E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 26, 1949

83 N.L.R.B. 865 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of E. I. Du PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, EM-
PLOY ER and LODGE 689, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
PETITIONER
Case No. 3-RC-184.-Decided May 26, 1919
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this matter was held before
David F. Doyle, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board.
At the hearing, the Employer and Niagara Plant Employees Union,
herein called the Intervenor, separately moved to dismiss the petition
on the ground that the unit requested by the Petitioner is inappropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Intervenor also
moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner does
not represent a substantial number of employees in the requested unit.
The hearing officer referred these motions to the Board. For the
reasons stated below, the motions are hereby denied 1 The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and 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
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. A 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.
4. The appropriate unit; the determination of representatives :
The contentions of the parties
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit composed of all machinists
and machinist apprentices in the Employer's Niagara Falls, New
3 The Intervenor 's motion to dismiss upon the ground that the Petitioner does not
represent a substantial number of employees in the proposed unit is denied for the reasons
stated in Matter of O. D . Jennings E Company , 68 N. L. it. B.'516.
83 N. L. R. B., No. 131.
865
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
York, plant, excluding janitors, office and clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, guards, and supervisors.2 The Employer and the
Intervenor contend that the proposed unit is inappropriate, because
(a) the employees sought herein do not constitute a true craft group;
(b) the bargaining pattern in the chemical industry throughout the
United States is predominantly industrial in 'character, no machinist
craft units having been established in this industry; and (c) the Peti-
tioner does not seek to represent other employees performing work
that is similar to that performed by machinists. Both the Employer
and the Intervenor assert that only the existing plant-wide unit
represented by the latter is appropriate.
The craft characteristics of the machinists
The unit proposed by the Petitioner consists of approximately 30
machinists and 2 apprentices. Twenty-four of them are assigned to
the machine shop. These machinists make replacement parts for plant
machines and take apart, repair, and assemble such machines. In the
performance of their duties, they use the precision and machine tools
of their trade, including boring mills, lathes, tool presses, surface
-grinders, circular grinders, shapers, and drill presses. Some of the
machinists in the machine shop are also frequently required to work
throughout the plant in repairing heavy machines. One machinist,
although carried on the machine shop pay roll, is regularly assigned
to the physical laboratory where he is engaged in the construction and
testing of experimental equipment. In addition to the 24 machinists
in the machine shop, there are 5 machinists, 2 of whom are carried on
,the machine shop pay roll, who work in the carbon shop, where they
operate a vertical boring mill and other machine tools, and shape gra-
phite, which is a highly skilled machinist operation. Still another
machinist is assigned to the valve and meter repair shop where he
-operates a lathe, inspects valve repair work, makes up special fittings,
and performs other general machinist work.
All machinists, irrespective of the shop to which they are assigned,
perform comparable work and receive the same pay for their respec-
tive classifications.3 All work, under similar general working condi-
tions and have the same employee benefits: With the exception of the
two machinists mentioned above, who are assigned to the physical lab-
, In the alternative , the Petitioner is willing to represent the employees in either of the
following three units: ( 1) all employees in the machine shop , including the machinists
employed in the physical laboratory and the carbon shop ; ( 2) all employees in the machine
shop, including the machinist employed in the physical laboratory ; and (3 ) all machinists
and machinist apprentices in the machine shop . The Petitioner also would exclude from
its alternative proposed units the same classifications and categories excluded in its primary
mnit request.
Machinists are classified as grade AA, A, B, and C.
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY 867
oratory and the valve and meter repair shop, respectively, all work
under- the supervision of the machine shop foreman. Practically all
the 'eployees in the requested unit were hired initially by the Em-
ployer either as trained machinists or as machinist apprentices. In
these circumstances, we find, contrary to the contention of the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor, that the machinists sought by the Peti-
tioner constitute an identifiable homogeneous craft group .4
Bargaining pattern in the industry
As stated above, the Employer and the Intervenor contend that no
machinist craft units have been established in the chemical manufac-
turing industry. We find no merit in this contention. The Board
has in fact- found machinist craft units appropriate in the chemical
industry.5
Work performed by other craft groups
The Employer and the Intervenor also assert that the proposed unit
is inappropriate because the Petitioner seeks to exclude area mechanics,
millwrights, shift mechanics, welders, pipe fitters, blacksmiths, scale
men, salvage mechanics, valve repairmen, tinsmiths, riggers, and trans-
portation men, all of whom perform work which is alleged to be similar
to, that performed by the machinists. Although the record reveals
that the machinists spend a substantial portion of their time working
on various types of pumps, compressors, and turbines, as do the em-
ployees in the categories mentioned above, it is clear that the machinists
perform work which is different-from that of other maintenance em-
ployees. Only machinists make replacement parts for machines and
perform maintenance work requiring the use of precision machine
tools, such as lathes and shapers.° Moreover, while performing such
See Matter of Dazey Corporation, 77 N. L. It. B. 408, and cases cited therein.
Although the record does not disclose the length of the period of apprenticeship, or the
training periods for machinists , as pointed out by Member Gray in his dissenting opinion, it
Is clear that these machinists regularly undergo substantial periods of training before they
may qualify for higher classifications . It also is clear that they exercise true craft skills.
As shown above, practically all of them are engaged in the fabrication of replacement parts
for plant machines . In this operation , they use the precision and machine tools of their
trade and exercise a very high degree of skill. In a number of recent cases we have found
that employees possessing skills and performing functions similar to those of these ma-
' chinists constituted true craft groups, and have awarded them self-determination elections.
,See Matter of Roane-Anderson Company, 83 N. L. It. B . 30; Matter of Columbia Pictures
Corporation, 80 N. L . R. B. 1381 ; Matter of C. Hager & Sons Hinge Manufacturing Com-
pany, 80 N. L . It. B. 163; Matter of Victor Electric Products , Inc., 79 N. L. It. B. 373.
6 See Matter of National Lead Company-Titanium Division, 79 N. L . R. B. 96 , and cases
cited thetrein ; cf. Matter of Ethyl Corporation ( Sodium and Tetraethyl Lead areas), 80
N. L. R. B. 9.
6 For example , the Employer 's area mechanics , who are distributed among six area shops
located throughout the plant , are responsible for making minor repairs and adjustments
,to plant - machines. Although they use some of the tools ordinarily used by machinists,
they do not use or operate machine 'tools such as lathes , shapers, milling machines , planers,
grinders, and poring mills.
868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work, they remain under the supervision of the machine shop foreman,
In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that the machinists do not
perform work that is similar or comparable, to that performed by the
area, mechanics, millwrights, shift mechanics, welders, pipe fitters,
blacksmiths, scale men, salvage mechanics, valve repairmen, tinsmiths,
riggers, and transportation. men. We therefore find no merit in this
contention of the Employer.
As the machinists sought by the Petitioner are an identifiable,
homogeneous craft group, we believe that they may, if they so desire,
constitute a separate unit .7 They may also continue as part of the
production and maintenance unit in' which they have been included
for more than 11 years. We shall therefore direct an election in the
following voting group :
All machinists and machinist apprentices employed in the Employ-
er's plant at Niagara Falls, New York, excluding janitors, office and
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time,
but shall be guided in part by the desires of these employees as ex-
pressed in the election herein directed. If a majority of them vote
for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to constitute a separate appropriate unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION"
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this.Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among
the employees described in the voting group, above, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tempo;
rarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior
to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to
be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Lodge 689,
* Matter of National Lead Company-Titanium Division , supra, and cases cited therein.
s Any participant in the election herein may , upon its prompt request to, and approval
thereof by, the Regional Director,.have its name removed from the ballot.
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY 869
International Association of Machinists, or by Niagara Plant Em-
ployees Union, or by neither.
MEMBER GRAY, dissenting :
In this case the Petitioner is seeking severance from an existing
plant-wide unit of a group of machinists on the ground that they
are a craft group. In such cases, the Board applies a stricter rule
than it does in cases where there has been no history of collective
bargaining for the employees in a proposed unit.
I do not agree with the findings of the majority of the, Board in
this case that these machinists are a craft group and that they should,
therefore, be awarded a self-determination election.
Section 9 (b) of the amended Act provides:
The Board shall decide in each case whether, in order to assure
to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guar-
anteed by this Act, the unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant
unit, or subdivision thereof . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
This provision continues in the Board the discretion conferred by
the Act, prior to amendment, to find that a craft unit is or is not
appropriate, subject only to the limitations imposed by Section
9 (b) (2).11
The amended Act contains no definition of the term "craft." How-
ever, the Senate debate on the provisions of 5.1126 which corresponded
to Section 9 (b) and (b) (2) of the amended Act reflects recognition
that the purpose of those provisions was to protect the interests of
"craft unions," "craftsmen," "members of a craft" and "genuine
crafts." 10 (Emphasis supplied.) The unions which supported before
the Congress the new provisions of Section 9 (b) and 9 (b) (2) insofar
as they related to the establishment of craft units were, primarily,
those unions which had been organized for generations to protect tra-
ditional craft standards of workmanship and craft wage standards.
The dictionary definition of "craft" is "art or skill, hence, an occu-
pation requiring art or skill." 11 Thus, it is not sufficient that one has a
particular skill; his work is not craft work unless it actually requires
the use of such skill.
0 Section 9 (b) (2) provides , in part :
" . . the Board shall not . . . decide that any craft unit is inappropriate for such
purposes [ I. e. collective bargaining] on the ground that a different unit has been
established by a prior Board determination . . .
As this case does not involve any prior determination by the Board as to the appropriateness
of the unit sought by the Petitioner , Section 9 ( b) (2) is not applicable here.
1093 Cong. Rec. pp. 4261 ( April 28, 1947 ), 4266 ( April 28, 1947), 5137 ( May 12, 1947),
5747 ( May 12 , 1947).
n Webster 's Collegiate Dictionary , 5th Ed.
844340-50--vol. 83-56
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This view accords with the traditional concept of a craftsman as a
journeyman who possesses and exercises all the skills of his trade.
Such journeymen before the industrial revolution exercised all their
skills in producing articles for direct consumption or use by indi-
viduals. Since the advent of the industrial revolution and the develop-
ment of the techniques of mass production, true craftsmen (e. g.,
skilled tool and die makers) are employed in large numbers in building
machines to be operated by unskilled labor. There has grown up at
the same time a large body of employees who, like the machinists in
the present case, are classified as craftsmen, but whose major function
is the maintenance and repair of plant machinery and equipment.
While some may have all the skills of true craftsmen, their work
requires, for the most part, the exercise of only part of these skills,
as in the case of maintenance carpenters, maintenance electricians,
and machinists like those in the present case whose main job is mainte-
nance and repair. The work they are required to do in servicing the
modern industrial machine does not require the precision or "know-
how" of the true craftsman; it is relatively rough and simple. Such
work is not, in my opinion, that of a member of a "craft" within the
dictionary or traditional meaning of the term, nor within the intend-
ment of Congress.
Moreover, apart from this question of the craft nature of the work
done by the machinists in this case, it is not clear, from the record
that they in fact possess any craft skills. In determining whether
particular employees possess craft skill, the Board has in the past,
and, in my opinion, quite properly, attached considerable importance
to the length of the apprenticeship which the employees are required
to serve. Thus, in Matter of International Minerals and Chemical
Corporation, 12 the Board said :
In the present case, the electricians represent a true craft group,
as exemplified by the fact that apprenticeship training extending
over at least 4 years is necessary to achieve journeyman status.
In more recent decisions, under the amended Act, the Board has
cited, in support of a finding that a particular group of .employees
possessed craft skill, the fact that they were required to serve an
apprenticeship of several years' duration 1s
In the present case, there is no evidence in the record as to the
period of training or apprenticeship required of the machinists by the
" 71 N. L. It. B. 878, 881.
Is See, for example , Matter of Schiumberger Well Surveying Corp., 83 N. L . R. B. 375,
where in finding inappropriate a unit of maintenance electricians the Board relied upon the
fact , among others , that "the employees sought [to be included in the unit ] served no
apprenticeship and their skills do not encompass the breadth of skills exercised by a
journeyman electrician" ; Matter of Lynchburg Foundry Co., 83 N . L. It. B. 415; and
Matter of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 77 N. L. It. B. 507.
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY 871
Employer and there is no basis, in my opinion , for assuming that
such period is substantial . In the absence of such evidence, I find
no warrant for the conclusion of the majority that the machinists
have craft skills.
It•seems, therefore,,that ,,the machinists neither possess nor exercise
the skill of craftsmen , and, so, do not constitute a craft group within
the contemplation of the, Act, or an appropriate unit to be severed
for collective bargaining purposes . I would, therefore , dismiss the
petition.