Intercontinental Engineering-Manufacturing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 28, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 824 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intercontinental Engineering-Manufacturing Corporation and
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 101,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Intercontinental Engineering-Manufacturing Corporation and
District Lodge No. 71, International Association of Machin-
ists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 17-RC-3461 and 17-RC-
3468. November 08, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS*
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Michael J.
Lucero, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Petitioner Operating Engineers seeks a unit of all employees at
the Employer's Kansas City, Missouri, plant, excluding truckdrivers
and machinists. Petitioner Machinists seeks a unit composed of the
machinists located in the Employer's machine shop. The Employer,
however, contends that all of its employees, including both machinists
and truckdrivers, constitute the only appropriate unit. There is no
bargaining history affecting any of these employees.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and remanufacture
of heavy industrial equipment and its components. Its plant is housed
in three buildings. Building No. 1 contains a tractor assembly, dis-
assembly, and remanufacture area and a storage area. Adjoining this
.structure is building No. 2 which encloses an office area, a warehouse
for spare parts, a repair area, the heating plant, and washrooms.
Building No. 3 is located at a distance of 75 to 100 feet away from
building No. 2 and houses a tractor repair unit, welding machinery,
and the machine shop. There is no partition between the machine
shop and the welding area.
The Machinists seeks the six employees who work in the machine
shop and who are classified as machinists. Though these employees
*On December 22, 1961 , the Board amended the Decision and Direction of Elections to
include employees of the Employer at its Parkville and Kansas City, Missouri , plants in
the units found to be appropriate , in view of the fact that the Employer is in the process
of moving its operations from its plant in Kansas City to a plant in Parkville , Missouri.
134 NLRB No. 93.
INTERCONTINENTAL ENGINEERING MFG., CORP. 825
occasionally work in other areas of the plant, they spend approximate-
ly 80 to 85 percent of the time in the machine shop where they operate
various types of machine tools such as lathes, drill presses, and grind-
ers and engage in other work associated with their trade. They are
expected to keep to tolerance between one-thousandth and one ten-
thousandth of an inch. Though the Employer does not maintain an
apprenticeship program for any employees, those who work in the
machine shop are advertised for, and hired in, as "machinists." If an
employee proves unable to operate satisfactorily the shop equipment,
he is discharged. In view of the.foregoing, we find that the machinists
are craftsmen of the type which the Board has customarily held
entitled to separate representation.'
The Employer contends, in support of its position that a separate
unit of machinists is not appropriate, that all employees including the
machinists have the same employment benefits, that the machinists, as
noted, occasionally work in other areas of the plant, and that the
machinists are not separately supervised. It further points out that
other employees in the plant can operate much of the machine shop
equipment and frequently work in the machine shop when the work-
load requires their help. Nevertheless, it is clear that the employees
the Machinists seeks are the only employees in the plant that are hired
in and classified as machinists and that no other employees regularly
spend a substantial portion of their time working in the machine shop
doing machinists' work. Under these circumstances, the factors relied
on by the Employer do not preclude the separate representation of the
machinists? Accordingly, we find no merit in the Employer's conten-
tion. Consequently, and as the Operating Engineers does not seek to
include the machinists in their plantwide unit, we find that the
machinists constitute a separate appropriate unit.'
As noted, the Operating Engineers seeks, over the Employer's ob-
jection, to exclude from the plantwide unit the truckdrivers whom no
union desires to represent separately. There are five truckdrivers.
They are under general plant supervision and spend a small portion
of their time working in the plant. However, 85 to 90 percent of their
time is spent in making over-the-road deliveries throughout the United
States. While so engaged, their hours of work and certain other con-
ditions of employment are governed by I.C.C. regulations. However,
the Board is presently reconsidering the problem of the unit placement
of truckdrivers in plantwide units where, as here, a petitioner, con-
trary to an employer, wishes them excluded and no union seeks to
represent them separately. We can see no useful purpose in delaying
the holding of an election here in the plantwide unit until that problem
is resolved. Accordingly, we shall make at this time no final deter-
Cf. Koppers Company, Inc., Chemical Division, Williams Plant, 117 NLRB 422, 427.
a Cf. B. H. Hadley, Inc., 130 NLRB 1622.
Cf. Balientine Packing Company, Inc., 132 NLRB 923.
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
mination with respect to the unit placement of the drivers but permit
them to vote subject to challenge in the election for unit (A) set, forth
below. If the challenged ballots are determinative of the results or if
the Operating Engineers is selected as the bargaining representative,
the Board shall, sua sponte, when it has decided the proper unit
placement of the truckdrivers, amend the unit accordingly'
In view of the foregoing we find that the following employees of
the Employer at its Kansas City, Missouri, plant constitute units
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining under Section 9(b)
of the Act :
(A) All employees excluding machine shop employees, office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act;
(B) All machinists 6 and machinists helpers, including the ma-
chinist leadman, but excluding all other employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and LEimoM concurring in part and dissenting
in part:
We agree with the majority that the machinists are craftsmen
entitled to separate representation. However, for the reasons set forth
in our dissenting opinion in the Ballentine case, supra, we would make
no final unit determinations at this time with respect to the machinists
but would provide for their inclusion in the overall unit should they
fail to vote for separate representation. A production and mainte-
nance unit that excludes certain unrepresented maintenance employees,
such as the machinists, is an inappropriate unit and is plainly contrary
to well-established Board precedent. Yet, if the machinists reject
separate representation, the practical effect, deriving from the ma-
jority position in the Ballentine case, will be a holding that such a
partial production and maintenance unit is appropriate. As indicated,
we did not subscribe to the Ballentine doctrine when it was announced.
We do not subscribe to the present application of the doctrine, which
results in an even further confusion of Board law with respect to
bargaining units.
As to the truckdrivers, the Board has long held that, where, as here,
there is no agreement to exclude them and no union seeks to represent
them separately, they must be included in a production and mainte-
nance unit.' Nothing appears in this case warranting a departure
from that policy. Consequently, unlike the majority, we would follow
the established practice and include the drivers in the broader unit.
4 See Ben Pearson's Inc., 133 NLRB 636, footnote 5.
s As we have found the requested unit appropriate on a craft basis, we have described
the unit in terms of the craft classification involved, not in terms of the work area We
have not, as requested by the Machinists Union included machinist apprentices in the
unit as the record indicates there are no such employees
9 See, for example, National Welders Supply Company, Inc., 129 NLRB 514; Foremost
Dairies, Inc., 118 NLRB 1424.