International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 606 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
existing bargaining unit or policy considerations to the contrary, not
to permit the severance of craft units in decertification cases in the face
of an established bargaining history on a broader basis. Similarly,
for reasons more fully set forth in the Campbell Soup decision, we
shall no longer permit the severance of technical employees in decerti-
fication proceedings 3 Assuming, therefore, without deciding, that the
tool designers are technical employees, we find that the existing bar-
gaining unit of production and maintenance employees is the appro-
priate unit. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the instant petition.
,[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Order.
3 Cf., among others , Ciba Products Corporation, 109 NLRB 873, wherein the Board
allowed the decertification of technical employees from an existing production and main-
tenance unit . To the extent that this and like cases are inconsistent with the instant
decision , they are hereby overruled.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, FARMALL WORKS and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, AND ITS FE LOCAL
109, UAW-CIO, PETITIONER
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, FARMALL WORKS and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, AND ITS FE LOCAL
109, UAW-CIO, PETITIONER
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, FARMALL WORKS and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TOOL CRAFTSMEN, LOCAL No. 1, PETITIONER.
Cases Nos. 13-RC-3910,13-RC-3911, and 13-RC-3977. February
14,1955
Supplemental Decision and Direction of Elections
On December 7, 1954, the Board issued its Decision in this proceed-
ing, directing an election in Case No. 13-RC-3911 and reserving for
further consideration the appropriate unit issues involved in Cases
Nos. 13-RC-3190 and 13-RC-3977. Having duly considered the mat-
ter the Board now makes the following finding:
As noted in the earlier Decision, International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
CIO, and its FE Local 109, UAW-CIO, herein called Local 109,
UAW-CIO, in Case No. 13-RC-3910, seeks to represent a unit of all
employees in departments 19, 27, and 57. This unit is consistent with
a previously established machinist multidepartmental unit. In Case
111 NLRB No. 103.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 607
No. 13-RC-3977, International Association of Tool Craftsmen, Local
No. 1, herein called Local No. 1, seeks to sever from this unit and to
represent separately all employees in department 27, consisting of
tool- and die-makers, toolroom machinists, toolroom machine opera-
tors, toolroom crib attendants, toolroom welders, toolroom heat treat-
ers, precision grinders, precision gage grinders, gage and instrument
repairmen, and tool- and die-maker's apprentices, but excluding two
laborers.
The other parties 1 to this proceeding urge dismissal of Local No. 1's
petition because allegedly Local No. 1 does not meet the traditional
union test for craft severance.' The record discloses that Local No. 1
is a newly formed labor organization, having as its purpose the repre-
sentation of employees in the tool- and die-making craft for collective-
bargaining purposes, but which to date has obtained no such contract.
The Board has recently reviewed the application of its traditional
union test for craft severance cases, and has determined that a union
newly organized for the sole and exclusive purpose of representing
members of the particular craft involved meets the traditional craft
union test.' Accordingly, we find that Local No. 1 is a craft union
which may seek to sever tool and die craft employees from an existing
larger unit if such severance is otherwise appropriate.
Severance of the group sought by Local No. 1 is opposed on the ad-
ditional ground that employees in machine repair departments 19 and
57 have skills in related crafts comparable to those of the employees in
toolroom department 27, and a degree of interchangeability and inte-
gration exists particularly between employees in department 57 and
department 27.
Employees in the separately located and supervised toolroom de-
partment 27 are engaged in making and repairing tools, dies, gages,
jigs, instruments, and fixtures, and in attaching these items to and
seeing that they operate properly with production machinery. Tool-
room employees work to close tolerances from sketches and blueprints.
Of 109 employees in the departments, 64 are tool- and die-makers and
9 are apprentices. Others are skilled operators of various types of tool-
room machinery.
All parties agree that employees in the three departments are skilled
in their respective lines. Employees in machine repair departments
19 and 57 are predominantly machinists devoted to the making of
parts for, and the repair of, production machinery. Employees from
1 The Intervenor is United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, and its
United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers, Local 109, UE, whose contract, as deter-
mined by the Board in the earlier decision (110 NLRB 1247), is not a bar to this pro-
ceeding.
2 The parties rely upon American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418, as
applied in Elgin National Watch Company, Wadsworth Division, 109 NLRB 273.
3 Friden Calculating Machine Co., Inc., and Marehant Calculators, Inc., 110 NLRB 1618.
608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
oach department devote their skills to the specialty for which their re-
spective departments are responsible . Occasionally , an employee from
department 27 or 57 may find the need for, and will use , a piece of
machinery located in the other department . However, there is no in-
terchange of employees or of work and any excess toolroom work is
,farmed out rather than sent to department 57. Although the basic
apprentice program is the same, the last year of apprenticeship is de-
voted to the specialty of the department to which the apprentice is as-
signed. This record established that departments 27 and 57 are not
integrated , nor are the employees interchanged . Although machin-
ists and tool- and die-makers are in related crafts and may appropri-
ately constitute a single unit,' the Board has held that a separately
located and supervised tool- and die-room may constitute a separate
functionally distinct and homogeneous departmental group .' Accord-
ingly, we find that employees in department 27 constitute a group
having in the main such distinct craft skills that they may be sepa-
rately represented apart from the existing multidepartmental unit of
machinists and related crafts . However , in view of the foregoing, we
shall make no final unit determination with respect to the toolroom
employees, but shall direct that the question concerning the represen-
tation of these employees be resolved by separate secret ballot elections,
in the following voting groups of employees of the Employer at the
Farmall Works at Rock Island , Illinois :
A. All employees in the machine repair department 57 and machine
repair department 19, excluding supervisors and all other employees.
B. All toolroom employees , department 27, excluding supervisors
and all other employees ."
If a majority of the employees in voting group B select the union
seeking to represent them separately , these employees will be taken
to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit
and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue
a certification of representatives to the labor organization seeking and
selected by the employees in that group for such unit , which the Board
in such circumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining . On the other hand, if a majority of the employees
in voting group B do not vote for the union which is seeking to rep-
resent them in a separate unit , that group will be appropriately in-
cluded in the unit described in voting group A and their votes will
be pooled with those in voting group A. If the votes are pooled, they
d Cf. St. Louis Car Company, 108 NLRB 1388, and Superior Sleeprite Corporation, 106
.NLRB 228.
5 See John Deere Planter Works of Deere & Company, 107 NLRB 1497 . Also see Moe
Light, Inc., 109 NLRB 1013; Eaton Manufacturing Company, 108 NLRB 1269.
G Although Local No. 1 did not seek to include two laborers assigned to this department
we find they may not appropriately be excluded from a departmental unit. We have, ac-
cordingly , included them in the voting group here established.
LOUIS F. DOW COMPANY 609
are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for the union
seeking the separate unit shall be counted among the valid votes cast,
but neither for nor against the union seeking the more comprehensive
unit; all other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for
representation by the union seeking the comprehensive unit, or for
no union. The Regional Director conducting the election is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organization
selected by a majority of the employees in the pooled group, which
the Board in such circumstances finds to be a single unit appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.].
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Direction of Elections.
,Louis F. Dow COMPANY and BUILDING SERvIcE EMPLOYEES INTERNA-
TIONAL LOCAL 64, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 18-RC-4399. Feb-
ruary 14,1955
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Alan Bruce, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial 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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No 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 for the following reasons :
The Employer is a Minnesota corporation engaged in the manu-
facture of good-will advertising products such as calendars, novelties,
leather goods, and general printing. The Petitioner seeks a unit of
four employees who perform janitor, watchmen, and maintenance
duties under the supervision of a janitor foreman. Although the Em-
ployer does not dispute the appropriateness of the unit, he challenges
the authority of the Petitioner to represent three of these employees
who he contends perform guard duties.
One of the four employees petitioned for is a paper baler who uses
a mechanical baler to bale waste paper. The Employer does not con-
tend that he performs guard duties. However, there is some evidences
111 NLRB No. 101.