Kentucky Skilled Craft Guild

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 1611 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

KENTUCKY SKILLED CRAFT GUILD 1611
Kentucky Skilled Craft Guild and General Electric Company.
Case No. 9-CD-66. November 15, 1963
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act following a
charge filed by the General Electric Company, herein called the Com-
pany, alleging that Kentucky Skilled Craft Guild, herein called the
Guild, had violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (D) of the Act, by threaten-
ing, coercing, or restraining the Company for the purposes of com-
pelling it to assign certain work to employees represented by the
Guild, rather than to employees represented by Local 761, Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
herein called Local 761. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held be-
fore Donald G. Logsdon, Hearing Officer, on May 28 and 29, 1963, at
which all parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing
upon the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hear-
ing were free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs
were filed by the Company, the Guild, and Local 761. Upon the entire
record in this proceeding, the Board 1 makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company is a New York corporation with plants located in
various States of the United States. At its plant, located in Appliance
Park, Louisville, Kentucky, it is engaged, in the manufacturing, sale,
and distribution of electrical household appliances. During 1962, a
representative period, the Company shipped from its plant in Louis-
ville, Kentucky, directly to points located outside the State of Ken-
tucky, products valued in excess of $50,000. We find that the Com-
pany is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Kentucky Skilled Craft
Guild and Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act. Further the parties stipulated that, since 1953,
Local 761 has been representative of the Employer's production and
maintenance employees and that, since January 18, 1960, the Guild
has been representative of all the Company's tool and die mold makers
and their apprentices.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Members Leedom , Fanning,
and Brown]
144 NLRB No. 152.
1612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The work in issue
Among the classifications which were included in the production
and maintenance unit at the Company's Appliance Park operations
prior to 1957 , were approximately 48 toolroom machinists and 120
tool and die mold makers . These employees were located in the cen-
tral toolroom in one of the Company's six plants. In the fall of 1957
the Company decided to abandon the central toolroom and, instead,
to have the central toolroom functions performed in the toolrooms
of each plant, which, prior to this time , handled only maintenance
work. As a result , many central toolroom employees were transferred
to the different plants and many of the toolroom machinists were made
'tool and die mold makers. At this time, the record shows there were
only 11 toolroom machinists left and they were working in 2 of the
plants. In October 1958, the Guild petitioned to sever a unit of tool
.and die mold makers and their apprentices from Local 761's produc-
tion and maintenance unit. At this time, the Guild did not seek to
include the five remaining toolroom machinists in the unit, although
they performed some of the duties of tool and die mold makers. Ap-
parently , some of these toolroom machinists performed all of the
duties within their toolroom machinist job classifications . Also, some
of these individuals during the period from the filing of the Guild's
petition to January 18, 1960, the date the Guild was certified as the
representative of the tool and die mold makers unit , appear to have
been made tool and die mold makers. However, at least one toolroom
machinist , Dunlap, with job classification toolroom machinist 45309,
the job classification involved in the instant dispute , regularly per-
formed only a portion of the duties detailed in his job description.
As of January 18, 1960, when the Guild was certified as the collective-
'bargaining representative of the unit of tool and die mold makers,
Dunlap was the only toolroom machinist still working at Appliance
Park, and he was located in building 6. Dunlap's job classification
45309 included the following work :
The performing of complicated operations on a wide variety of
complex tool and die parts , on standard machine tools such as
jig bore , mill, lathe, shaper and all type grinders to close tol-
erances, very exacting specifications , from drawings , sketches,
instructions , etc., and related duties.
Although Dunlap's job description encompasses the operation of
,many different machines, in actuality , 90 percent of his time was spent
operating various grinders, apparently in the cutter-grinder room
located adjacent to the toolroom in building 6. The rest of his time
,was spent on other machining work. Dunlap did not vote in the
KENTUCKY SKILLED CRAFT GUILD 1613
Guild's election as it was unquestioned that he was a member of Local
761's unit. William McPherson, whose present work is the subject
of the instant dispute, was hired about January 1960, as a cutter-
grinder operator, and he also worked in the cutter-grinder room in
building 6. On December 19, 1960, McPherson was made a toolroom
machinist, job classification 45309, but, like Dunlap, and until Dun-
lap's death in July 1962, he spent 90 percent or more of his time han-
dling grinding operations, mainly in the cutter-grinder room. After
Dunlap's death, McPherson began to receive assignments of work
which involved performing all of the work in his job classification of
toolroom machinist 45309. It appears that most of these assignments
were performed in the toolroom.
The parties agree that the work described above in job classifica-
tion toolroom machinist 45309, is a part of the normal duties of the
approximately 170 tool and die mold makers represented by the Guild
who work at the Appliance Park plants. Some 19 of these tool and die
mold makers located in building 6 have worked closely with Dunlap
and McPherson under the same supervision and in the same work
areas. In addition to the work encompassed by the above job de-
scription, the tool and die mold makers also make mathematical com-
putations and drawings, determine clearances, determine the types of
steel to use, and assemble parts.
B. Applicability of the statute
Before the Board proceeds with a determination of dispute pur-
suant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated.
As a result of the assignment to McPherson of the additional duties
within his job classification, the Guild filed a grievance with the
Company contending that the work recently assigned to McPherson
does not belong to the production and maintenance unit represented
by Local 761, but to the unit of tool and die mold makers represented
by the Guild. This matter was handled through the third step of
grievance procedures, as provided in the collective-bargaining agree-
ment between the Company and the Guild, with the Company taking
the position that the work performed by McPherson properly belongs
to employees within the toolroom machinist classification 45309 repre-
sented by Local 761. As a result, the Guild notified the Company
on April 18, 1963, by letter and in a telephone conversation that it
intended to strike? After receiving this notification, the Company
filed charges against the Guild alleging a violation of 8 (b) (4) (ii) (D).
2 The letter to the Company stated that the Guild will strike if the matter is not brought
to arbitration. Article XII of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Company
and the Guild provides for arbitration upon a written request of either the Guild or the
Company. Also the contract provides that following a written request for arbitration
that the Company or Guild may request the American Arbitration Association to submit a
1614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the basis of the foregoing conduct and the entire record, we find
that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
8(b) (4) (ii) (D) has occurred and that the dispute is properly before
the Board for determination under Section 10 (k) of the Act.
C. Contentions of the parties
The Guild claims the above-described work in toolroom machinist
job classification 45309 on the ground that the Board certification
running to the Guild encompasses this work. Also, the Guild con-
tends that the failure of the Company in the past to assign the dis-
puted work to the toolroom machinist 45309 constitutes an abandon-
ment of that classification by the Company and Local 761. Local 761
contends that the classification of toolroom machinist 45309 was as-
signed to the unit represented by Local 761 by the Company in 1953
and that the classification has never been abandoned. Also, Local 761
points out that the work belongs to Local 761's unit; at the time the
Guild was certified, and at the time the Guild's certification was clari-
fied,3 it had made no demands for this work or for the inclusion of
toolroom machinist in its unit although there still were toolroom
machinists. Further, Local 761 contends that a toolroom machinist
45309 does not perform work requiring the use of all the skills of a
tool and die mold maker. The Company states that it occupies a
neutral position as to which union should be assigned the work, and
that all of the work of the toolroom machinist classification should be
assigned to one union or the other, and that it should not be split
up between the unions. Nevertheless, the Company contends its as-
signment of the work to employees in Local 761's unit conforms to
the Board's certifications. Also, the Company points out that effi-
ciency and economy require that the work be assigned to employees
who are toolroom machinists.
D. The merits of the dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative
award of the disputed work, after giving due consideration to various
relevant factors 4 The unit description and the collective-bargaining
agreements do not mention toolroom machinist 45309 and therefore
are not controlling in determining this dispute. Also, the fact that
panel of names from which an arbitrator may be chosen. The record does not show that
the Guild made any moves to have the matter arbitrated . Further, the notice complied
with the strike-notice provisions of the contract . Consequently , we deem the Guild's
letter to constitute a threat of strike.
8 On April 12, 1961 , in a Supplemental Decision and Clarification of Certification (131
NLRB 100) the Board clarified the Guild's certification to include apprentice tool and
die mold makers.
+N L R B. v. Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union, at at. (Columbia Broad-
casting System ), 364 U.S. 573.
KENTUCKY SKILLED CRAFT GUILD 1615
the actual work of employees having the job classification toolroom
machinist 45309 has varied since the Guild's certification diminishes
any argument that the work has been historically assigned to one unit
or the other, or that the job classification has been abandoned, or
even that the Guild has waived any right to the work by not seeking
to represent toolroom machinists in the earlier representation proceed-
ings. The dominant factors in this dispute are: (1) the disputed
work is performed in the same areas and under the same supervision
as tool and die mold makers work; (2) the work appears to be in
the line of progression to the skills of tool and die mold makers; and
(3) the work is a normal part of tool and die mold makers work.
These factors, in our opinion, indicate that the disputed work should
be assigned to the Guild's unit of tool and die mold makers. In reach-
ing this conclusion we are not persuaded that efficiency or economy
factors require a contrary result. Thus, the work of only one indi-
vidual is involved, whose pay scale does not greatly differ from that
of a certain category of tool and die mold maker, and the record
shows no immediate prospects that the number will be increased.
Accordingly, we shall determine the existing jurisdictional dispute
by assigning the work of job classification toolroom machinist 45309
to the tool and die mold makers' bargaining unit currently represented
by the Guild. In making this determination, we are assigning the
disputed work to employees represented by the Guild, but not to
the Guild or its members. Our present determination is limited to
the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
this case , the Board makes the following determination of dispute,
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act :
Tool and die mold makers , currently represented by Kentucky
Skilled Craft Guild, are entitled to the work of job classification tool-
room machinist , 45309, insofar as it requires the performing of com-
plicated operations on a wide variety of complex tool and die parts,
on standard machine tools such as jig bore, mill, lathe, shaper, and all
type grinders to close tolerances , very exacting specifications, from
drawings , sketches , instructions , etc., and related duties at the Com-
pany's building 6 located at Appliance Park, Louisville, Kentucky.
O