J. I. Case Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1955

112 N.L.R.B. 796 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The final argument of the Employers is that if the employees
involved in the unprotected activities are ordered reinstated and per-
mitted to vote, an equivalent number of employees should be dropped
from the voting lists.
We find this contention to be without merit. The Board permits
all employees to participate in a representation election who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of the Direction of Election. We see no reason for prohibiting some
employees, who otherwise would be eligible to vote, from the privilege
of exercising their franchise rights simply because other employees
discriminatorily discharged are ordered reinstated.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
J. I. Case Company and International Association of Tool Crafts-
men, Local No . 1, National Independent Union Council, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 18-RC-9430. May 18,1955
-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 Ray C. Jenkins, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1
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. The Intervenor contended at the hearing that its contract exe-
cuted March 22, 1954, covering the employees petitioned for, bars
an election at this time. However, that contract, effective until
March 22, 1955, contains a 60-day automatic renewal clause. The
Petitioner requested recognition on January 19, 1955, prior to the
January 21, 1955, Mill-B date,2 and filed this petition on January 24,
1955, well within the 10-day rule set forth in the General Electric
X-Ray case.' We therefore find that the petition was timely and the
contract is not a bar. A question affecting commerce exists 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.
1 The motion of the Intervenor, International Association of Machinists , District 102,
AFL, for oral argument is denied as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and
the positions of the parties.
See Mill B, Inc., 40 NLRB 346.
See General Electric X-Ray Corporation, 67 NLRB 997.
112 NLRB No. 104.
J. I. CASE COMPANY 797
4. The petition , as amended at the hearing, requests an election in
a unit of all employees in toolroom department 84, including tool- and
die-makers , tool- and die-inspectors , toolroom machinists , tool- and
die-heat treaters , tool - and die-welders , tool crib attendant , and laborer
(sawman ) ; or, in the alternative , a craft unit composed of all the
above-named employees except the tool crib attendant and the laborer.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that both these units are
inappropriate because they do not include the machine repairmen in
department 85.
In a previous case involving this plant, 79 NLRB 1070, the Board
found a tool - and die-makers ' unit was entitled to representation sep-
arate from the production and maintenance employees if they so de-
sired, as a traditional craft group . After an election , the Intervenor
was certified on June 10 , 1949, to represent the separate unit. There-
after, in a subsequent case, 105 NLRB 638, the Board found that the
machine repairmen in department 85 were entitled to separate repre-
sentation , rejecting the Employer's contention that such a unit was
inappropriate because it did not include the tool- and die-makers.
After an election , the Intervenor was certified on July 23, 1953, to
represent department 85. In March 1954 the Intervenor and the
Employer executed a written contract covering both departments 84
and 85 in one combined unit. As stated above, the Petitioner now
wishes to sever department 84 or, in the alternative , a tool - and die-
makers' craft unit.
The function of toolroom department 84 is to manufacture and
repair tools , dies, and jigs. The function of department 85 is to repair
and rebuild production machines. Employees in the latter depart-
ment are designated as machine repairmen or oilers. Both depart-
ments, along with certain electricians and various storage and supply
cribs and their attendants , are located within the same area in the
center of the plant floor. The area is enclosed by a railing , and there
is no physical separation of operations within this enclosure. There
is no interchange of employees between the toolroom and machine re-
pairmen, but several repairmen frequently use all machines assigned
to the toolroom except those machines assigned permanently to one
employee. Since October 1954 , departments 84 and 85 have not been
separately supervised; one foreman supervises all manufacturing of
tools and dies, and another supervises repair of both production
machines and dies.
It is clear , on the facts before us, particularly the absence of separate
location and supervision , that departments 84 and 85 are separate in
name only, while they actually function as a single organizational
unit . We therefore find that toolroom department 84 is not a func-
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tionally distinct departmental unit and consequently is not appro-
priate for severance purposes 4
As to the alternate request for a craft unit, the Employer's job
description for tool- and die-makers A requires that they construct,
alter, and repair a wide variety of complex dies, fixtures, jigs, and
tools to precise and exacting tolerances; and set up and operate various
power and machine tools such as mills, drills, grinders, and jig bores.
The duties of tool- and die-makers B and C and toolroom machinists
are of a similar nature but progressively less difficult. The tool- and
die-inspectors are classified as tool- and die-makers.
Machine repairmen A in department 85 are required to maintain
and repair precision and automatic metal-cutting production and serv-
ice machines throughout the plant, and to make, repair, and replace
parts for electrical, hydraulic, and mechanical equipment. The duties
of repairmen B and C are also similar but progressively less difficult.
The current contract provides the same pay rate for tool- and die-
makers A, B, and C as for machine repairmen A, B, and C, respec-
tively. The Employer has no apprentice program for either classi-
fication. As stated above, there is no interchange between the two
groups.
It is clear from the description of the duties performed by the tool-
and die-makers and toolroom machinists that, as the Board has previ-
ously found, they exercise the skills of the universally recognized tra-
ditional tool- and die-makers' craft. We also find, in agreement with
the Board's prior determination, that these employees have common
interests in collective bargaining which are separate and distinct from
those of the machine repairmen in department 85. Moreover, while
the latter are highly skilled, they have essentially different skills and
are not interchanged with the tool- and die-makers' craft group.'
Accordingly, the employees in the tool- and die-makers' group may,
if they so desire, be represented separately for purposes of collective
bargaining.
We further find, in accordance with the Board's prior determination
in International Harvester Company, Farmali Works, 111 NLRB
606, and contrary to the contention of the Intervenor, that the Peti-
tioner is qualified to seek severance of a tool- and die-makers' unit.
4 American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418
51bid The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the Minneapolis Moline case,
108 NLItB3 1458, where the Board denied severance of a maintenance machine-shop unit
because it did not include production machinist employees , is controlling We do not agree.
That case did not involve toolroom employees , but two groups of machinists possessing
identical skills some of whom worked on the end product and some of whom did maintenance
work. In this case, while the tool- and die-makers and the machine repairmen axe both
engaged in maintenance work , they exercise similar but essentially different skills
J. I. CASE COMPANY 799
The Petitioner requests that the tool- and die-welder and tool- and
die-heat treater be included in the craft group.' The Employer's job
description for tool- and die-welder requires him to weld, by acetylene
gas or electric arc process, braze, or solder a variety of die, fixture,
gauge, jig, and tool details and elements, and weld broken, defective,
or worn machine parts, in aluminum, brass, bronze, cast iron, and
steel. He is assigned to the toolroom but works for both tool- and
die-makers and machine repairmen. We, therefore, find that the tool-
and die-welder exercises a high degree of skill and, as he is regularly
assigned to the tool- and die-makers, we shall, in conformity with
Board policy with regard to the unit placement of welders, include
him in the voting group." The heat treater is required to anneal,
carburize, draw, harden, normalize, or stress relieve die, fixture, gauge,
jig, tool details, and equipment and machine repair parts. He is
also assigned to the toolroom and works with both tool- and die-
makers and machine repairmen. The record does not reveal, however,
whether this employee is in the direct line of progression in the tool-
and die-craft, and we shall accoidingiy permit hun to rote subject to
challenge.'
In view of the foregoing determinations, we shall direct an election
among the following employees of the Employer's Bettendorf, Iowa,
plant : All tool- and die-makers, toolroom machinists, tool- and die-
inspectors, tool- and die-welder, and tool- and die-heat treater,9 exclud-
ing all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit, which the Board
finds, under the circumstances, to be appropriate for purposes of col-
lective bargaining, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit. If a
majority vote for the Intervenor, they will continue to be represented
as a part of the existing unit and the Regional Director will issue a
certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRCIIAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
The Petitioner requested inclusion of the tool crib attendant and laborer (sawman)
only if the depaitniental unit were found appropriate As we have found the departmental
unit inappropriate, and as these employees do not possess trait skills and none of the
paities requests theta inclusion in the craft group, we exclude them
7Clayton if Lambert Atanufaetusing Company, Ordnance Divtision, 111 NLRB 450.
6 See Friden Calculating Machine Co , Inc., et at., 110 NLRB 1618
9 Our inclusion of the heat treater in the voting gioup does not constitute a final deter-
mination concerning his unit placement.