Eaton Yale & Towne, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 217 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

EATON YALE & TOWNE, INC. 217
Eaton Yale & Towne , Inc. and International Associa-
tion of Tool Craftsmen and its Local - No. 20,
N.F.I.U., Petitioner. Case 10-RC-8397
June 16, 1971
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Robert C. Batson.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, and by
direction of the Regional Director for Region 10, this
case was transferred to the National Labor Relations
Board for decision. Briefs have been timely filed by the
Employer, the Petitioner, and the Intervenor.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board was delgated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They 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 Act and it will effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of 'employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of approxi-
mately 22 "Tool Makers A, Tool Makers B, Tool and
Cutter Grinders A, Tool and Cutter Grinder trainees,
Tool Maker apprentices, and Tool Room Helpers"2
from the existing unit of approximately 1,000
production and maintenance employees currently
represented by the Intervenor. The Employer opposes
severance, contending that the, toolroom. and
production operations are highly integrated and the the
existing pattern of plantwide collective bargaining has
produced stable labor relations which would be dis-
rupted by establishing a separate unit for toolroom
employees. The Intervenor, while otherwise adopting
' United Textile Workers of America, Local Union No. 297, AFL-CIO,
was permitted to intervene on the basis of the existing contract between the
Employer and United Textile Workers of America and its Local No. 297,
AFL-CIO.
3 The petition was amended at the hearing to conform to the Employer's
classifications of the employees sought. The Petitioner indicated, however,
that it would proceed to an election in any unit found appropriate by the
Board
the Employer's contentions, also questions the Peti-
tioner's ability to represent toolroom employees effec-
tively.
The Employer is an Ohio corporation with an office
and place of business at Lenoir City, Tennessee, where
it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of locks and
builders' hardware. This plant is one of three which
make up the Employer's hardware division; the other
two are at Gallatin, Tennessee, and Monroe, North
Carolina.'
The employees sought herein work in the toolroom
of the Lenoir City plant. The toolroom is separated
from the production departments by yellow lines
painted on the floor, as are all other departments in the
plant. The toolroom operates on three shifts. Until re-
cently, only the first shift had its own foreman, but a
toolroom foreman for the second shift was recently
hired. The one toolroom employee on the third shift,
which was started about 2 months before the filing of
the petition herein, works without a supervisor present
and would consult with the day shift toolroom super-
visor should any problems arise.
While much of their work consists of making new
parts or repairing existing parts for production machin-
ery, they also make tools for the Gallatin and Monroe
plants. When a complete new tool or replacement tool
is required, the Employer almost always purchases it
from the outside. In addition, the Employer's chief
manufacturing engineer admitted that some of the tool-
room employees had been complaining about the
amount of toolroom work which was being subcon-
tracted to outside shops. It is thus apparent that the
toolroom employees do substantially the same work as
that sent to outside shops.
Approximately 90 percent of the toolroom em-
ployees' time is spent in the toolroom. The remainder
of their time is spent in production departments trying
out new or repaired parts, making minor repairs, and
otherwise troubleshooting. Apart from such tryouts
and minor repairs, toolroom employees do not, work on
production machines and there is no interchange be-
tween them and production employees. Unlike other
employees, each toolroom employee buys his own
tools. They use precision tools which no one else in the
plant is allowed to use.
Under the circumstances, we conclude that the tool-
room's role in the Employer's production process is not
so integrally a part upon which the production flow is
dependent as to compel a finding that a separate unit
of toolroom employees is necessarily inappropriate if
other factors demonstrate the propriety of such a unit.`
' The employees at the Gallatin plant , including the toolroom employees,
are represented on a plantwide basis by the United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO. The employees at the Monroe plant are unrepresented.
Buddy L Corporation, 167 NLRB 808, 809.
191 NLRB No. 36
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There is no contention that the toolroom employees
are not craftsmen, and the record amply demonstrates
that their work involves the exercise of craft skills and
performance of craft functions on a nonrepetitive basis.
The Employer has a formal apprenticeship program,
certified by the State Department of Labor, and tool-
room employees who are not already journeymen must
go through this program. We find, therefore, that the
toolroom employees are craftsmen.
The Petitioner was formed in 1953 for the purpose
of representing craftsmen in the tool-and-die making
trade, and its president testified without contradiction
that it represents only separate units of toolroom em-
ployees. We find, as we have in a number of prior cases,'
that the Petitioner qualifies as a traditional representa-
tive of toolroom employees.
The Employer voluntarily recognized the Intervenor
as the bargaining representative of its employees when
it opened its Lenoir City plant in 1954. The initial
contract specifically excluded apprentices, who were
then the only employees working in the toolroom.
However, this exclusion was dropped when the next
contract was negotiated in 1957. Since 1957, the tool-
room, employees have received substantially the same
fringe benefits and have been subject to the same work-
ing conditions as the production employees. However,
toolroom employees have separate seniority. While the
toolroom employees have consistently received the
highest wage rates in the plant, there is uncontradicted
testimony that their wage rates are considerably lower
than those of toolroom employees of other employers
in the area. In 1967, when the toolroom employees
complained about their wage rates, the Intervenor
negotiated a wage adjustment for them in addition to
the increase received by all unit employees. Still dis-
satisfied, the toolroom employees later sought to have
the contract reopened, but the Intervenor declined to
do so unless the contract could be reopened for the
entire unit. Thereafter, the petition in the instant case
was filed.
Several of the toolroom employees never joined the
Intervenor, and most of them did not participate ac-
tively in its affairs. In 1967, one toolroom employee was
selected to be on the Intervenor's negotiating commit-
tee, but he did not participate in the contract negotia-
tions because his foreman told him that he was needed
on his job. The toolroom does not have its own shop
steward and the toolroom employees have not asked
any other department's shop steward to file or handle
a grievance for them; when unable to resolve a griev-
ance by talking to their foreman, they have discussed
it directly with higher company officials, rather than
utilizing the contractual grievance procedure.
' See, e.g., Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., 180 NLRB No 63; Buddy
L Corporation, supra.
The Employer introduced evidence of a telephone
survey which it made, claiming that it showed a pattern
of plantwide bargaining in the industry. However, the
survey was admittedly not complete, and the evidence
discloses that the toolroom employees of at least one of
the Employer's major competitors are represented
separately by the Petitioner. On this record, we regard
the bargaining pattern in the industry as inconclusive
and insufficient to show that the establishment of a
separate unit of toolroom employees would disturb in-
dustry stability in labor relations.
On the above facts, we conclude that the unit sought
herein may be appropriate for severance purposes un-
der the standards set forth in the Mallinckrodt case.,'
The unit clearly constitutes an identifiable group of
highly skilled employees who, notwithstanding their
inclusion for 13 years in the production and mainte-
nance unit, have maintained their separate identity and
have not participated actively in the affairs of the Inter-
venor or utilized the contractual grievance procedure.
On this record, we cannot conclude that the separate
community of interests which the toolroom employees
enjoy by reason of their skills and training has been
irrevocably submerged in the broader community of
interest which they share with other employees. We
therefore find that an election among - the toolroom
employees should be held to determine their wishes.'
Accordingly, we shall make no final unit determina-
tion at this time, but as provided below, shall direct an
election among those in the following voting group:
All Tool Makers A, Tool Makers B, Tool and Cutter
Grinders A, Tool and Cutter Grinder trainees, Tool
Maker apprentices, and Tool Room Helpers employed
at the Employer's Lenoir City, Tennessee, plant, ex-
cluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be
taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a sepa-
rate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director is in-
structed to issue a Certification of Representative to the
Petitioner for the unit described herein, which the
Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining. In the
event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board
finds the existing unit to be appropriate and the Re-
gional Director will issue a Certification of Results of
Election to such effect.
6 Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Uranium Division, 162 NLRB 387.
Member Fanning agrees with his colleagues that a severance election is
called for in this case under the standards set forth in the Mallinckrodt
decision. In joining his colleagues, he also relies on principles and considera-
tions set forth in his dissenting opinion in the Mallinckrodt case.
' Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., supra; Buddy L Corporation, supra.
EATON YALE & TOWNE, INC. 219
[Direction of Election8 omitted from publication .] Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing
the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the
Employer with the Regional Director for Region 10 within 7 days of the
In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional Director shall
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all make the list available to all parties to the election . No extension of time
parties to the election should have access to a hst of voters and their ad- to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordi-
dresses which maybe used to communicate with them. Excelsior Underwear nary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be
Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759. grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed.