General Dynamics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1963

140 N.L.R.B. 1286 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Dynamics/Telecommunications , a Division of General
Dynamics Corporation 1 and District Lodge No. 6 of the Inter-
national Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 3-RC-2892. February 15, 1963
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 Henry J. Winters, 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 [Members Rodgers, Leedom, 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 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 Employer, a wholly owned division of the General Dynamics
Corporation, is engaged in the development, manufacture, and sale
of electronic communication and radio equipment and products. The
Employer's plant A, located at 100 Carlson Road, Rochester, New
York, is its only facility involved in this proceeding. It employs ap-
proximately 4,200 production, maintenance, technical, and clerical em-
ployees who are currently covered by a contract with the R.I.W.
The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing plantwide unit, a
unit of employees in the tool manufacturing department (department
139). It contends that the unit is a functionally distinct and homo-
geneous departmental group of skilled employees. The employees
in department 139 work in a separate area of the plant and under
the separate supervision of the toolroom foreman and his assistant
who are directly responsible to the superintendent, tool and machine.
There are approximately 47 employees in department 139 classified
as tool-and-die maker; tool and cutter grinder; Thompson grinder;
gauge setter; junior gauge setter; tool handler and dispatcher; and tool
crib attendant. Of the number, 33 are journeymen tool-and-die
1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing
2 Rochester Independent Workers, Local No 1, hereinafter referred to as R I W , inter-
vened on the basis of an existing contract The International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the bass
of its showing of interest.
140 NLRB No. 126.
GENERAL DYNAMICS/TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ETC. 1287
makers. Tools for the use of its production employees in the manu-
facture of electronic equipment are made in department 139. In the
production of these tools, the tool-and-die makers are required to
work to extremely close tolerances. The Employer hires experienced
craftsmen from the outside. It also has an apprentice training pro-
gram of from 4 to 7 years for tool-and-die makers and a separate, but
complementary, apprenticeship program for tool and cutter grinders.
There is no interchange between tool-and-die makers in department
139 and other departments. While the seniority provisions in the cur-
rent contract provide for bumping into and out of the department,
there is evidence of only one such bumping into the department in the
past 10 years, and that was a transfer into one of the lesser skilled
classifications by an employee who had the required skill and
experience.
There is, concededly, no issue as to the craft skills of the tool-and-
die makers, gauge makers, or other related classifications in depart-
ment 139. The Employer and Intervenors, however, contend that this
unit is inappropriate because it would exclude the employees in the
model shop and other departments who are said to possess skills com-
parable to those possessed by the employees in department 139 and to
perform comparable work.
Although the model shop is staffed with some experienced tool-
makers, who on rare occasions assist department 139 in making tools
for production, the primary function of the model shop, unlike the
toolroom, is to make prototypes and tools which are neither recorded
nor used in production. The model shop employees are separately
located and work under separate supervision. Their work does not
require the same degree of skill as that used by the employees in depart-
ment 139, nor are they required to work to the same close tolerances.'
Moreover, it is immaterial, insofar as the appropriateness of the de-
partmental unit is concerned, that classifications similar to those within
the toolroom are found elsewhere in the plant,4 or that certain non-
tool-room employees utilize, during a minor portion of their workday,
some of the machines and equipment in the toolroom area.' Nor do we
find any merit in the further contention that severance of the toolroom
unit may result in interference with existing seniority rights.
We find, in view of the foregoing and on the evidence in the
record as a whole, that department 139 comprises a functionally dis-
tinct and homogeneous departmental group of skilled employees who
3 The record reveals that the tools made outside of the toolroom are only controlled
to tolerances of 0 005 of an inch , whereas toolroom tools are required as close as 0.0002
of an inch.
4 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418 ; Spaulding Fibre Co,
Inc, 111 NLRB 237, 239.
5 Spaulding Fibre Co , Inc., supra ; Union Steam Pump Company , 118 NLRB 689, 692;
North American Aviation, Inc , 115 NLRB 1090, 1094
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
may, if they so desire, constitute a separate, appropriate unit for
collective-bargaining purposes.
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be held in the follow-
ing voting group :
All toolroom (department 139) employees employed at the Em-
ployer's plant A, located at 100 Carlson Road, Rochester, New York,,
excluding all office clerical employees, guards, professional employees,,
all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and
the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is in-
structed to issue a certificate of representatives to the Petitioner for
the unit, described in paragraph numbered 4, which the Board, under
such circumstances, 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 certificate of results of election to such
effect.,
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 The International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, which
was permitted to intervene at the hearing , has not shown that it has devoted itself
traditionally to serving the special interests of toolroom employees . Accordingly, we
find that this union does not meet the "traditional representative" test, and is not there-
fore entitled to a place on the ballot . Cf. American Potash & Chemical Corporation,
supra.
Joseph Bancroft and Sons Co . and General Teamsters, Local
470, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Peti
tioner. Case No. 4-RC-4958. February 15, 1963
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
executed April 26, 1962, an election by secret ballot was conducted on
May 15, 1962, under the supervision and direction of the Regional
Director for the Fourth Region among the employees in the unit de-
scribed below. Following the election, the Regional Director served
upon the parties a tally of ballots, which showed that of approxi-
mately 886 eligible voters, 855 votes were cast, of which 383 were for,
and 444 against, the Petitioner, and 28 ballots were challenged. The
Petitioner filed timely objections to the conduct affecting the results
of the election.
140 NLRB No. 135.