Glass Fibers, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 9, 195193 N.L.R.B. 1289 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation GLASS FIBERS, INC. 1289 The Board has held that despite a history of participation by an employer in group bargaining, should he at an appropriate time manifest an unequivocal intent to pursue an individual course in his labor relations, a unit limited to his employees alone would again be appropriate 4 The record in this case reveals that there is no contract now in effect, and that four of the Employers have terminated Mr. Cal- lister's authority to represent them in joint negotiations. Under these circumstances, we find that the over-all unit of the employees of all eight Employers sought by the, Petitioner is no longer appropriate. As all parties are in agreement with Petitioner's alternative request for single-employer units, we find appropriate for purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act separate units composed of the following employees of each of the eight Employers named below ; excluding, in the case of each Em- ployer, parts men, office and clerical employees, service station em- ployees, salesmen, janitors, lube and grease men, utility men, and supervisors as defined in the Act. All journeymen auto mechanics, machinists, electricians, painters, trimmers, body and fender men, radio men, and welders, their helpers and apprentices employed by P. E. Ashton Company; Central Utah Motor Company; A. L. Duckett Sales and Service Inc; Burton J. Frampton, d/b/a Frampton Motor Company; Ralph P. Naylor, Lawrence G. Naylor, W. M. Richmond, and A. N. Thomas, d/b/a Nay- lor Auto Company; Telluride Motor Company; Clarence H. Harmon and A. J. Harmon, d/b/a United Sales and Service; and Wasden Motor Sales Company. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] * RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 90 NLRB No. 58 , and cases cited therein. GLASS FIBERS, INC. and LOCAL 4, MECHANICS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OF AMER10A, PETITIONER 1 GLASS FIBERS, INC. and GLASS BOTTLE, BLOWERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL , AND ITS LOCAL 54, PETITIONER.a Cases Nos. 8-RC-1020 and 8-RC-1031. April 9, 1951 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, consolidated hearings were held on Octo- 1 Herein called MESA. = The name of this Petitioner , herein called GBBA, appears as used at the hearing. 93 NLRB No. 214. 1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ber 11, 1950, and February 6, 1951,3 before Bernard Ness, 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 these cases to a three- member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees 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. GBBA seeks a single unit of production and maintenance em- ployees at the Employer's Waterville and Defiance, Ohio, plants,' excluding office employees, technical engineers, technicians, watch- men, guards, and supervisors as defined under the Act. MESA desires a maintenance unit confined to the Waterville plant consisting of machinists, maintenance mechanics, and,electricians, or alternatively, separate units for each of these classifications, or any combination thereof .5 However, MESA does not object to the inclusion of main- tenance employees at the Defiance plant in the event of a finding requiring units to be on a two-plant basis. The Employer favors a production and maintenance unit and does not oppose having it on a two-plant basis. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of glass fiber products. In order to provide for its excess work, the Employer began to operate in the latter part of October 1950, its new overflow plant in Defiance, Ohio, about 50 miles from its plant in Waterville, Ohio. At that time, a number of employees were transferred to the new plant. Some employees in turn have been transferred to Waterville. Articles produced in the Defiance plant are in many instances returned to Waterville for further processing. The types of machinery as well as job classifications are similar in both plants. Supplies and materials are purchased at Waterville, where production schedules for both plants are set. All employees are subject to the same labor and per- sonnel policy, which is administered by a personnel manager, who is stationed at Waterville and regularly visits the new plant. Employees 3 The Board ordered the February hearing to adduce evidence concerning the unit issues raised by GBBA's request of November 20, 1950, to amend its petition for the Employer's Waterville , Ohio, plant , to include the Employer's new plant at Defiance, Ohio. See footnote 3, supra At the first hearing MESA amended its petition to exclude carpenters , a classification not used by the Employer. GLASS FIBERS, INC. 1291 in both plants enjoy uniform wage rates, grievance procedures, and company-wide seniority , and participate in the same bonus, pension, and insurance benefits . Since September 1946 , GBBA and its prede- cessor 6 have represented the production and maintenance employees at Waterville . And in recent months GBBA has also represented the Defiance plant at grievance meetings and negotiations for a pension plan. In view of the integration of the two plants and the unified control of management policies and labor relations , the Board finds that all units found appropriate herein should embrace both plants? There remains for consideration the maintenance unit proposals of MESA. The maintenance department , which is under the general charge of the plant engineer , includes machinists , maintenance me- chanics, electricians, and maintenance laborers ." The machinists are responsible for. keeping the plant in operation . Some machinists work under the direct supervision of the foreman in the machine shop which contains lathes, drill presses, and a band saw . Other machinists are detailed to various production departments under the supervision of the heads thereof in order more conveniently to perform their duties as machinists . The machinists along with the other maintenance em- ployees have departmental as well as company-wide seniority. Al- though the Employer has no apprenticeship program for any of its maintenance workers, it does require its machinists to have extensive experience in machine shop operations. The maintenance mechanics , whose headquarters is a maintenance shop , are under the direct supervision of the plant engineer. They circulate from department to department doing oiling , carpentry, painting , and miscellaneous maintenance work. The Employer re- gards it as desirable that maintenance workers have some general mechanical experience . However, they are not hired as such but are moved up from the ranks of the laborers , whom MESA does not wish to represent because they are unskilled and function as a sweeping and sanitation gang under the jurisdiction of their own supervisor. The electricians , who also have their headquarters in the mainte- nance shop , have the responsibility of ,maintaining and repairing the large amount of electrical equipment throughout the plant. The chief 9 Federal Labor Union No. 24081, AFL , which affiliated with GBBA on July 7, 1950. 7 Emerson Television Service Corporation, 88 NLRB 55 ; American Shuffleboard Company, at al., 85 NLRB 51. Because the Defiance plant has been in operation only since October 1950, the Board believes that the bargaining history prior to that date at Waterville alone does not constitute a persuasive reason against our multiplant finding. The North Electric Manu facturing Company, 89 NLRB 260. Moreover , GBBA is at present bargaining for employees in both plants. "As the record is more complete with regard to Waterville 's maintenance employees, the account herein is specifically descriptive of that plant. However , it is also generally applicable to the Defiance plant which, as has been noted, has like classifications. 1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD electrician 9 sees to it that assignments made by the plant engineer are properly carried out. It is clear that-the maintenance unit sought by MESA is a multicraft unit, which includes employees who are not highly skilled.10 While the Board has directed elections for similar units in the absence of a prior collective bargaining history," it has been the Board's policy to -refuse to establish multicraft units, where, as here, there is a substantial history of collective bargaining on a plant-wide basis 1' Moreover, such a unit would not include all related craft groups engaged in main- tenance work in the plants, as it appears from the record that there are also welders working in the machine shop.13 We find therefore that the multicraft unit proposed by MESA is inappropriate. Accord- ingly, we shall consider the appropriateness of the separate units alter- natively proposed by MESA. The Board is satisfied on the basis of the foregoing that the ma- chinists exercise the high degree of skill normally found in the ma- chinist's craft. The record also shows that the electricians perform the traditional duties connected with the electrician's craft. We find therefore that, in accordance with well-established Board policy,'' the machinists and electricians may properly constitute separate bargain- ing units despite a history of collective bargaining on a broader basis. As they do skilled work within the confines of their own craft, the fact that they may work alongside of, or in close association with, other employees does not derogate from their right to constitute sep- arate bargaining units." However, we perceive no basis for granting the maintenance mechanics a self-determination election. They pos- sess no high degree of skill and are therefore not craftsmen. Nor is their work particularly distinctive so as to otherwise stamp them with a special community of interests sufficient to support a separate unit finding."' We shall at this time make no final determination with respect to the unit or units appropriate for employees at the Employer's plants, deferring such conclusions until separate elections shall have been held among the following voting groups, excluding watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined under the Act : B There is no contention or evidence that this individual has any supervisory authority. 10 See finding , infra, as to maintenance mechanics. 11 Armstrong Cork Company, 80 NLRB 128 ' General Mills, Inc., Sperry Division, 91 NLRB 984 ; United States Time Corporation, 86 NLRB 724 13 Owens -Corning Fiberqlas Corporation, 84 NLRB 298. is Danly Machine Specialties , Inc, 90 NLRB No 14, West Virginia Pulp & Paper Company, 89 NLRB 815; National Biscuit Company , 88 NLRB 313. la Danly Machine Specialties , Inc, supra. In view of the Board's unit findings , GBBA's motion to dismiss MESA's petition on the ground that the unit requests therein are inappropriate , is hereby denied. 11 National Biscuit Company, supra. B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY STORES 1293 1. All machinists at the Employer's Waterville and Defiance, Ohio, plants. 2. All electricians at the Employer's Waterville and Defiance, Ohio, plants. 3. All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Waterville and Defiance, Ohio, plants, but excluding the employees in groups 1 and 2, office employees, technical engineers, and technicians. MESA desires to participate only in the elections involving em- ployees in the first two voting groups. GBBA desires to participate in all elections. If a majority of employees in voting groups 1 and 2 cast ballots for the labor organization seeking to represent such em- ployees in separate bargaining units, they will be taken to have indi- cated their desire to constitute separate units for bargaining purposes. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] - B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY STORES and LOCAL UNION No. 299, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL,1 PETITIONER B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY WAREHOUSE and LOCAL UNION No. 299, IN- TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY RECAPPING PLANT and LOCAL UNION No. 299, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 7-RC-1176,7-RC-1177, and 7-RC-1178. April 9, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before W. A. Reinke, 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 these cases to a three- member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles]. Upon the entire record in these cases the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 1 Herein called the Teamsters. 93 NLRB No. 232. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation