E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 849 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY 849
tion. We shall therefore adopt the Regional Director's recommenda-
tion and order that the election be set aside and a new election be
directed.
[The Board set aside the election held on January 10 and 11, 1956.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision , Order, and Direction of Second Election.
E. I. du Pont de Nexnours and Company (Pompton Lakes Works)
and District No. 161 , International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-8298. March 28, 1957
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 I. L. Broadwin, hearing
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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Bean].
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. 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 Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of machinists and their ap-
prentices from an existing production and maintenance unit. As
an alternative choice, it would sever the entire machine shop depart-
ment, or any part thereof. The Employer and the Intervenor moved
to dismiss the petition on the ground that none of the proposed units
is appropriate.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of blasting caps and
other explosive products at Pompton Lakes, New Jersey. The plant
occupies almost 300 acres and its operations, because of the danger in-
volved in loading explosives, are scattered through more than 200
1 Employees Council Plan Association , the intervenor herein, has been the certified
bargaining representative for a production and maintenance unit at the Pompton Lakes
plant since 1946.
117 NLRB No. 126.
423784-57-vol. 117-55
850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
buildings. There are nine departments in the plant. One of these
is power and maintenance , a subdivision of which is called the ma-
chine shop department. There are about 145 employees in the ma-
chine shop department, and of these, 91 are machinists, first, second, or
third class, and machinist apprentices.
Employees in the machine shop department are housed for the most
part in the machine shop building. On the first floor of this building
is a large, well-equipped machine shop containing the customary
metal working tools necessary to fabricate parts and repair all kinds
of machinery . On the second floor of the same building is a produc-
tion machine shop where items are manufactured for sale and where
dies are produced on a repetitive basis for use within the plant. In
the production machine shop are employed dry grinder operators,
screw machine operators , and machinist helpers. The latter are, de-
spite their title, engaged solely in production work. They do not
assist the machinists for whom severance is sought.
About two-thirds of the machinists work in the machine shop; the
others are assigned to manufacturing areas where they spend most of
their time in the maintenance and repair of the machinery located in
the particular area. Machinists assigned to production areas may go
to the machine shop to use the tools located there for the purpose of re-
pairing or fabricating parts for machinery. The machinists wherever
located are interchangeable, and may be reassigned between the ma-
chine shop and the manufacturing areas depending upon the Em-
ployer's needs at any given time.
There is an apprenticeship .program for machinists requiring 4 years
of in-shop training and 800 hours of classroom instruction. Of the
present machinists some went through the apprenticeship program,
some were hired as skilled machinists , and some were transferred from
other jobs to that of machinist, third class. All machinists, wherever
assigned , are required to have the same basic skills and, in accordance
with their classification , to possess the knowledge , experience, and
ability to produce finished or precision work on any machine tool to a
high degree of accuracy . They must know how to read blueprints,
and to perform all work necessary in preparing and setting up
machines.
Under the supervisor of the machine shop department are two gen-
eral foremen, one for area repairs and one for the shop sections. In
the area repairs section , several repairman classifications work with
machinists . The repairmen are specialists in the maintenance of one
particular type of machine , and normally perform the regular main-
tenance work thereon . However, major repairs and overhauls, and
the assembly of new machinery are done by the machinists.
The Employer and Intervenor contend that severance of machinists
is not justified for the reasons discussed below . It is contended that
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY 851
the machinists are merely a segment of a group with similar skills and
performing related work. In this connection, the Employer and Inter-
venor point to the repairmen and urge that they, as well as the ma-
chinists assigned to the manufacturing areas, are trained as specialists
in the maintenance of specialized production machinery. The Em-
ployer has conducted a training course in the operation and mainte-
nance of new machinery which it has recently designed and installed
and which automatically performs the entire job of producing its major
product, electric blasting caps. The course covers 160 hours of in-
struction. According to the testimony of machinists who attended it,
the instruction there received is in no way a substitute for the ma-
chinist apprenticeship program which is both more detailed and of
much wider scope. We agree with the Petitioner that neither the re-
pairmen nor the machine operators in the production machine shop are
required to have the basic skills of the machinist's craft which the
Employer does require of those employees classified as machinists.
The Employer and Intervenor also contend that a unit limited to
machinists would be inappropriate as excluding employees in the direct
line of progression to the craft. We do not agree since it is evident
that the apprenticeship program and the fact that most of the ma-
chinists were hired only on the basis of their possession of machinist
skills clearly indicate that no other employee classification in the plant
is in the direct line of progression to a machinist job. It is also con-
tended that there is frequent interchange between machinists and
other classifications in the machine shop department. Although there
is some evidence in the record of transfers and promotions into the
classification of machinist, third class, these have been based primarily
on the ability of the particular individual to perform the work of the
new classification. Whatever temporary interchanges occur have been
occasioned by transfers because of sickness or vacations. It is clear
that transfers and promotions, as distinguished from frequent inter-
change between classifications doing closely related work, do not de-
stroy the functional identity of the machinist group.
On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, we find that the
machinists and their apprentices 2 are craftsmen and that together they
may be represented as a separate craft unit by the Petitioner, which
has traditionally represented such groups. For the reasons stated
above, the motions to dismiss the petition because of the alleged inap-
propriateness of that unit are denied.
We shall direct an election in a voting group of machinists first,
second, and third class and machinist apprentices at the Employer's
2 Two second-class machinists , J. McCormick and E. Smith , are sheet metal workers
who were promoted to a machinist classification , despite their inability to do normal
second-class machinists ' work , as a convenience to them and the Employer . We shall
not include them in the machinists voting group provided for above.
852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BEARD
Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, plant, excluding all other employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have indi-
cated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the
Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the
employees described above, which the Board, under such circum-
stances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
In the event a majority do not vote for the Petitioner, these employees
shall remain a part of the existing unit and the Regional Director will
issue a certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Standard Cigar Company and Cigar Makers International Union
of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 12-RC--8 (formerly
10-RC-3525). March 28,1957
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 Allen Sinsheimer, Jr., hear-
ing officer. 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
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
'During the hearing, the Employei renewed motions to dismiss which had been previ-
ously made to, and denied by, the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, and made addi-
tional motions to dismiss, all of which were referred by the hearing officer to the Board
The Employer also made several offers of proof and motions for continuance of the hearing,
which were denied by the hearing officer These various motions were based upon alleged
inadequacies in the Petitioner 's showing of interest and in its compliance with the filing
requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act In addition, after the hearing,
the Employer filed with the Board motions to dismiss, to investigate these matters
administratively , or to reopen the heaiing foi fuither evidence regarding the adequacy of
the Petitioner ' s interest showing and Section 9 compliance , resting on grounds set forth
in its accompanying brief. All these notions are hereby denied for the reasons set forth
below, except the motion for an administrative investigation of Petitioner's compliance
which is the subject of an administrative deteinunation of compliance status
2 As the Employer annually sells cigars valued at over $200,000 to companies in the
State of Florida , each of which annually ships goods valued at over $50,000 out of the
State, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Jonesboro
Grain Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481.
S The Employer refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act As the Petitioner is an organization which represents employees
for collective bargaining purposes , we find that it is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act
117 NLRB No. 129.