Griffin Wheel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 4, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 336 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

936 DECISIONS OF NA1.T01TAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
',Griffin Wheel Company and United- -Steelvvorkers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner and International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local 477, AFL-CIO. Case No. 21 r RC .1850.
-,November 4,1957
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 Fred W. Davis, hear-
ing 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
ias delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
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.
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 appropriate unit :
The Employer, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the manu-
facture of railroad car wheels in various locations throughout the
'United States. Only its plant in Colton, California, is involved in
.this proceeding. The Colton plant has been in operation since April
18,1957. There is no history of collective bargaining for the employees
At the Colton plant.
The Petitioner here seeks to represent all the plant's production
.and maintenance employees. The Intervenor seeks to represent only
the plant's electricians, herein called the electricians, asserting that
they are skilled craftsmen. The Employer agrees that the unit sought
by the Petitioner is appropriate. The Employer and the Petitioner
contend that the unit sought by the Intervenor is inappropriate. Thus,
-the only issue presented is the appropriateness of the electrician unit.
The only electricians' employed by the Employer are 6 "electronic
electricians," who constitute a segment of the Employer's maintenance
-department, which is composed of approximately 23 employees. The
electricians are under the supervision of the maintenance department
foreman, who also supervises all other maintenance employees and
-the yard crew. On the second shift the electricians are supervised by
the foremen of the molding and melting departments.
1 Tlie-Employer's table of organization lists a classification called "electricians B." How-
-ever, at the present time there are no employees in this classification.
119 NLRB No. 45.
GRIFFIN WHEEL COMPANY 337
'The primary function of the electricians is to inspect, maintain, and
repair all electrical equipment and apparatus in the plant. The
Employer's production operation consists of an integrated produc-
tion line which is completely automatic, requiring the use of various
types of electrical equipment. Approximately 20 pieces of such equip-
ment are electronically controlled, and utilize tubes, condensers, re-
sistors, and related equipment. The electricians service the electronic
equipment and perform minor mechanical repairs on the electrical
equipment. In addition to this electrical and mechanical work, the
electricians regularly work on electrically controlled hydraulic equip-
ment and do some welding and drilling, which is incidental to their
other duties, and is also performed by other employees. The elec-
tricians work mostly in the production area, in and around the pro-
duction line, where the electrical equipment is located. Most of the
time the electricians work in close relationship with all other em-
ployees in the plant. However, they have a workbench located in the
compressor room where they make small repairs on limit switches,
relays, and thermocouples used in taking temperatures of metals.
The electricians do not perform any rewind work on electrical
motors, coils, or transformers, nor do they work on electric magnets
or large transformers. The record does not indicate whether or not
the electricians are qualified to perform this type work, but in either
case, this latter work is contracted out to independent contractors.
The Employer estimated that the electricians spend approximately
35 percent of their time on straight electrical work, 35 percent on
electronic work, 15 percent on hydraulic work, and 15 percent on
mechanical work. Electricians called as witnesses for the Intervenor
:stated that approximately 50 percent of their time is spent on auto-
matic (electronic) electrical equipment, 25 percent on hydraulic
work, and 25 percent on miscellaneous work of which 10 percent
would be nonelectrical. These witnesses stated that the hydraulic
equipment is controlled by electrical magnets and that their work on
this hydraulic equipment constitutes electrical maintenance and repair.
The Employer does not maintain an apprenticeship program, but
hires its electricians on the basis of their electrical knowledge and
-past experience. At the present there is no clearly defined system of
progression for electricians. The record shows that several of the
•electricians carry journeyman electrician cards, and, although journey-
men status is not essential for employment as an electrician, the elec-
-tricians who testified stated that during their interview they were
:asked if they were journeymen electricians. Since the plant began
its operation, one employee has been transferred from mechanical
repairman to electrician. All employees work substantially the same
hours and have the same fringe benefits and working conditions.
476321-58-vol. 119-23
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of the foregoing, particularly in view of the fact that the.
electricians are highly skilled employees and spend approximately
90 percent of their time performing electrical functions, the fact that
several of the electricians are journeymen , and notwithstanding the.
lack of an apprenticeship program, in view of the Employer's practice.
of hiring electricians on the basis of their electrical knowledge and:
past experience, we find that the electricians may constitute a unit
appropriate for separate representation if they so desire.2
In view of our determination that the electricians may constitute.
a separate unit if they so desire , and as a production and maintenance
unit is a normal unit appropriate for purposes of collective.
bargaining, we shall make no final unit determination at this time,
but shall direct separate elections by secret ballot among the following_
employees at the Employer's Colton, California, plant.,
(a) All production and maintenance employees, excluding office.
clerical employees, inspectors, all electricians (group (b) ), profes-
sional employees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in:
the Act.
(b) All electricians, including electronic electricians, and helpers,
and excluding all other employees and all supervisors; as defined ini
the Act.
If a majority of the employees in voting group (b)' vote for the
Intervenor, those employees will be taken to have indicated their-
desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Di-
rector conducting the election is hereby instructed to issue a certifi--
catioll of representatives to the Intervenor for such. unit,, which, the.
Board under the circumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes;
of collective bargaining. If, in those circumstances,, a majority of
the employees in voting group (a) elect to be represented by the.
Petitioner, then the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certifi--
cation of representatives to the Petitioner for a separate unit of
production and maintenance employees, which the. Board under the
circumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collectives
bargaining.
However, if a majority of the employees in voting- group (b) do,
not vote for the Intervenor, such group will appropriately be in
elucded in the same unit with the employees in voting group (a) and'
their votes will be pooled with those in voting group (a) .3 The
Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a,
2 Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corp ., Shipbuilding Division, San Francisco Yard, 117.-
NLRB 579 ; Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 111 NLRB 594, 597.
3Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 108 NLRB 556, 561 , footnote . 14;: San Manuel:
Copper Corporation, 116 NLRB 1153, 1160, footnote 16. Pooled votes shag be tallied as,
follows : Votes for the Intervenor shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against
the Petitioner. All other votes are to be accorded their face value,, whether. for represents--
tion by the Petitioner or for no union.
LOCAL 450 339
certification of representatives to the Petitioner if selected by a ma-
jority of the employees in the pooled group, which the Board in such
circumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Local 450, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-
CIO and C. A. Turner Construction Company and Hinote Elec-
tric Company . Case No. 39-CD-923. November 5, 1957
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in
an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D)
of Section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and
determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall
have arisen. . . ."
On March 20, 1957, C. A. Turner Construction Company, herein
called Turner, filed with the Regional Director for the Sixteenth
Region a charge alleging that Local 450, International Union of
Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Engineers, had
engaged in and was engaging in certain activities proscribed by Sec-
tion 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. It was alleged, in substance, that,
on or about March 7, 1957, and thereafter, the Engineers induced and
encouraged employees of various contractors to engage in a strike
or concerted refusal to work in the course of their employment with
an object of forcing Hinote Electric Company, herein called Hinote,
to assign the work of operating an A-frame winch truck used in the
erection of an electrical substation for The Texas Company, at its
Port Arthur, Texas, refinery, to members of the Engineers instead
of to members of Local No. 479, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Electricians.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act and Sections
102.71 and 102.72 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director investigated the charge and on March 28, 1957, duly issued
and served on all parties a notice of charge filed and notice of hear-
ing. A hearing was held before Edwin Youngblood, hearing officer,
on May 14 and 15 and June 4, 1957. All parties appeared at the
hearing 1 and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the
' The Southeast Texas Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association , herein
called the Intervenor , intervened at the hearing.
119 NL14B No. 44.