International Die Sinkers' Conference

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 27, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 794 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Die Sinkers' Conference and Lehigh
Valley Die Sinkers' Lodge No . 150 and Phoenix
Forging Company, Division-Union Tank Car
Company and International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths, Forgers,
Helpers, Lodge No . 1506, AFL-CIO. Cases 4-
CD-365 and 4-CD-366
February 27, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed by Phoenix Forging Company,
Division-Union Tank Car Company, herein called
the Employer, alleging that International Die Sink-
ers' Conference and Lehigh Valley Die Sinkers'
Lodge No. 150, herein collectively called the Die
Sinkers, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of
the Act by engaging in certain conduct with an
object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign
particular work to employees represented by the Die
Sinkers rather than to employees represented by
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, Helpers, Lodge
No. 1506, AFL-CIO, herein called the Boilermakers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer James H. Stephens on October 9, 10,
29, 30, and 31, 1974. All parties appeared at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to present evidence bearing on the issues . Thereafter,
the Employer and the Die Sinkers filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three -member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
The Board has considered the briefs and the entire
record in this case and hereby makes the following
findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Phoenix Forging Company is a division of
Union Tank Car Company, a Delaware corporation
engaged in the manufacture of railway tank cars with
its headquarters located in Chicago, Illinois. Phoenix
Forging Company is located at Catasauqua, Pennsyl-
216 NLRB No. 139
vania, and is engaged in the manufacture of forged
products. During the past 12 months, which is a
representative period, Union Tank Car Company, by
and through its Phoenix Forging Company Division,
purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 from
persons located outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, which goods were shipped directly in
interstate commerce to Phoenix Forging Company.
During this same period, the gross volume of sales by
Union Tank Car Company, by and through its
Phoenix Forging Company Division, was valued in
excess of $1 million. Accordingly, we find that the
Employer is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and, in accordance with the
stipulation of the parties, that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Interna-
tional Die Sinkers' Conference, Lehigh Valley Die
Sinkers' Lodge No. 150, and International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Black-
smiths, Forgers, Helpers, Lodge No. 1506, AFL-
CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of. the Dispute
The Employer manufactures its products primarily
by means of a hot-forging operation . Of the employ-
ees currently working at the Employer's facility, 135
are represented by the Boilermakers and perform
production and maintenance work . The boilermakers
perform all work on the hot -forging machines used to
make forged products, excluding the dies. Other
members of the unit perform repair and maintenance
functions throughout the plant, including making
parts for plant machinery , maintaining tooling, and
sharpening tools . Most of the repair and mainte-
nance work involves the use of grinders and
polishers.
In order to make a forged product (forging), a die
must be made to conform to the specifications
submitted by a customer . Hot-forging dies range in
size from 10 inches by 12 inches to 22 inches by 18
inches and in weight from 200 to 500 pounds. A die
consists of two parts, each of which forms one -half of
the forging . Each die block contains a cavity which
has the shape of the product sunk into the metal. The
Employer obtains the necessary dies from either of
two sources. Some dies are made in the Employer's
die shop by employees represented by the Die
INTERNATIONAL DIE SINKERS ' CONFERENCE
Sinkers . However, approximately 80 to 90 percent of
the hot-forging dies used by the Employer are
manufactured outside the plant , because the Em-
ployer lacks the capacity to make all the dies needed
for its business.
Once the die is made it is sent to the forge shop.
The equipment into which the die is inserted is drop-
forging equipment. Drop-forging is defined as
hammering metal in a drophammer between dies.
The hammer consists of a ram , which is the moving
part of the hammer to which a die is attached, and a
sowbed or sow block in the base of the hammer,
which protects the entire structure of the hammer
from shock and wear and also holds a die. The top
die is inserted into the ram and the bottom die is
placed in the sowbed. The metal to be forged is
heated to forging temperature and placed on the
bottom die. The ram drops down from the top of the
hammer and repeatedly strikes the hot metal in the
bottom die cavity. As the hammer strikes, the metal
is gradually forged to conform to the configuration
of the dies.
Three employees in the Boilermakers unit are
involved in • the manufacture of each hot forging. The
heater is responsible for inserting the metal into the
forging furnance , taking it out, and presenting it to
the hammerman or forger, who then forges the parts.
Each forging die has several impressions or stations,
up to a maximum of four. The hammerman moves
the hot material from one impression to another until
the part is completed. From 5 to 25 blows of the
hammer are necessary to form the finished product
at each station. After the forging is formed, the
trimmer man removes the excess material or "flash"
from around the forging. The forging is then cooled,
cleaned, and inspected before shipping.
The repair and maintenance of hot-forging dies has
traditionally been assigned to employees represented
by Die Sinkers , numbering at present approximately
16. Repair and maintenance is generally done either
at the beginning or end of a production shift, and
entails bringing the die from the forge floor to the die
shop. If a die is worn or needs repair, the hammer-
man removes it from the hammer and takes it to the
die shop. If the die must be reworked or resunk, the
impression diesinkers will do the work . Most repairs
are performed by die dressers, who spend all of their
time on maintenance and repair . Most of the work
involves grinding and polishing. If a die is broken, it
may involve welding, which is performed by an
employee represented by the Boilermakers.
For several years, the Employer has been consider-
ing the adoption of a method of producing forgings
by cold forming or cold forging, which involves the
shaping of parts at temperatures much lower than
those required for hot forging. Upon the introduction
795
of this process into the plant in June 1974, the
Employer assigned the work of operating and
maintaining the cold-forming machine, known as a
cold header, as well as the maintenance, repair, and
modification of the cold-forming dies, to employees
in the Boilermakers unit.
The first step in the operation of the cold header is
to set up the tooling and insert it into the machine,
which is done by the operator of the machine. A coil
of steel rod is placed on a supporting machine by a
fork truck operator with the aid of the operator of the
cold header. The operator straightens the end of the
rod so that it can be inserted in feed rolls which draw
the material through a second machine, the cold
draw, which reduces the diameter of the rod. The rod
enters the header in the first station and a certain
length of wire is sheared off. The handling mecha-
nism in the machine picks up the sheared section of
rod and moves it automatically from station to
station in the machine. There are six stations and five
sets of dies. After the first, or cutting station, each
station contains a set of dies. At each of these
succeeding stations, various forming operations take
place.
Each stroke of the header produces a part which is
completed for that station, unlike a hot-forging
hammer, which requires many blows to form a
finished part. Also unlike a hammer, which forges
heated material by means of a vertical drop, the cold
header is a press which operates horizontally under
pressure; each station contains a fixed and a moving
die which come together against the rod to form the
part. The cold header operation also differs from hot
forging in that: ( 1) it is automatic, whereas the hot
forger is not; and (2) the cold header requires one
operator, rather than the three workers required for
the hot-forging operation. When the part comes out
of the cold header, it must be threaded, which is done
by the threader operator. The part is then cleaned,
inspected, and shipped.
Dies which are used in the cold-forming operation
are purchased by the Employer from an outside
manufacturer. A die for a cold header is approxi-
mately 2 inches in diameter and 8 inches long and
weighs 2 or 3 pounds. When fitted into its die case,
the whole assembly weighs 40 pounds.
The maintenance and repair of both the machine
and the dies used in the cold-forming process are
done by the operator and, temporarily, an assistant
operator, both of whom are members of the
Boilermakers unit. Repair and maintenance of the
dies are usually of a minor nature and include
grinding and polishing with tools and equipment
located in the cold-forming department. Major
repairs are done by the die manufacturer.
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The repair and maintenance of the dies are closely
related to the making of adjustments on the cold
header. Adjustments to the machine are necessary to
compensate for any repairs made on the dies and are
made so that the dies will retain both their proper
dimensions and their proper positions in the various
stations of the cold header. In order to check the
dies , the die case is removed and the components are
inspected. If repair is needed, the operator performs
the necessary grinding or polishing in the cold-
forming department . After reinsertion in the ma-
chine , the operator makes the necessary adjustments.
Repairs can also be made while the die is still in the
machine. Most repairs take very little time to
perform. As the operator gains familiarity with the
machine he is expected to be able to reduce to a
minimum the number and extent of necessary
adjustments.
Prior to the time when plans were completed for
the purchase of the cold-forming equipment, the
cold-forming department was known as the experi-
mental manufacturing department. Once the depart-
ment was manned and equipped, it became known as
the cold-forming department. The machinery con-
sists of the cold header, a threader, and a cleaning
machine. Also located in the department are the
grinders and polishers used to repair the dies. The
employees in the department are the operator,
assistant operator, threading operator, and fork truck
operator.
Currently, the cold-forming department is in a
preproduction stage , with only one type of forging
being produced. The Employer is still in the process
of developing tooling and dies to manufacture the
part. Changes and modifications in the tooling are
made during this stage by the operator and assistant
operator. When the department is in full production,
the Employer anticipates working two shifts, with the
present assistant operator working the second shift.
B. Work in Dispute
The parties stipulated that the work in dispute is
the repair, maintenance , and modification of cold-
forging dies and other tooling used in both prepro-
duction and full production of the Employer's cold
header equipment. The work of operating the cold
header and the various auxiliary machines other than
repair machinery in the cold-forming department
and of repair and maintenance of those machines is
not in dispute.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer has assigned the work in dispute to
employees represented by the Boilermakers, claiming
that the factors of economy, efficiency, and relative
skills of the respective employees, and industry
practice support the assignment. In addition, the
Employer contends that a memorandum of agree-
ment between it and the Boilermakers, which was
executed in contemplation of the introduction of the
cold-forming department, and which extends the
provisions of the Boilermakers ' Basic Agreement
with the Employer to the new department, clearly
contemplates that the disputed work shall be per-
formed by members of the Boilermakers unit. In
addition, the Employer is satisfied with the results of
the assignment.
The Boilermakers agrees with the assignment,
citing its skills in performing maintenance and repair
work on other machines in the plant, and the fact
that there is a close relationship between the repair
and maintenance of cold-forming dies and the
balance of the work performed by the cold-former
operator while operating the cold header.
The Die Sinkers claims that the work should be
assigned to its members . It claims that the repair and
maintenance of dies is covered by a certification of
the Board issued in 1946 and by its present
collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer.
The Die Sinkers further claims that the practice of
the Employer of assigning the repair and mainte-
nance of hot-forging dies to members of the Die
Sinkers unit supports its position and that, despite
the fact that no one in its unit has ever performed
work on a cold-forming die, its members are entitled
to the work on the basis of their skills and training.
The Die Sinkers further contends that most of the
work now being performed by its members on hot-
forging dies could be converted by the Employer to
the cold-forging process, thereby eliminating most of
the unit work now performed by its members, if the
work in dispute is assigned to members of the
Boilermakers unit.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to
determine a dispute out of which an 8(b)(4)(D)
charge has arisen. However, before the Board
proceeds with a determination of the dispute, it must
be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe
that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and that
there is no agreed-upon method, binding on all
parties, for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
On October 1, 1973, the Employer and the
Boilermakers entered into a memorandum of agree-
ment which contemplated that the work in dispute
would be assigned to members of the Boilermakers
unit. The memorandum did not contain any specific
reference to the cold-forming process because the
Employer wanted to keep this new development from
INTERNATIONAL DIE SINKERS' CONFERENCE
its competitors . Knowledge of the purchase of the
new equipment was made public in a company
newsletter published in December 1973. Informal
discussions relating to the work assignment were
subsequently held with the Die Sinkers.
A meeting was held in February 1974 at which the
Die Sinkers asserted jurisdiction over the disputed
work. Shortly thereafter, the Die Sinkers filed a
grievance with the Employer reiterating its claim to
the work. At a meeting in April, the Die Sinkers
representative informed the Employer that the Union
would authorize a strike vote unless the Employer
changed its position with respect to the disputed
work. Subsequently, the Employer learned that a
strike vote had indeed been taken, and that the local
had voted in favor of a strike.
In view of the conduct described above, we find
that there is reasonable cause to believe that a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) has oc-
curred. As there is no contention that an agreed-
upon method for its voluntary adjustment exists, we
find that the dispute is properly before the Board for
determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
1. Collective-bargaining contracts and
certifications
Under the terms of its collective-bargaining con-
tract with the Boilermakers, the Employer recognizes
the Boilermakers as the representative of the pro-
duction and maintenance employees. The boilermak-
ers perform all production work on the machines
used to make hot forgings. In addition, the boiler-
makers perform repair and maintenance work on
various machines used throughout the plant.
In anticipation of the purchase of the cold-forming
equipment, the parties executed an amendment to
the Boilermakers' Basic Agreement which covered
the proposed experimental manufacturing depart-
ment. By its terms, the memorandum of agreement
extended the provisions of the Basic Agreement to
the new department. While the* work of the new
department was not specifically discussed during the
negotiations or specifically mentioned in the agree-
ment, it was understood by both parties that a new
process was being introduced and that all phases of it
would be under the jurisdiction of the Boilermakers.
The Employer contends that, since the experimen-
tal manufacturing department was set up according
to the agreement between it and the Boilermakers,
and since the cold-forming department is the
successor to the experimental manufacturing depart-
ment, there is a contractual foundation for the
assignment of the disputed work to the boilermakers.
The Employer also contends that the assignment has
i
797
contractual support because the Boilermakers con-
tract covers the production and maintenance work in
the plant. Since the cold-forming process produces
forged products, and since the employees represented
by the Boilermakers have traditionally produced
forging on the hot-forging machine, as well as
performing maintenance functions, the Employer
claims that the Boilermakers has jurisdiction of the
work.
The Die Sinkers bases its contractual claim to the
disputed work on the union recognition clause of its
agreement with the Employer. Under this provision,
the Die Sinkers is recognized as representing employ-
ees "performing work directly involved in the
manufacture and maintenance of all necessary
models, dies or parts of dies used in and for the
production and completion of forgings." The Die
Sinkers argues that the term "forgings" refers to cold
forgings as well as hot forgings, and that, since
members of its unit perform maintenance on dies
used in the hot-forging process, its contract clearly
covers the maintenance of cold-fornung dies.
Die Sinkers further contends that cold forging is
not a new process but has been in existence for
approximately 30 years, and therefore the Employer
must have been aware of this process when it
originally negotiated the contract with the Die
Sinkers.
The Die Sinkers further bases its claim to the work
on the certification of the Die Sinkers as the
exclusive agent for "all employees working on dies
and parts of dies in the manufacture and completion
of forgings." The certification was issued by the
Board in 1946. The Die Sinkers claims that, although
the cold-forging machine differs slightly in operation
from the hot-forging machine, the finished product is
nonetheless a forging. It claims that the phrase
"working on dies" includes repair and maintenance
of dies used to manufacture a forging. Since the cold
header does indeed produce a forging, the Die
Sinkers argues that it should have jurisdiction over
cold-forming dies.
The Employer argues that the term "forgings"
refers to hot forgings or the products of the
Employer's drop-forging process. It does not include
the products of the cold-forming process, which the
Employer contends is an entirely different operation
from that in which it has been traditionally engaged.
The Employer bases this last contention on the fact
that, in the 1946 Board certification, the Employer
was referred to as a manufacturer of "drop forgings."
Therefore, claims the Employer, all references to
forgings are limited to hot forgings, and, since the
work in dispute clearly contemplates equipment and
an operation which were not in existence at the
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer's plant at the time of the certification, the
certification does not cover the disputed work.
We find that both Unions have legitimate contrac-
tual claims to the work in dispute, and that the
factors of contract and certification do not unequivo-
cably favor an assignment to the employees in either
unit over those in the other.
2. Area, craft, and industry practice
Prior to investing in the cold-forming equipment,
the Employer conducted a feasibility study to
determine how the process was operated in the
industry. The Employer investigated five plants at
which the operator of the machine performs the
maintenance work on the tooling. On the basis of the
feasibility study and advice from the manufacturer of
the cold header, the Employer determined that the
work of maintaining the dies should be assigned to
the cold-former operator. Since the Employer had
also determined that the operator would be a
production and maintenance employee, the work was
assigned to a member of the Boilermakers unit.
The Die Sinkers produced examples of forgings
made from cold-forging dies. The dies were made by
employees represented by the Die Sinkers at a plant
visited by a Die Sinkers representative. There was no
evidence that the die sinkers at this plant repaired,
maintained, or modified the cold-forming dies.
However, the manufacture of the dies is not in
dispute. The evidence of industry practice favors an
award of the disputed work to the operators of the
machine, who are represented by the Boilermakers in
the instant case.
3. Job impact
The Die Sinkers contends that, if the disputed work
is given to members of the Boilermakers unit, the job
opportunities for its members will be diminished. It
bases this contention on the possibility that perhaps
60 percent of the work now being done by the hot-
forging method could be produced on the cold
header.
However, the Employer has no immediate plans for
obtaining additional cold-forming equipment. In
fact, the Employer is still in the "trial and error"
stage of its cold-forming operations, and estimates
that a period of 1 year will be required to gain
familiarity with the machine and to produce cold
forgings without interruption for repair and modifi-
cation of the tooling.
The plant is now operating at capacity in the hot-
forging method. The Employer, at the time of the
hearing, had the highest backlog of orders in its
history and was turning business away because of
lack of capacity. Diesinkers have been working much
more overtime than boilermakers to complete their
work.
In addition, the Employer must subcontract the
majority of its die manufacturing work because it
lacks the personnel to make all the dies it needs
inside the plant.
The operation of the cold header has no effect on
the diesinkers. At present, only one forging is being
produced by cold forming, and the die for this
product is manufactured by an outside company.
The diesinkers have sufficient work to do on the
manufacture, maintenance, and repair of hot-forging
dies. To award them the disputed work would
increase the backlog of orders and increase the
amount of overtime they would be required to work.
Should the Employer increase the number of cold
forgings and convert them from hot-forging process
to cold, the work opportunities for diesinkers would
not diminish. More of the die manufacture, which is
presently being subcontracted, could be performed at
the Employer's plant. Indeed, this is a result which is
virtually required by the agreement between the
Employer and the Die Sinkers, as the Employer may
not continue to subcontract work to the extent that
diesinkers are working less than 40 hours per week.
4. Economy and efficiency
The record contains much evidence as to the
economy and efficiency gained by awarding the
work in dispute to the members of the Boilermakers
unit. The entire cold-forming process is a highly
integrated procedure requiring the constant attention
of the operator. The feasibility study conducted by
the Employer revealed that the operator should
perform all functions relating to the machine,
including repair and maintenance of the dies,
because of the high degree of integration of the
process. The operator is responsible for the quality of
the finished product, and thus must monitor the
functioning of the machine. The operator is expected
to detect malfunctions or breakages of the tooling
and to take the appropriate corrective action. If
repair or replacement is required, the machine must
then be adjusted upon reinsertion of the die assembly
to compensate for any repairs.
If the diesinkers were to perform the repair and
maintenance, the operator would disassemble the die
assembly, a task not claimed by the diesinkers. The
operator would then have to explain the malfunction
to the diesinker. The diesinker would make the
repairs and would then be required to explain to the
operator what had been done to the die so that the
operator could adjust the machine accordingly. The
diesinker would wait for the reinsertion of the die
and perform whatever grinding and polishing may be
INTERNATIONAL DIE SINKERS' CONFERENCE
required while the die is in the machine , allowing the
operator to make further adjustments in accordance
with any additional changes in the dies.
There are several alternatives available to the
Employer if the disputed work were awarded to the
diesinkers. The Employer could station a diesinker at
the cold header full time to do whatever repair work
arose. According to the record, this proposal would
result in 75 percent idle time for the diesinker and 25
percent idle time for the operator, because neither
person would have any work to do while the other
was performing his work.
The Employer could arrange to have the diesinker
notified at his work station in the die shop that repair
work is needed in the cold-forming department.
However , it is uncertain whether a diesinker would
be immediately available because of his current
workload. While the die can be removed from the
machine during the time it takes for the diesinker to
arrive at the cold-forming department, the operator
must still take the time to instruct the diesinker as to
the required repairs, and it might take longer to give
these instructions to the diesinker than it would take
for the operator to do the repairs himself. Further-
more, the operator and the machine would be idle
while the repairs are being made, and the diesinker's
work in the die shop would remain undone.
All the equipment needed to perform repairs on the
cold-forming dies is located in the cold-forming
department, which the Employer contends is the
most convenient location. The Die Sinkers contends
that its members could perform the repair work
there, as discussed above, or the repair machinery
could be moved to the die shop. In the latter
situation, the operator would separate the dies from
the full assembly, which takes 10 to 15 minutes, and
transport the die to the die shop, instruct the
diesinker as to what repairs are needed, and wait
while the repairs are made. The diesinker might then
have to accompany the operator back to the cold-
forming department, so he could perform any further
repair work required after the die was reinserted in
the machine.
5. Skills
The record disclosed that the basic skills of the
members of both units are relatively equal. Both use
similar machines in the repair and maintenance of
dies or production machines , respectively. Among
these skills are grinding and polishing , which are
practically the only methods of repair used on the
cold-forming dies, since major repairs are done by
the manufacturer of the dies.
However, the employees chosen to work in the
cold-forming department received 3 weeks' training
799
on the machine and its related functions. Thus, the
operator knows how the machine functions and has
learned what may be wrong with a malfunctioning
die and how to correct it. The operator continues to
receive instruction from the manufacturers of the
machine and the dies and has progressed to the point
where he aids in the modification of the tooling.
The testimony revealed, in comparing the diesink-
ers and the operator, that the operator has more skill
and ability to determine what part has deteriorated
and exactly what needs to be done, while a diesinker
has no knowledge of this aspect of the process, but
would require instructions from the operator.
6. Employer preference
On the basis of its agreement with the Boilermak-
ers, the Employer assigned the disputed work to its
members. The record indicates that the Employer is
satisfied with the results of the assignment and
maintains a preference for an assignment of the work
to employees represented by the Boilermakers.
CONCLUSION
Upon the record as a whole, and after full
consideration of all the relevant factors involved, we
conclude that the employees represented by the
Boilermakers are entitled to the disputed work and
we shall determine the dispute in their favor. Where
boilermakers have traditionally performed mainte-
nance work similar to the disputed work; where
skills, economy, and efficiency favor an assignment
of work to boilermakers; where industry practice,
though not conclusive, favors such an assignment;
and where the Employer has been satisfied with and
continues to prefer the assignment, we must conclude
that an assignment of the work to employees
represented by the Boilermakers is warranted.
In making this determination, we are assigning the
disputed work to boilermakers employed by the
Employer, and represented by Lodge No. 1506, but
not to the Boilermakers or its members. Our present
determination is limited to the particular dispute
which gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby makes the following Determination of Dis-
pute:
Boilermakers employed by the Employer who are
currently represented by International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Forgers, Helpers, Lodge No. 1506 , AFL-CIO , are and modification of cold-forging dies and other
entitled to perform the work of repair , maintenance, tooling used in the Employer's cold-forming process.