Friden Calculating Machine Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 15, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1618 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
FRIDEN CALCULATING MACHINE CO., INC., AND MARCHANT CALCU-
LATORS, INC. and TOOL AND DIE CRAFTSMEN, INDEPENDENT, PETI-
TIONER . Cases Nos. 20-RC-2533 and PO-RC-2534. December 15,,
1954
Supplemental Decision , Order, and Direction of Election
On March 1, 1954, the Petitioner filed petitions seeking to represent
in separate units the tool and die employees of Friden Calculating-
Machine Co., Inc., herein called Friden, and Marchant Calculators,.
Inc., herein called Marchant. On July 26, 1954, the Board issued its,
Decision and Order herein 1 dismissing the petitions on the ground
that no question concerning representation exists because the Peti-
tioner is not a "traditional" union which represents tool and die em-
ployees, as required for severance by American Potash cC Chemical
Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418, and Elgin National Watch Company,
Wadsworth Division, 109 NLRB 273.
Thereafter, on August 20, 1954, the Petitioner filed a Petition for-
Reconsideration, contending that the Board erred in the above de-
cision. Upon reconsideration of the entire record, we find merit in.
this contention.
The pertinent facts are as follows : In 1939 Friden recognized Tool
and Die Makers Local Lodge 1176, IAM, herein called Local 1176,
as the representative of its tool and die employees. Thereafter, be-
tween 1939 and 1947, Friden and Local 1176 were parties to numerous
contracts, most of which were separately negotiated aand covered only
Friden's tool and die employees. However, at least two of these con-
tracts covered all of Friden's production and maintenance employees
and resulted from joint negotiations between Friden and all the,
various Local Lodges representing its employees.
In 1941 Marchant likewise recognized Local 1176 as representative.
of its tool and die employees. Between 1941 and 1947, Marchant and
Local 1176 negotiated and executed contracts limited in coverage to-,
Marchant's tool and die employees.
In 1947, all the Local Lodges representing employees at both Friden
and Marchant had become affiliated with District Lodge No. 115, IAM.-
For contract negotiations that year, a representative from the District
Lodge and a representative from each of the Local Lodges of the two
companies bargained jointly with the representative appointed by the-
companies, for all the production and maintenance employees of each
company. As in 1947, all subsequent contracts, including the contract
for 1953, covered the comprehensive production and maintenance unit,
Each year the employees in the overall unit voted on whether or not,
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders
110 NLRB No 226
FRIDEN CALCULATING MACHINE Co., INC. 1619
to ratify the contract. In the latter connection, the tool and die em-
ployees of both Friden and Marchant were bound by the 1953 contract,
which was ratified by a majority of the employees in the production
and maintenance unit, although the majority of the tool and die
employees voted against its ratification.
The Petitioner in the present case was formed on or about March 1,
1954, by a dissatisfied element of Local 1176, including its business
representative and some of its officers. The issue is whether this Peti-
tioner is qualified to represent the requested tool and die employees in
a severance case.2
In the American Potash case, the Board recognized that members
of a craft group had special interests in common and that craft unions
arose from the need to serve those special interests. The Board felt
that there could not be true craft representation unless the union
which sought to represent a craft group was specially devoted to craft
interests. In this way, too, the Board sought to avoid the travesty
of craft representation which arose when a single union filed repre-
sentation petitions seeking to represent on a craft basis as many as
half a dozen separate and unrelated craft groups. The Board there-
fore formulated the rule that it would not grant severance to a craft
group unless "the union seeking to represent it is one which tradi-
tionally represents that craft." In our opinion, the Board meant to
convey by this sentence simply that it would grant craft severance
only to a craft union. How are we to determine whether a given labor
organization is a craft union? The obvious way is to examine its
history. A union which was established for the purpose of represent-
ing members of a given craft and which has represented that craft
over a considerable number of years clearly fits into the pattern fixed
by the Board. But this is only one test and it was not intended to be,
and should not be, the exclusive test. A union newly organized for
the sole and exclusive purpose of representing members of that craft,
in our view, can be as much a craft union as an older organization
which has been representing craft members for many years. In fact,
it is likely to be more strictly a craft union than some of the "tradi-
tional" craft unions, which started as craft unions, but over the years
have become more industrial. The only difference between the well-
established and the more recently organized craft unions is the factor
of experience. But this, it seems to us, is a matter for the concern of
the employees and not of the Board.
To hold to the contrary, as under our dissenting colleagues' inter-
pretation of the American Potash decision, would mean that craft em-
ployees who desire craft representation are forever wedded to the past.
2 In view of the aforesaid multiemployer bargaining history on a production and main-
tenance basis, we find, contrary to the Petitioner's contention ,. that a craft severance
problem is raised by the instant petitions.
1620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAtu,
They could no longer create new craft organizations. We do not think
it proper for a governmental agency to grant monopoly rights to par-
ticular labor organizations to the point of preventing new craft unions
desired by employees from coming into being.
We find that the Petitioner is a craft union which may sever tool
and die craft employees from an existing larger unit.' We, therefore,
find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The voting group: The Petitioner in effect seeks to sever from the
established bargaining unit of production and maintenance employees
of Friden and Marchant at their San Leandro, California, plants
separate units consisting of all tool and die employees, including
toolroom machinists, heat treaters, tool and die working foremen in
production departments, and their helpers and apprentices. The Em-
ployer and the IAM contend that only a single overall unit is appro-
priate and that the employees sought do not constitute a true craft
group as some of those employees do not exercise true craft skills.
The IAM also contends that the machinists must be included in any
craft group of tool and die employees for severance purposes.
As to scope, the previously described bargaining history reveals
that bargaining for the employees of Friden and Marchant has been
on a multiemployer production and maintenance basis since 1947.
In view of this fact, any severance of the tool and die employees must
be coextensive with that established multiemployer unit.
As to composition, we shall consider below the categories in question :
Tool- and die-makers and apprentices : The parties agree that these
employees build, repair, and inspect tools, dies, jigs, guages, and fix-
tures, using the skills and machinery common to the tool and die
craft. They use blueprints in their work, which is performed to ex-
tremely close tolerances. Before reaching journeyman status, an em-
ployee must complete an 8,000 hour apprenticeship program or possess
its equivalent in training or experience. We find that the tool- and
die-makers and apprentices are true craftsmen.
Toolroom machinists: These employees are located in the same de-
partments as the tool- and die-makers. They operate lathes and make
the blanks for the tools and dies. They perform only rough work on
the tools and dies, which are then turned over to the tool- and die-
makers for the remaining work. Although the parties agree that
these employees are not journeymen, the Petitioner contends that they
should be included in the unit as helpers to the tool- and die-makers.
The record, however, does not reveal whether these employees are in
3 To the extent that the Elgin Watch decision is inconsistent herewith , that decision
is hereby overruled.
FRIDEN CALCULATING MACHINE CO., INC. 1621
the direct line of progression in the tool and die craft,' and accord-.
ingly, we shall permit them to vote subject to challenge.
Machinists : The IAM contends that any unit of tool and die em-
ployees for severance purposes should also include machinists, main-
tenance machinists, automatic screw machinists, and their appren-
tices. These employees are separately located and separately super-
vised. Although these employees use many machines which are
similar to those used by the tool- and die-makers, they do not build
or repair tools and dies, nor do they exercise the skills of tool- and
die-makers. Accordingly, although some of them may exercise
machinists craft skills, the tool- and die-maker unit sought by the
Petitioner, as found hereinafter, may be appropriate, and we shall
exclude the machinists from the voting group.'
Heat treaters : These employees are separately located in the heat-
treating department. They heat-treat tools and dies for the tool-
and die-makers only a small portion of their time. They spend the
remainder of their time heat-treating parts for the production depart-
ments. The parties agree that these employees are not exercising the
skills of the tool and die craft, nor are they in the line of progression
in that craft. We shall, therefore, exclude them from the unit.
Working foremen in production departments: There are certain
working foremen 8 employed in the production departments who have
been trained in the tool and die craft. However, they exercise tool
and die craft skills only approximately 10 percent of their time. The
remainder of their time is spent working as leadermen for the pro-
duction employees. As these employees exercise tool and die skills
only a small percentage of their time, we shall exclude them from
the unit.'
It is clear, as found above, that the tool- and die-makers and their
apprentices sought by the Petitioner perform work involving a high
degree of true craft skill. As they compose an identifiable, distinc-
tive, and homogeneous craft group embracing all employees of the
same type within the plants, and as the Petitioner is qualified to repre-
sent such employees, we find that they may be severed from the exist-
ing production and maintenance unit. Accordingly, we shall direct
an election in the following voting group:
All tool- and die-makers and their apprentices, including their
working foremen, and toolroom machinists," at the Friden and Mar-
chant plants at San Leandro, California, but excluding machinists,
4 American Potash if Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418.
6 Remington Rand, Inc ., 109 NLRB 622.
6 The parties agree that these working foremen and the working foremen for the tool
and die employees are not supervisors as defined in the Act.
7 Associated Business Service, 107 NLRB 219.
8 Our inclusion of the toolroom machinists in the voting group does not constitute a final
determination concerning their unit placement.
1622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
heat treaters, working foremen for the production employees, profes-
sional employees, office clerical employees, technical employees, guards,
and all other employees 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 separate unit, which the Board
finds under the circumstances to be appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue
a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit. If
the majority vote for the IAM, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to remain a part of the existing multiemployer produc-
tion and maintenance unit and the Regional Director is instructed to
issue a certificate of results of election to that effect.
[The Board revoked the Decision and Order issued on July 26,
1954.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and BEESON, dissenting :
We cannot agree with the majority decision that the Petitioner in
this case is a qualified representative for severance purposes.
The Board established, in the American Potash case, certain prin-
ciples to be followed in all craft severance cases, one of which was
that the union seeking to sever the craft must be one which tradition-
ally represents that craft. The Board said, "In requiring that the
union seeking severance must be the one which traditionally repre-
sents that craft we are taking cognizance of the fact that there are
unions which have devoted themselves to the special problems of the
various craft employees, thereby demonstrating that the interests of
these craft employees are distinctive and traditionally recognized."
Thereafter, in the Elgin Watch case, the Board specifically held : "The
concept of a traditional bargaining representative, it seems apparent,
conveys the idea of a history of representation of such employees. It
follows, therefore, that a newly-formed labor organization can hardly
be termed a `traditional' bargaining representative."
The majority now overrules the carefully considered decision in
Elgin Watch (in which Chairman Farmer and Member Rodgers par-
ticipated) on the grounds that such decision forever weds craft em-
ployees to the past and prevents the formation of new craft unions.
It is obvious that no such result is dictated by that decision. It does
not preclude the formation of a new craft union to represent employees
of a specific craft, nor does it preclude that union from representing
craft employees who are unrepresented. It merely precludes the
newly formed craft union from severing the craft employees from an
established bargaining unit until it has acquired sufficient experience
in representing employees of the craft to meet the "traditional" union
ROLLO TRANSIT CORPORATION 1623
test enunciated in the American Potash case. To say that a mush-
room union such as the petitioner meets the "traditional union test"
of the Potash, case, but that other craft and industrial unions with long
and successful histories of bargaining for crafts do not is both illogi-
cal and unreasonable. By its decision in this case, the majority has,
for all practical purposes, abandoned the "traditional union" test and
reinstated the rule in effect prior to the American Potash decision
which permitted craft severance irrespective of whether or not the
petitioning union was by history, tradition, and experience equipped
to serve and advance the special interests of the specific craft involved.
The petitioning union in this case clearly is a newly formed labor
organization and has not previously represented employees of the
tool and die craft. In these circumstances, we would adhere to the
Elgin Watch case and to the Board's prior finding in the present case
that the Petitioner does not now constitute a union which traditionally
represents tool and die employees within the meaning of the principles
enunciated in American Potash.
Accordingly, we would deny the Petition for Reconsideration.
ROLLO TRANSIT CORPORATION; ASBURY PARS-NEw YORK TRANSIT
CORPORATION ; COASTAL CITIES COACH COMPANY 1 and LOCAL 1007,
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN , PETITIONER . Case No.
4-RC-2090. December 16,1954
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 William Draper Lewis, 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. Rollo Transit Corporation, Asbury Park-New York Transit
Corporation and Coastal Cities Coach Company,' are motorbus com-
panies with offices in Keyport, New Jersey. The Employer denies
,that Rollo is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
It is not disputed, however, that Asbury and Coastal are engaged in
-commerce.
Rollo, Asbury, and Coastal are New Jersey corporations with com-
mon stockholders, directors, officers, and offices. Although each is a
separate corporate entity, the managerial personnel of Rollo and As-
bury are interchanged and act for each other as the needs of each
require. The manager of Asbury has on occasion directed Rollo's
1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
.2 Herein referredto as Rollo, Asbury, and Coastal respectively.
110 NLRB No. 228.