Howmet Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1967

162 N.L.R.B. 1513 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

CRUCIBLE STEEL CASTING 1513
Crucible Steel Casting Division of Howmet Corporation and Local
Union, No. 85, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO.
Case 30-UC-21. February 8, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION
TO CLARIFY CERTIFICATION
On September 9, 1966, the Petitioner, which has been the contrac-
tual representative of a unit of the Employer's employees since it was
certified by the National Labor Relations Board in 1946,1 filed a peti-
tion to clarify the unit to include the category of Brinell testers. On
October 10, 1966, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Wallace
Taine for the purpose of taking testimony with respect to issues raised
by this petition. All parties appeared and participated at the hearing.
Thereafter, all parties filed briefs. On November 1, 1966, the Regional
Director issued an order transferring this case to the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman
McCulloch and Members Fanning and Zagoria].
The Board has considered the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
The Employer is a Wisconsin corporation engaged in the manu-
facture of steel castings at Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Petitioner was
certified in 1946 as the representative of a unit of foundry workers,
moulders, coremakers, and helpers, excluding office employees, f ore-
men, and all supervisors. In 1951 the contract unit description was
changed to designate a unit of production and maintenance employees,
excluding watchmen, guards, timekeepers, checkers, timestudy
employees, ratesetters, shop production and factory clerical employ-
ees, chief stockkeeper, head melters, office employees, technical engi-
neers, salesmen, superintendents, assistant superintendents, supervi-
sory inspectors, technicians, head shipping clerks, nurses, chemists,
metallurgists, personnel director, assistant personnel director, fore-
men, assistant foremen, and other supervisors. The parties have
entered into several collective-bargaining agreements since 1951
which, including the current agreement, have contained the 1951 unit
description.
Neither the certified nor the contractual unit makes reference to
Brinell testers, although the record shows that the work of Brinell
testing, which involves determining the hardness of castings, was
168 NLRB 143.
162 NLRB No. 143.
1514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
originally performed by a metallurgist, and, by 1950, had increased
to an extent that required full-time work by three or four employees.
The record also shows that the Petitioner has not represented employ-
ees in this category, and, in fact, the Petitioner, which has repre-
sented a unit of hourly paid employees, does not allege that it ever
represented the Brinell testers, who are salaried.
The Petitioner contends that the Brinell testers are covered by the
unit description and should therefore be expressly included by the
Board. The Employer uxges dismissal of the petition on the grounds
that : the function performed by these employees has existed since
before the certification in 1946; the employees engaged in this work
have never been represented by the Petitioner; these employees are
not includable because they lack a community of interest with the
employees in the unit; and, in any event, the inclusion of Brinell
testers in the unit after so many years of bargaining history which
did not cover them should be only pursuant to a self-determination
election.
In view of the foregoing, and bearing in mind particularly that the
function of Brinell testing was in existence at the time of the certifi-
cation in 1946, that neither the certification nor any contract since
1946 included these employees in the unit description, and that the
Petitioner has made no effort to represent these employees until 20
years after the certification, we find that the petition for clarification
raises a question concerning representation which may not be resolved
through a clarification of the existing unit. The proper procedure is
a petition pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act seeking an election.2
We shall therefore grant the Employer's motion that the Petitioner's
petition be denied.3
[The Board dismissed the petition for clarification of the unit.]
2 Beaunit Fibers , Inc., 153 NLRB 987.
3 In view of our disposition of this matter , we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Em-
ployer's contentions that the Brinell testers are supervisors, or that they lack a sufficient
community of interest to be included with the unit employees.
Joseph Madruga and Duarte R. Madruga , a partnership, d/b/a
MV Dominator and Cannery Workers & Fishermen 's Union
of San Diego , affiliated with the Seafarers ' International Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 21-RC-10147.
February 8, 1967
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing
162 NLRB No. 134.