION LOCAL 369, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC-
TRICAL WORKERS, AFL,3 PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 9-RC-1680, 9-RC-
1695, and 9-RC-1697. October 88,1952
Decision , Order, and Direction of Election
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Richard C.
1 Hereinafter referred to as IAM.
x Hereinafter referred to as Lodge 681.
$ Hereinafter referred to as IBEW.
101 NLRB No. 32.