General Dynamics

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 41 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

CONVAIR (POMONA) 41
2(d), and 2(e) of the Board's Order of October 31, 1955, insofar as
they relate to Eugene Piasek, excepting only those portions of para-
graphs 2(b) and 2(d) of the said Order pertaining to an offer of
reinstatement.
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Recommendation.
Convair (Pomona), a Division of Convair, a Division of General
Dynamics 1 and Associated Tool and Die Makers of America,
Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-5174. November 7, 1958
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 Ben Grodsky, 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 Bean and Fanning].
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
employees of the Employer 2
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 from the existing production and
maintenance unit at the Employer's missile plant at Pomona, Cali-
fornia, a unit of employees in the tool manufacturing department
(department 42) together with the tooling inspectors in the inspection
department (department 27). In the alternative, the Petitioner
requests a craft unit of all tool- and die-makers, toolroom machinists
and grinders, and tooling inspectors. In the event the Board finds
inappropriate both the units requested, the Petitioner expressed its
willingness to represent any combination of these units deemed appro-
The name of the Employer appears as described at the hearing.
The Petitioner was recently organized by a group of employees to deal with employers
concerning wages and working conditions of tool- and die-makers and toolroom machinists,
grinders , and inspectors , exclusively . We therefore find, contrary to the Intervenor,
International Association of Machinists , District 120, Guided Missile Lodge No. 1254,
AFL-CIO, that the Petitioner is a labor organization which meets the traditional union
test for the purpose of severing the employees involved herein . Cessna Aircraft Company,
114 NLRB 1191.
122 NLRB No. 4.
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
priate. The Employer and Intervenor contend that the units
requested are inappropriate.
All tools for use in the production of missiles are made in the tool
manufacturing department, department 42. Department 42 is sepa-
rately located. It is separately supervised by its own foreman, who
is responsible to the chief of manufacturing engineering; the latter is
also in charge of department 24, tool operation, planning, design, and
engineering, as well as department 8, manufacturing planning. Em-
ployed in department 42 are tool- and die-makers A and B, boring
mill horizontal machinists, grinder operators, grinders tooling, heat
treaters steel, jig borer machinists, lathe machinists, layout men ma-
chinists tool, milling machine machinists, planer machinists, shaper
machinists, and grinders tool and cutter A and B. These employees
work to close tolerances from designs and blueprints and are engaged
directly in the manufacture of parts of, or the assembly of, tools.
There are some transfers in and out of department 42, but interchange
with employees of other departments is infrequent. Although other-
wise idle men and,/or machines are occasionally used for producing
the Employer's end products, no department 42 employees are engaged
in frequent or full-time production work.
There are 13 inspectors, all of whom are assigned to department 27.
One works in department 4, shipping and receiving, where he inspects
purchased tools; 1 works in department 31, the experimental factory,
where he inspects experimental tools; 2 work in the gauge laboratory
and are responsible for the quality and calibration of all gauge equip-
ment in the plant, including department 42; and the remaining 9
inspectors inspect tools made in department 42. Although some in-
spectors were formerly tool- and die-makers, others were not; previous
experience as a tool- and die-maker is not a requirement. The record
does not reveal the place occupied by the inspection department in the
administrative organization nor its supervisory structure.
The Employer also has a department 31, called the experimental
factory. Employees assigned to this department are engaged in what
the Employer refers to as "mandatory" tooling, or the manufacture
of experimental tools for prototype or testing purposes. Department
31 employees use the same machines and employ the same skills as
department 42 employees, and are classified as tool- and die-makers A,
boring mill horizontal machinists, grinders tooling, heat treaters steel,
jig borer machinists, lathe machinists, milling machine machinists,
shaper machinists, and grinders tool and cutter. The record does not
reveal the supervisory structure or the administrative organization of
department 31.
On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the Petitioner's primary
unit request, for employees in departments 42 and 27, is inappropriate
on a departmental basis, as it includes inspectors who are not shown
CONVAIR (POMONA) 43
to be toolmakers, are not assigned to the toolrooms, and are not
engaged in tool manufacturing. Nor could a unit confined to the
employees assigned to department 42, who manufacture tools for pro-
duction, be considered a functionally distinct group, as it would
exclude the employees of department 31 who perform the closely
related, if not identical, function of manufacturing tools used for
experimental purposes. The alleged craft unit requested by the Peti-
tioner is also inappropriate as, apart from any other considerations,
it does not include all employees in the plant with comparable skills.'
However, although tool manufacturing and the experimental factory
are separate departments for administrative purposes, employees in
both groups, as indicated above, are engaged in the function of
fabricating tools. In these circumstances, we find that all employees
of department 42, tool manufacturing, and department 31, experi-
mental factory, together constitute a functionally distinct and
homogeneous departmental group who may, if the employees therein
so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit.4 The fact that there
are employees with similar classifications in other departments, and
that there are transfers of employees to and from the departments in
the unit found appropriate, does not render the unit inappropriate, in
view of the facts that no other departmental groups are engaged in the
manufacture of tools, and that there is little interchange of employees
between these and other departments in the plant.'
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be held in the follow-
ing voting group at the Employer's Pomona, California, missile
plant: e All employees in the tool manufacturing department (depart-
ment 42) ' and the experimental factory (department 31), excluding
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 be represented in a separate unit and the
Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed
3 Thus, the record establishes that there are numerous classifications of machinists in
the plant who would not be included in this unit . See American Potash & Chemical
Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418, 1423.
4 See Hoe Light, Inc., 109 NLRB 1013. We find no merit in the contention of Inter-
venor that the Employer ' s operations are of such an integrated nature as to preclude the
severance of an otherwise appropriate departmental unit . See American Potash & Chemi-
cal Corporation, supra, 1422 . Convair, A Division of General Dynamics Corporation,
Case No . 16-RC-2279 , unpublished, relied on by the Employer , in which the Board denied
severance of a toolroom unit, is inapposite because there , contrary to the situation here,
a substantial number of toolroom employees were engaged in full-time production work.
G Warner Electric Brake & Clutch Company, 111 NLRB 268.
6 We are administratively satisfied the Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest
in this voting group.
7 The record is not clear as to whether the sweepers , welders , saw operator , and ex-
pediter , whom the Petitioner would exclude , are assigned to, and work under , the foreman
of either department 42 or department 31, and should therefore be included in the voting
group . These categories may therefore vote subject to challenge.
g The record does not indicate whether the leadmen in departments 42 and 31 possess
supervisory authority , thus requiring their exclusion. They may therefore vote subject
to challenge.
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in that event to issue a certification of representative to the Petitioner
for such unit, which the Board, under the circumstances, finds to
be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. If, however,
a majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indi-
cated their desire to remain a part of the existing production and
maintenance unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue
a certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Antonio Santisteban & Co., Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing
Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 24-CA-843.
November 12, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 27, 1958, Trial Examiner David London issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudical error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Antonio Santisteban & Co., Inc., Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1 We find no merit in the Respondent 's contention that Pilar, a union organizer, could
not have met separately with employee Petra and with employees Rafaela and Efigenia
during the lunch period on March 6, 1957. The record shows that Pilar met with Petra
a few minutes after 11:30 a.m . outside the plant ; that Pilar met with the other two
employees at a restaurant near the plant between 12 :20 p.m . and 12 : 30 p.m .; and that
the lunch period ran from 11: 30 a.m . to 1 p.m.
122 NLRB No. 12.