Globe Steel Tubes Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 5, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 772 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBERS MURDocK and PETERSON took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision and Order Amending and Clarify-
ing Certain Findings in the Decision and Order of February 26, 1952.
GLOBE STEEL TUBES Co. and DISTRICT No. 10, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCI-
ATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER
GLOBE STEEL TUBES Co. and LOCAL 663, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER
GLOBE STEEL TUBES Co. and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER
GLOBE STEEL TUBES Co. and DISTRICT No. 10, INTERNATIONAL Associ-
ATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 13-RC-2532,
13-RC-;4594, 13-RC-2601, and 13-RC-3636. December 5, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held
before Helene Zogg and Irving M. Friedman, hearing officers. The
hearing officers' 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 Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case,2 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 is engaged in the business of producing seamless
tubing of either stainless or ordinary steel and welded stainless steel
tubing. It receives raw materials from steel mill companies such as
' Helene Zogg participated as hearing officer on April 15 and 16, 1952. Irving M. Fried-
man participated as hearing officer on May 6, 7, and 8, 1952 , due to Miss Zogg's inability
to be present. The Employer contended that under Section 11 of the Administrative
Procedure Act the hearing officers involved herein were not qualified to preside over this
proceeding. However, Section 11 of the Act refers only to the appointment of such
hearing examiners as may be necessary for proceedings pursuant to Sections 7 and 8,
which sections specifically except proceedings such as the present one involving certifica-
tion of employee representatives . lAccordingly , we find no merit to the Employer 's conten-
tion . See Angelus Chevrolet Co., 88 NLRB 929.
' In arriving at our decision herein , we have considered over the objection of District
No. 10 , International Association of Machinists , AFL, certain statistical data submitted
by the Employer in a posthearing motion.
101 NLRB No. 163.
GLOBE STEEL TUBES CO. 773
U. S. Steel, Republic Steel, and Inland Steel. The steel is either
carbon or stainless and is received in about 10 different diameters and
about 30 different analyses. Stainless steel is received either in the
form of strips wound in coils or in the form of bars. Carbon steel is
received only in the form of bars or billets.
The Employer has three different operations for the production of
tubing. In its Foren mill, raw steel billets are cut to desired lengths,
heated to a temperature of 2250° Fahrenheit, then "pierced hollow,"
which is to say that the solid bars are converted into a tubular shape
by the passage of a bar through the length of the billet. A rod is then
inserted in the center of each bar and it is revolved over rolls which
expand the center cavity to a desired diameter and set up a predeter-
mined wall thickness. Thereafter, the tubes are conveyed to a cooling
bed to await further processing. A portion of the Employer's product
is complete at this stage, except for straightening, cutting, testing,
inspection, and shipment, and is known as hot finished tubing. An-
other product is cold drawn tubing. This stock, following the cooling
process, is transported to a pointing bay where the tubes are pointed
and then transported to pickling vats for removal of scale, to drawing
benches where they are drawn through dies that fix the outside diam-
eter, and mandrels that similarly fix the inside diameter. After being
annealed, they are straightened, cut, tested, inspected, and made ready
for shipment.
In its West rolling mill, the Employer produces the same types of
tubing by a somewhat different process, although some of the opera-
tions are identical to those in the Foren mill.
The Employer's third process involves the production of welded
stainless steel tubing. Stainless steel, which is received in the form of
flat strips rolled in coils, is set up on a reel attached to the tube forming
and welding machine. The strip is started into the forming mill where
the rolls force it through various other rolls, forming it, and then
into and through a welding head where the "heliarc method" welds
the tube. Thence the tube is projected into a series of sizing rolls and
then the tubing is cut to rough lengths. The above process is for the
most part automatic. Tubing is thereafter pointed, annealed,
straightened, cut, tested, and inspected before shipment.
The Employer also makes some welding fittings such as elbows and
nipples. The final products, whether stainless or carbon steel, are
sold to such consumers as the oil industry, for use in oil well tubing
and casing; tractor manufacturers; manufacturers of stationary and
locomotive steam engines for boiler tubing; and to other industries for
use as mechanical or condenser tubing.
The Employer, Intervenor Steelworkers Cooperative Union No.
18499, AFL, herein called Federal, and United Steelworkers of
America, CIO, herein called the Steelworkers, contend that the only
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
truly appropriate unit in this plant is a single production and main-
tenance unit of all employees. The Employer takes the position that
its operations are within the basic steel industry and therefore under
the National Tube doctrine ,8 despite past bargaining on a two-unit
basis, the petitions herein for craft severance should be denied. The
Employer, Federal, and the Steelworkers also argue against craft
severance upon the ground that the Employer's operations are highly
integrated. District No. 10 , International Association of Machinists,
AFL, herein called the IAM, and Local 663, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL, herein called the IBEW, justify
their claim for craft units upon the ground that there are actual recog-
nizable crafts working as such in the plant; that their separate craft
representation would not impede integrated operation of the plant;
and that the long collective-bargaining history indicates the propriety
of multiunit bargaining.
In support of its position that it is a part of the basic steel industry,
the Employer points not only to the character of its own operations,
but also to the great similarity between its operations and those of
several of the 82 steel companies which were parties to the 1944 steel
industry case before the War Labor Board. We do not agree with the
Employer that either the War Labor Board decision or the nature of
its operations warrants a finding that the Employer's business is part
of the basic steel industry.
While it is true, as asserted by the Employer, that the War Labor
Board decision indicated that the exclusion of a company as a party
(lid not imply that such company was necessarily not a part of the
basic steel industry, it is likewise true that the decision also indicated
that inclusion of a company as a party did not imply that such com-
pany was necessarily a part of the industry' Thus, the mere fact
that companies whose operations are similar to those of the Employer
happen to have been involved in the War Labor Board case does not
offer a persuasive reason for finding the Employer to be engaged in
the basic steel industry.
In order to resolve the issue here it is necessary to look at the nature
of the Employer's operations. They differ from those of the basic
steel industry in that the Employer manufactures or processes its prod-
ucts from stainless steel strips or bars and carbon steel billets and does
not use iron ore or operate blast furnaces. Furthermore, the Employer
does not produce ingot steel , rolled steel, or sheet metal products which
are the principal products of basic steel. We hold, therefore, that the
Employer is not engaged in the basic steel industry and that the
National Tube doctrine does not control this decision.;
0 National Tube Company. 76 NLRB 1199
4 19 War Labor Reports 534.
5 Rheem Manufacturing Company, 100 NLRB 564, and cases cited therein ; Mesta Machine
Company, 94 NLRB 1624, and cases cited therein
GLOBE STEEL TUBES CO. 775
In 1934 the Employer recognized and entered into a single collective-
bargaining contract with Federal , the IAM, and the Patternmakers
Union . This contract , which was jointly executed by the three par-
ticipating unions, gave recognition to the IAM for a machinists' unit,
to the Patternmakers for a unit of patternmakers , and to Federal for
a unit of the remaining production and maintenance employees. In
1935 the Patternmakers discontinued its participation in this arrange-
ment, and in 1936 and 1937 Federal and the IAM again executed
contracts jointly with the Employer . However , since 1938 Federal
and the IAM have had separate contracts with the Employer for their
respective units. Each of these labor organizations has had virtually
unbroken and continuous contractual relations with the Employer
until their last contracts , which expired on May 1, 1952. There has
never been a Board certification of any of these units.
In support of their contention that the Employer 's operations are
so integrated as to preclude the establishment of craft units, the
Employer , Federal, and the Steelworkers present the following argu-
ment. They allege that, despite the historical bargaining on a 2-unit
basis, the plant has throughout been operated virtually as if there
were a single bargaining unit . In this respect , the evidence indicates
that there is a system of plant and departmental seniority . Both the
Federal and IAM contracts permit transfer of employees from one
unit to the other in the Employer 's discretion with provision for reten-
tion of the particular employee's seniority . The Employer points to
numerous instances of employee transfers from department to depart-
ment and from Federal 's unit to those sought by the IAM and IBEW,
and vice versa. The Employer submitted evidence showing that there
were 413 such transfers during the period from April 1951 through
March 1952 , of which 43 were transfers between Federal's unit and
the alleged craft units . However, the record indicates that in almost
all instances these transfers of employees were in less skilled categories.
The Employer 's personnel superintendent testified that there is a
single job -evaluation system in effect covering every job in the plant
regardless of unit and that this single evaluation yardstick was in-
stituted in 1945 and has been applied continuously since that time.
Throughout the bargaining history employees have been entitled to
bid for any vacant jobs in the plant without regard to representation,
and have been entitled to exercise their departmental and plant sen-
iority in time of layoffs to bump employees with less seniority regard-
less of representation.
In view of the fact that transfers have been made in the main be-
tween unskilled employees, that in all instances they have been affected
by an employee's qualifications for the job in question , and that there
has been little or no interchange between production workers and
the alleged craftsmen , we find that transfers and interchange based
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
upon the workings of the seniority system have had no appreciable
effect in destroying the identity of the separate employee groups.'
Moreover, we are unable to say, as the Employer, Federal, and the
Steelworkers suggest, that the long bargaining history on a two-unit
basis does not represent cogent support for a contrary view as to the
high degree of integration in this plant and for the feasibility of
separate units merely because the historical bargaining units were not
established by Board proceedings. Finally, it is apparent from the
record, as indicated infra, that the employees sought by the IAM and
the IBEW with exceptions which will be noted do not perform routine
and repetitive tasks of a type which are so integrated and inseparable
from the production process as to preclude their severance.' We turn
therefore to a consideration of the unit requests of the IAM and the
IBEW.
With respect to these units, the Employer, Federal, and the Steel-
workers contend that they are inappropriate because the Employer
has instituted no formal apprenticeship training program for any of
the occupational groups sought to be separately represented as craft
groups. However, the record discloses that the employees involved
are classified generally in grades according to their skills. Progres-
sion from one grade to another is based primarily upon a man's
ability and the celerity with which he develops the essential skills.
We have found such an on-the-job training program an acceptable
substitute for more formalized apprenticeship plans 8 Moreover, it
is also clear that a substantial number of the most highly skilled em-
ployees attained their journeyman status after serving apprenticeships
at plants other than the Employer's before they came to work for the
Employer. In these circumstances, we find little merit to this con-
tention.
The IAM seeks six alleged craft units. The first, according to the
IAM, amounts to the Employer's present machine shop. This would
consist of all journeymen machinists, journeymen specialists, non-
journeymen specialists classes A and B, machinists' helpers, tool and
die makers, and welders classes A, B, and C in department 80; all
millwrights classes A, B, and C, millwright laborers, and Foren mill
repairmen (riggers) in department 97; and all plug makers, ma-
chine operators classes A, B, C, and D, heat treaters, die washers,
salvagemen, chrome platers, tool inspectors, laborers, material
handlers, bar grinder polishers, roll assemblers, material selectors,
and the tool and die maker in department 82.
$ Western Condensing Company, 85 NLRB 981.
7 General Steel Castings Corporation, 99 NLRB 607 ; Mesta Machine Company, footnote 5,
supra.
e Bunker Hill and Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Company, 89 NLRB 243 , and cases
cited therein.
GLOBE STEEL TUBES CO. 777
Department 80 is responsible for the maintenance of all machinery
in the plant. Unless otherwise noted, all employees of department
80 are on a straight hourly rate and work the same hours. This de-
partment is under the direct supervision of a general foreman. With
the exception of the welders, the employees in department 80 consti-
tute the unit heretofore represented by the IAM.
The journeymen machinists and specialists spend about 90 percent
of their time in the machine shop and about 10 percent of their time
in the plant repairing production machinery or repairing machines
which are too large to move into the machine shop. They are re-
quired to be skilled and have had apprenticeship training or its
equivalent. They never do production work and their helpers do not
interchange with other employees. In their daily work they operate
lathes, planers, mill machine shapers, key seaters, and drill presses.
They work from blueprints and they are required generally to work
to small tolerances. They make small parts and maintenance parts
for production machines; they make tools, tear down motors, over-
haul motors, resurface bases for motors or machines, make new parts,
and do some die work.
The nonjourneymen specialists do work similar to that done by the
journeymen machinists and specialists, but which does not require as
much skill. They repair minor breakdowns and are considered
skilled in a descending order according to their grade. They are in
a sense considered to be in training ultimately for machinists' jobs.
The tool and die maker owns tools, and makes dies, intricate fixtures,
and intricate tools used in the manufacture of the end product. He
is required to work from drawings and blueprints to close tolerances.
The welders work in a separate enclosed room, their duties being to
build up brazings and castings, welding fixtures, and general welding
work. From time to time they are called upon to go out and work in
the shop together with the machinists. They are also known in the
plant as machinists welders. They use either electrical or gas arcs,
must know the proper heats to use, must have an understanding of
alloys and steels, work to close tolerances , and read blueprints. Other
welders are employed directly in the production operation and the
IAM does not seek to include such welders. This latter group works
with the stainless welded tube operation where they operate the auto-
matic machine which welds the tubes. These welders are not con-
sidered journeymen and are lower paid than the welders sought by
the IAM.
It seems clear that the above-mentioned employees in department 80
machine shop are an identifiable, homogeneous craft group who may
constitute a separate appropriate unit for purposes of collective bar-
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaining.9 As the welders sought by the IAM are regularly assigned
to work with the machinists, we believe that they properly belong in
this unit.10
The millwrights or riggers whom the IAM would include in this
unit are in a separate department-department 97-but some of them
are under the same supervision as the employees in department 80.
There are millwrights classes A, B, and C. The work of the riggers
is primarily concerned with unloading structural steel and machinery,
moving machinery about the plant, and changing cables on cranes.
Class A employees do some welding as well as rigging work; class B
riggers have less skill and are not called upon to do welding; and
class C riggers act as helpers. In addition, there are a group of
riggers in department 97 who spend substantially all their time in the
Foren mill doing specialized rigger work in connection with the pro-
duction operations in that mill. These riggers, unlike the others, re-
ceive straight hourly pay plus an incentive bonus based on the tonnage
production of the departments in which they work. The riggers as-
signed to the Foren mill take orders both from the production foreman
and department 80 supervisors.
In our opinion the record in this case with particular reference to
the duties of the riggers does not support a finding that the riggers
are a craft group. We further conclude that the riggers have skills
and interests dissimilar to those of the department 80 machine shop
employees. We perceive, therefore, no justification for severing the
riggers from the production and maintenance unit and combining them
with the department 80 machine shop employees 11
The IAM would also include in its proposed machine shop unit
some of the employees in department 82 which is known as the pro-
duction service department. This department is under completely
separate supervision and is housed in a separate building. The head
of department 82 testified that all products made in this department
are expendable and are directly involved in the production operation.
He further testified that all work performed in this department is
repetitive and all machining and subsequent operations are identical,
except that the sizes of the parts worked on may vary. Among the
repetitive jobs described by this supervisor are the manufacture of
tube drawing mandrels and dies, regrinding saws (index plates deter-
mine the required number of teeth for each saw), the making of wire
slings, chrome plating, heat treating, and grinding or redressing jaws
used in cold drawing. According to this supervisor the only non-
e John Deere Plow Works of Deere & Company, 94 NLRB 1286 and cases cited therein ;
The Cornelius Company, 93 NLRB 368
}° International Paper Company , 96 NLRB 295.
11 Continental Oil Company , 95 NLRB 165.
GLOBE STEEL TUBES CO. 779
repetitive work is done by one tool and die maker assigned to the
department.
The employees in department 82 do no machine repairing other
than the building and servicing of rolls. They do not repair cranes
and they do not service any machine breakdowns. Any breakdowns
of machines are serviced by department 80, which also services break-
downs of machine equipment in department 82. Unskilled employees
are accepted for work in this department and are instructed on the
job. In the performance of the functions of the department, super-
vision attempts to occupy each employee on a particular operation.
There is evidence that employees of department 80 may use the
equipment located in department 82 whenever necessary and that
some of the equipment housed in the latter department was originally
transferred from department 80. There is also some evidence that de-
partment 82 assembles some parts that are machined in department 80.
The IAM does not claim that all the employees in department 82
properly belong in its proposed machine shop unit. With respect to
those whom the IAM seeks to add to its unit, the record discloses the
following :
Machine operators-The class A machine operators operate lathes,
milling machines, shapers, drill presses, boring machines to make
various tools such as jigs, mandrels, and holders. They work to close
tolerances from blueprints and are skilled employees. Class B ma-
chine operators are less skilled, operate most of the foregoing ma-
chines, and work on tools, but do not make jigs and fixtures. Class C
employees are less skilled, work on a smaller number of machines,
and class l) operators are even less skilled. Class D employees operate
only the saws, drill presses, and saw grinders.
Such nonrepetitive jobs as are performed in this department of
which there are very few are done by the tool and die maker who is
considered a skilled employee.
There is no contention by any party that all the employees whom
the IAM seeks to represent in department 82 are skilled employees.
Thus, bar grinder polishers and die washers, who are located outside
the physical confines of the department, merely require some instruc-
tion for several days in order to perform their duties satisfactorily.
Bar grinders work in the Foren mill where they grind bars on a
grinding machine to a prescribed standard size for use in the mill
itself. The die washers collect and clean used materials such as man-
drels, dies, and jaws from the cold drawing department, receive other
work tools from the stainless steel department, and return them to
department 82 for annealing , tipping, or washing. Two employees
known as material handlers also work outside the confines of de-
partment 82. Their job is to pass out tools between the Foren and
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
West mills and they are not considered skilled employees. The roll
assemblers tear down and reassemble the rolls and the chrome plater
devotes all his time to chrome plating of mandrels. All these em-
ployees require only a few days' instruction to perform their duties
in a satisfactory manner. Although the record does not reveal the
specific functions of heat treaters, salvagemen, tool inspectors, labor-
ers, and material selectors, it would appear from their job titles that
none of these employees are skilled workers.
It is apparent from the foregoing that, with the exception of the
machine operators and the tool and die maker, none of the employees
in department 82 are skilled workers. Moreover, because their work
as a whole is routine in character, because of the dissimilarity between
their duties and those of employees in department 80, and because of
their intimate relationship with the Employer's production opera-
tions, we believe that these employees more properly belong in a unit
of the Employer's production workers rather than in a machine shop
unit. With respect to the machine operators, while the record dis-
closes that they are skilled employees and that they work on some
machines which are similar to those used by the machinists in de-
partment 80, the record also reveals that they do not utilize or possess
the rounded craft skills of journeyman machinists. Apparently they
perform repetitive machining operations. The foregoing applies also
to the tool and die maker in this department as compared with the
tool and die makers in department 80. On the basis of these facts,
we conclude that the interests of these employees are more closely re-
lated to those of the production and maintenance employees and they
should not be included in the machine shop voting group found ap-
propriate herein 12
In view of the above, we shall set up a separate voting group for
the machine shop employees sought by the IAM with the exclusions
which we have indicated.
' The second unit requested by the IAM consists of a tinsmith (or
sheet metal worker) and his helper. Although they are a part of
department 80, they have in the past been included in Federal's unit.
They are under the supervision of the foreman of department 80 and
are hourly paid. The tinsmith is considered a journeyman and served
an apprenticeship at a plant other than the Employer's. The work of
these employees is to make and repair guards and shields for produc-
tion machines. They work with 16-18 gauge metal such as tin, copper,
and aluminum and are located in a separate enclosed room. They may
use saws and other machines in the machine shop. They do all the tin
work throughout the plant. Their work outside their shop includes
v Saco-Loaoell Shops, 94 NLRB 647 and cases cited therein ; Diebel Die & Manufacturing
Company, et al., 78 NLRB 861.
GLOBE STEEL TUBES CO. 781
such jobs as building ventilation ducts and making forms and metal
racks. They use such machines as a grinder, power and welding
machines, shear and drill presses, and own tools like squares, tin snips,
and soldering irons.
It is apparent that the tinsmith has skills conforming to those gen-
erally found in the sheet metal trade. We find therefore that the tin-
smith with his helper constitute a distinct craft group entitled to
separate representation, if they so desire.' Accordingly, we shall
establish a separate voting group for them.
The third unit sought by the IAM includes pipefitters classes A, B,
and C and the pipefitters' helpers, all of whom are part of department
96. Their foreman is known as the supervisor of pipefitting and he
reports to the chief engineer. There are about 20 employees in this
classification. They work in an enclosed, separate portion of the plant
and in the past have been a part of Federal's unit. The class A pipe-
fitters are considered skilled employees and are required to have some
general education, ability to read blueprints, and some pipefitting
experience. Background requirements for class B and C are some
general education and physical ability to do the work, which is rather
rigorous. Tools used in the department include threading machines,
welders' cut-off machines, grinding machines, and some hand tools
such as hand dies, drills, grinders, calipers, levels, and squares. The
pipefitters perform the usual duties of that craft, including threading
pipes such as water pipes of sizes ranging from 12 inches to 1/8 inch
of varying pipe materials, welding pipe elbows, and doing welding
and repair work around the plant as well as new installation.
We believe that on the foregoing facts the pipefitters are an identi-
fiable craft group of employees who are entitled to separate representa-
tion, if they so desire 14 Accordingly, we shall establish a separate
voting group for them.
The fourth unit sought by the IAM consists of powerhouse em-
ployees. These employees are under the supervision of the super-
visor of pipefitting and do virtually all their work in the powerhouse.
They may occasionally be called upon to help the pipefitters. They
are not required to hold licenses for their jobs, which the IAM claims
is accounted for because the community in which the powerhouse is
located has no ordinance requiring such licenses. However, there
is evidence that some of the firemen have city of Milwaukee licenses.
There are four employees in this proposed unit and all four have
been with the Employer as powerhouse employees for many years.
ss Campbell Soup Company, 98 NLRB 741 ; General Foods Corporation, 97 NLRB 1243;
Armstrong Cork Company, 97 NLRB 1057; Ford Motor Company, 96 NLRB 1075.
14 Chrysler Corporation, 98 NLRB 1105 ; Calumet and Hecla Consolidated Copper Gain-
pony, 86 NLRB 126 . See also cases cited in footnote 13, supra.
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Their job is to produce steam and to handle coal, oil, and gas used
in making steam. The equipment includes three large boilers, various
pumps, and a small automatic gas boiler. The powerhouse is in a
small enclosed portion of the plant. The employees make small re-
pairs whenever necessary on their equipment and are hourly paid.
Major repairs are made by employees in department 80. At the present
time the powerhouse employees are represented as part of Federal's
production and maintenance unit.
We find that the powerhouse employees represent a distinct,
homogeneous, and functionally coherent group and may, if they so^
desire, constitute a separate bargaining unit 15 Accordingly, we shall
establish a separate voting group for them.
The fifth unit sought by the IAM consists of all lubricators, 16
in number. There are two different types of oilers-those who do
general oiling and those who do Foren mill oiling. The oilers work
out of an enclosed room located between the Foren and West mills.
The equipment used includes oil filters, pressure grease guns, repair
parts, and clarifiers. Their foreman has no other jurisdiction and
is ultimately under the chief engineer. The general oilers work on
two shifts, while the Foren mill oilers work around the clock. They
inspect operating equipment for hot bearings and remove or add oil
or grease as required. All the oilers are hourly paid, except that
the 6 Foren mill oilers receive in addition to their straight hourly
pay an incentive rate based on the tonnage produced in the depart-
ments they service. Their training generally involves going out on
the job for several weeks accompanied by another oiler and thereafter
their work is occasionally checked for errors. The record indicates
that it requires about 6 weeks for an oiler to be considered proficient
on his job. The record also indicates that there are several empolyees
who work as operators on the reducing belts who do their own oiling
on the reducing mill equipment. These operators are at all times
under the supervision of production foremen. There is also 1 em-
ployee in the electrical department who is known as the electrical oiler.
He services equipment in that department and is under the supervisor
of the electrical department. The IAM does not seek to include the
electrical oiler in its proposed unit.
In our opinion, there is no basis upon which to sever these employees
as they do not constitute a distinct craft group or homogeneous group
otherwise appropriate for a collective bargaining unit 16 We shall
therefore include them in the residual production and maintenance
group hereinafter established.
'' The Gates Rubber Company, 95 NLRB 351 , and cases cited therein ; American Smelt-
ing and Refining Company, 86 NLRB 1172.
16 Chrysler Corporation, footnote 14, supra ; Armstrong Cork Company, footnote 13,
supra; Tin Processing Corporation , 80 NLRB 1369.
GLOBE STEEL TUBES CO. 783
The final unit sought by the IAM consists of employees in the black-
smiths department-department 81. This department is under the
supervision of the foreman of department 80 and is located in a sepa-
rate, enclosed portion of the plant. Tools used include a large steel
hammer, large furnaces, and a small furnace with automatic bellows.
There are two employees in this department-a blacksmith and his
helper who is also known as a hammerman. Their duties are to repair
mill tools like bars for furnaces, tongs for rolling mills, and to make
small forgings for the machine shop. The present blacksmith has
been a blacksmith for 50 years, served an apprenticeship, and has been
employed in this plant for about 5 months. There is evidence that
previous blacksmiths were called upon to do the pointing operation
which consists of collapsing the end of a tube so that it can be grasped
by the jaws of the operating equipment in the cold drawing process.
Similar work is presently done by employees in the production de-
partment under the supervision of the production foreman. Neither
the present blacksmith nor his helper has been asked to do pointing.
When the previous blacksmith was engaged in pointing, he was con-
sidered to be performing production work and received incentive pay
to the extent that he was so engaged.
We find that the blacksmith and hammerman constitute a distinct
craft group entitled to separate representation, if they so desire .IT
We are not persuaded that a contrary result should be reached merely
because other blacksmiths may have done some production work. Ac-
cordingly, we shall establish a separate voting group for the black-
smith and his helper.
The IBEW seeks to represent the employees of department 94 which
is the electrical department. This department includes 17 class A
electricians, 10 class B electricians, 5 helpers, and 1 electrical oiler.
They are located in an enclosed, separate portion of the plant. They
are hourly paid and have separate supervision. They are not required
to be licensed, but are qualified to work in conformity with State and
city code requirements. Class A employees are considered skilled
electricians. Class B are semiskilled and the helpers are unskilled.
The oiler requires about 6 months' training. The work in the depart-
ment is divided between construction, which is concerned with new
work, and maintenance, The construction electricians spend over
two-thirds of their time working outside the confines of the depart-
ment. The maintenance electricians spend about 80 percent of their
time outside of the department. Class A employees own complete tool
boxes; employees in other classifications own pocket tools.
aTCrossett Paper Mills, 98 NLRB 542 ; Armstrong Cork Company, footnote 13, supra;
Potash Company of America , 80 NLRB 1035.
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In their daily work electricians use equipment such as power
grinders and drill presses. About two-thirds of the Class A elec-
tricians work on construction and are qualified to read blueprints and
to decipher the circuits in electrical apparatus used to make the end
product. The remaining class A electricians work on maintenance
work and are subject to call in any part of the plant to keep electrical
circuits in order. Class B electricians work on new construction in a
crew under a class A electrician who acts as the lead man, working on
such installations as power ducts, motors, and wiring. The class B
electricians who work on maintenance installations likewise charge
motors and disconnect wiring, among other operations. They are not
required to read blueprints and are not called upon in the event of a
breakdown. The helpers assist the class A and B electricians and
usually are assigned to a class A electrician in construction work. One
helper acts as an electrical salvageman in maintenance work. Class B
electricians spend some time adjusting cells and charging batteries.
One of the class B electricians is known as a draftsman and draws
circuits, defines them, and puts them on blueprints. The electrical
oiler makes daily rounds of the plant and is required to know which
motors become overheated and need lubrication. There is not ordi-
narily any interchange between electricians doing maintenance work
and those doing construction work, except in the case of a major
breakdown in which event the entire force is put on the mainte-
nance job.
There are three class A electricians-one for each shift-who spend
most of their time in the production department, and are generally
referred to as mill electricians. The mill electricians engage prin-
cipally in maintaining electrical devices, operating and setting speeds,
and doing minor repair work.
Three of the electricians-two class B and one class A-operate a
switchboard room located about 50 feet from department 94. They
start motors and operate controls in the plant upon signal. They
maintain the equipment located in that room.
In the past, the electricians have been included in the unit repre-
sented by Federal. The supervisor of department 94 also has direct
control over the electrical crane operators of whom there are about
60. The crane operators are production employees and are not sought
by the IBEW.
The record as a whole reveals that the unit sought by the IBEW,
except the electrical oiler, is substantially a traditional craft group
of electricians of a type which the Board has established on numerous
occasions in separate craft units for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining when they so desired it, notwithstanding their previous in-
GLOBE STEEL TUBES CO. 785
elusion in a broader unit?8 Accordingly, we shall establish a separate
voting group for them. However, we shall exclude the electrical oiler
because he does not exercise the skills of the electricians craft, nor
assist the electricians as a helper.
We shall direct seven separate elections by secret ballot among the
employees at the Employer's Milwaukee, Wisconsin, plant-one in
each of the following groups, excluding from each, office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, all other employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Group 1: All journeymen machinists, journeymen specialists, non-
journeymen specialists, classes A and B, machinists' helpers, tool and
die makers, and welders classes A, B, and C in department 80.
Group 2: All tinsmitlis and helpers.
Group 3: All pipefitters classes A, B, and C and pipefitters' helpers.
Group 4: All powerhouse employees.
Group 5: All blacksmiths and helpers.
Group 6: All electricians classes A and B and helpers, excluding
the electrical oiler.
Group 7: All production and maintenance employees, including
employees in departments 82 and 97, lubricators, and the electrical
oiler, but excluding all employees in voting groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time,
but shall first ascertain the desires of the employees by the elections
here directed. If a majority of the employees voting in either group
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 vote for a bargaining representative different from
that selected by a majority of the employees voting in group 7, then
the employees in group 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 will be taken to have indicated
their desire to constitute a separate unit or units; and the Regional
Director conducting the elections herein directed is instructed to
issue certification of representatives to the bargaining agents so
selected, for the separate units in which they have been designated,
which units the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be
appropriate.
If a majority of the employees voting in either group 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
or 6 vote for the same bargaining representative selected by a majority
of employees voting in group 7, then the employees in group 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, or 6 will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included
in the same bargaining unit with the employees in group 7; and the
Regional Director is instructed to issue certification of representatives
to such representative for a plant-wide production and maintenance
unit, including therein the employees in groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
18 The Bruah Beryllium Company, 96 NLRB 1383 ; 1S c6 S Corrugated Paper Machinery
C0, 93 NLRB 333; Ryan Aeronautical Company , 85 NLRB 1189 ; Indiana Irime8tone Com-
pany , Inc, 83 NLRB 1124
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or any of these groups in which a majority has voted for such repre-
sentative, which unit the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
COLD SPRING GRANITE COMPANY and MEARLE L. SMART and UNITED
STONE AND ALLIED PRODUCTS WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No.
18-CA-297. December 8, 19510
Decision and Order
On April 9, 1952, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent 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. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices and recommended that these allegations in the complaint be
dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the Respondent filed a
supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case,2 and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations, with the additions noted below :
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent, in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of their self-organizational
rights guaranteed by the Act. As discussed in the Intermediate
Report, the unlawful conduct consisted of interrogation of its em-
ployees, surveillance,3 threats of reprisal, and promises of benefit,
'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 Herzog and Mem-
bers Murdock and Peterson].
? As requested by the Respondent , we have taken official notice of the fact that on May 19,
1952, during the course of a hearing in L. G. Evers8t, Inc, Case No. 18-CA-345 , Mearle L.
Smart testified that he bad been an International Representative of the Intervenor herein
"since sometime in January 1951".
3 The record shows that Eickhoff , the quarry superintendent , asked foreman Comero
whether he knew how the employees felt about the Union and when Comero replied in the
negative , Eickhoff requested that he endeavor to get this information . Comero did engage
in such interrogation , but denied that any report was made to Eickhoff. We find, contrary
101 NLRB No. 154.