John Deere Van Brunt Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 11, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 340 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
John Deere Van Brunt Company and Pattern Makers' League
of North America , Milwaukee Association , AFL, Petitioner
John Deere Van Brunt Company and International Association
of Machinists, AFL and International Molders & Foundry
Workers Union of North America, AFL, Joint Petitioners.
Cases Nos. 13-RC-4519, 13-RC-4521, and 13-RC-452?. October
11,1955
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION'
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
William D. Boetticher, hearing officer.' The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.2
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. The Employer contends that the petitions are premature because
a contract with the FLU does not expire until November 6, 1955, and,
as no written notice of change or termination has been given by either
party, the contract has been automatically renewed. As the petitions
were timely filed before the "Mill-B" date of the contract, they were
not premature. As the filing of the petitions forestalled automatic
renewal of the contract, we find that it is not a bar to these proceedings.3
We therefore find that a question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer'-in Cases Nos.
13-RC-4521 and 13-RC-4522, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. For the reasons stated in
paragraph numbered 4, however, we find that no question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer in Case No. 13-RC-4512 within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner in Case No. 13-RC-4512, herein called the Pattern
Makers, seeks to sever from the existing production and maintenance
unit, a unit of all patternmakers and their apprentices. The Joint Pe-
' Federal Labor Union No . 23223 , AFL, herein called the FLU , entered an appearance
at the hearing on the basis of a current contract with the Employer. It stated , however,
that it did not wish to intervene in these proceedings , or appear on the ballot in any
election directed by the Board because the Employer's employees had voted to transfer
their membership to the labor organizations involved in these proceedings
3 At the hearing , the Petitioners in Cases Nos . 13-RC-4521 and 13-RC-4522, herein
called the Joint Petitioneis , amended their petition to appear as Joint Petitioners for a
production and maintenance unit.
3 Central Rafna, 108 NLBR 307, 308; Hamilton Watch Company, 113 NLRB 379
114 NL13B No. 69.
JOHN DEERE VAN BRUNT COMPANY 341'-
titioners'seek'to representjointly-a^pro'duction=and maintenhrice_unit,
excluding patternrriakers. In the-event.-however; the Board finds thit
the patternmakers do not constitute a separate appropriate unit, they
are willing to represent the patternmakers as part of the production
and maintenance unit. The Employer contends that because of the
integration of its operations and interchangeability in the duties,
work, and job assignments among all employees, only a production and
maintenance unit is appropriate. It further contends that the unit
sought.to be severed by the Pattern Makers is inappropriate because
the employees are not skilled journeymen craftsmen.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of farm
equipment machinery. The patternmakers, sought to be severed, are
part of the Employer's toolroom department. There are nine pattern-
makers who work under the supervision of the assistant toolroom fore-
man, who also supervises toolmakers. Three of the patternmakers
are wood patternmakers and six are metal patternmakers. The three
wood patternmakers work in a separate enclosure in the toolroom.
The metal patternmakers work throughout the toolroom. The pat-
ternmakers have the same employee benefits and wage rates as the tool-
makers, and are on the toolroom departmental seniority list.
There is nothing in the record to indicate that the employees sought
by the Pattern Makers are journeymen patternmakers. There is no
apprenticeship or other formal training program for patternmakers.
The progression, however, is usually from machine operator to tool-
maker to patternmaker. Except as to one employee, the record does
not show the skills or training of the patternmakers. Nor does the
record contain any evidence as to the requirements for the position or
the duties of these employees.
In the American Potash case,4 we made it clear that the Petitioner
must assume the burden of establishing the facts which justify sever-
ing on a craft basis a smaller unit from an existing plantwide unit.
That burden has, however, not been met by the Pattern Makers here.
For, we do not find in this record sufficient evidence of the training,
duties, and skills of the patternmakers to warrant a conclusion that
they are true craftsmen. Accordingly, lacking such proof, we shall
dismiss the petition in Case No. 13-RC-4512.
In view of our determination that a craft unit of patternmakers is
not warranted under the circumstances set forth above, we shall find
appropriate the existing plantwide unit, sought by the Joint Peti-
tioners. Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:5
4 American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418 , 1423-1424.
6 This is the unit covered by the contract between the Employer and the FLU , which,
the Employer and the Joint Petitioners agree is appropriate.
- 34 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELAATIONS BOARD
Ally mductiow and- maintenance em q aes employed at the Em:
ployer s IIoricon Wiscorisixi, glant-excluding-all salaFrie€1 efnplayees - =_
office clerical employees, shop clerks, watchmen and guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 13-RC-4512.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Gong Bell Manufacturing Co. and International Association of
Machinists, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-4048. October 11,
1955
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election en-
tered into between the parties and the Regional Director for the First
Region on June 9, 1955, an election by secret ballot was conducted on
June 17, 1955, under the supervision of the Regional Director, among
the employees in the appropriate unit at the Employer's East Hamp-
ton, Connecticut, plant. Upon completion of the election, the parties
were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that, of approxi-
mately 120 eligible voters, 61 valid votes were cast for the Petitioner,
54 against, and 1 was challenged.
On June 24, 1955, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. In its objections, the Employer
alleged as improper conduct the Petitioner's circulating among em-
ployees, at a time the Employer could not effectively reply, statements
concerning the Employer which statements the Employer charac-
terized as false, misleading, inflammatory, and highly material. In
accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Di-
rector conducted an investigation and on July 15, 1955, issued and
duly served upon the parties his report on objections and recom-
mended that the objections be overruled and that the Board certify the
Petitioner as the bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate
unit. Thereafter, on August 2, 1955, the Employer filed its excep-
tions to the Regional Director's report on objections and a supporting
brief.
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.
114 NLRB No. 68.