Kennard Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 150 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The contract, which is for a 2-year period from April 14, 1955, pro-
vides that the Bakery Workers is recognized "as the sole representa-
tive of all of the Company's employees at its Madison, Wisconsin,
plant, excluding executive, supervisory, office and clerical employees
and any temporary employees. , . ." This language is unambiguous
and plainly includes the em ployees here sought to be established as a
residual unit. The, Employer testified that the employees now sought,
on the theory they have not been included in the contract unit repre-
sented by the Bakery Workers, had received the benefits resulting from
negotiations with that Union. While it appears that no specific men-
tion of these groups is made in the contract, and that as to some of them
the Bakery Workers did not enforce its union-shop provision,. I re-
gard the testimony indicating nuncoverage as being too insubstantial
to establish that these groups have in -fact; been -excluded from the
contract unit. Accordingly, I would dismiss the petitions.
Kennard Corporation and International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths, Forgers Wand Helpers,
Lodge No. 10,12, AFL and District No. 9, International Associ-
ation of Machinists, AFL and Independent Air Conditioning
Employees' Union, Petitioners. Cases Nos. 24-RC-2807 ,, :14 RC-
2810, and 14-RC-2815 September 21, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the, Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Jean F. Souders, 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 'these cases, 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. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner in Case No. 14-RC-2810, District No. 9, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists, AFL (herein- called Machinists),
seeks a unit of toolroom employees. The--Petitioner in Case No. 14-
RC-2807, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship
Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Lodge No. 1012, AFL
(herein called Boilermakers), seeks 'a unit ol,productioin-,and main-
tenance employees. The Petitioner in -Case No. 14-RC-2815, IA-
114 NLRB No. 34.
KENNARD CORPORATION 151
dependent Air Conditioning Employees' Union (herein called the In-
dependent), also seeks a plantwide production and maintenance unit.
The Boilermakers and Independent have no objection to the unit
sought by the Machinists. The Employer does not object to an over-
all production and maintenance unit of its employees, but contends that
a separate unit of its toolroom employees is inappropriate. In sup-
port of its position, the Employer argues that : Various production
employees work in the toolroom 80 percent of the time, the Machinists
have described the unit as "all employees employed in the toolroom,"
thus allegedly including the production employees working therein,
and, therefore, the Machinists has not requested a functionally dis-
tinct group of employees; the regular work by production employees
in the toolroom so intermingles them with the employees in the Ma-
chinists' unit as to negate a separate community of interest for the
toolroom employees ; the experimental work functions of the toolroom
employees are so completely integrated with the Employer's produc-
tion operations as to preclude separate representation for employees
doing experimental work; and, in effect, the Employer's toolroom em-
ployees do not constitute the type of group to which the Board tra-
ditionally-grants separate representation.'
We find there is no merit in the Employer's first contention because
the record clearly establishes that the Machinists is seeking a toolroom
departmental unit exclusive of any other employees. In fact, at the
hearing, all parties, including the Employer, litigated the Machinists'
petition as raising an issue involving the Employer's toolroom depart-
ment employees.
As to the Employer's remaining contentions, it points out, in sup-
port thereof, that several different production employees, not always
the same individuals,2 use the toolroom facilities about 80 percent of
each workday. There is a laboratory employee who, on occasion,
works in the toolroom. The Employer also notes that 20 to 30 percent
of the toolroom employees' time is spent on experimental work and al-
leges such work is part of its overall production process.
The record otherwise shows that the five employees sought by the
Machinists have their own toolroom foreman and work in an area
physically separated from the rest of the plant by wire fencing. Of
the 5 employees, 3 are tool- and die-makers who make and repair tools,
dies, fixtures, and jigs; 1 is a model maker who spends most of his
time making experimental models by using normal tool- and die-work
techniques; and 1 is a machinist who, among other duties, does minor
3 In its brief , the Employer advances arguments against a separate toolroom unit on
the ground that they are not entitled to a severance election . As there has been no
bargaining history for any of the Employer 's employees , we find it unnecessary here to
pass upon such inappiicable . severance contentions.
2 During some seasons when the Employer produces a particular product ( a cooling
tower ) some production men may work in the toolroom 2 or 3 days a week. During the
balance of the year those workmen do not use the toolroom facilities at all.
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
repairs on dies, sharpens dies, and operates a surface grinder. There
is no formal apprenticeship or job progression program in the tool-
room, but 2 of the 5 employees had tool and die experience before em-
ployment by the Employer, and all 5 use the customary precision tools,
instruments, and machines of the tool and die trade. Furthermore,
none of the production employees who spend part of their work time
in the toolroom perform any of the functions of the five regular tool-
room employees.
Upon these facts and, the record as a whole, we are convinced that
the Employer's toolroom employees constitute a functionally distinct
and homogeneous departmental group such as the Board has held may,
if they so desire, be separately represented,' or be represented as part
of a broad production and maintenance unit. We so find, contrary to
the Employer, inasmuch as the appropriateness of such a toolroom
unit is not affected when nontoolroom employees perform a portion of
their total work on machines and equipment located in the toolroom,4
or when toolroom functions are integrated with the production process
at the initial or experimental stage.'
With respect to the production and maintenance unit of the em-
ployees which both the Boilermakers and Independent seek to repre-
sent, the status of certain leadmen is in issue. The Boilermakers con-
tends the leadmen should be excluded from the unit because they are
supervisors, while the Independent and the Employer claim they are
not supervisors and should be included in a unit of production and
maintenance employees. As the Boilermakers has failed to establish
upon the record in this case that the leadmen exercise the functions of
supervisors within the' meaning of the Act, we shall include them in
the production and maintenance voting group hereafter described.
In view of the foregoing, we shall direct elections by secret ballot
among the following groups of 'employees at the Employer's St. Louis,'
Missouri , plant excluding from each voting group the employees in
the other voting group, office clerical employees, production control
employees, purchasing department employees, timekeepers, personnel
department employees, professionals, executives, guards , assistant
foremen, and supervisors as defined in the Act :
(a) All toolroom employees;6
(b) All production and maintenance employees.
5. If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) select the
Machinists, which is seeking to represent them separately, those em-
"Warner Electric Brake & Clutch Company, 111 NLRB 268; Spaulding Fibre Co., Inc,
111 NLRB 237
Spaulding Fibre Co., Inc, supra.
" Warner Electric Brake & Clutch Company, supra , Spaulding Fibre Co , Inc., supra.
"In the event of Board direction of a separate election for the Employer 's toolroom
employees , the Boilermakers has requested that it not be placed on the ballot. Accord-,
ingly, the Boilermakers will not be placed on the ballot for voting group (a)
CALL PRINTING & PUBLISHING COMPANY 153
ployees will be taken to have indicated their desires to constitute a
separate bargaining unit and the Regional Director conducting the
election -is instructed to issue a -certification -of representatives to the
Machinists for such unit, which the Board in such circumstances finds
to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. However, if
a majority of the employees in voting group (a) does not vote for the
Machinists, such group will appropriately be included with the em-
ployees in voting group (b) and.their votes will be pooled with those
in voting group (b)? The Regional Director conducting the election
is instructed to.issue a certification, of representatives to the labor or-
ganization elected by a majority of the employees in the pooled group
which the Board in such circumstances finds to be appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
7 If the votes are pooled they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for
the Machinists shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against the Boilermakers
or the Independent which seek to represent these employees in the more comprehensive
production and maintenance unit ; all other votes are to be accorded their face value
whether for representation by a union seeking the comprehensive unit or for no union.
Call Printing & Publishing Company and American Newspaper
Guild , CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-7542. September 21,1955
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 I. L. Broadwin, hear-
ing 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. 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, A 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.'
4. The Petitioner and Employer generally agree that a unit of edi-
torial department employees is appropriate. However, contrary to
I In its brief the Employei requested the Boaid to remand this proceeding to the Rgeional
Office so that the Employei could examine the petition and its supporting signature cards
to deteimine n Nether of not the Petitioner has in fact obtained the necessary signatures
to warrant the Board's proceeding in this matter. The request is hereby denied, for it is
well settled that the sufficiency of a petitioner's 'showing of interest is a matter for
admmistratn e deter nnnation and is not litigable by the parties General Electric Com-
pany. Distribution T,ansformer Department, 110 NLRB 992 Moreover, the Board is
administratively satisfied that the 1'etitionei has made a sufficient showing
114 NLRB No. 33.