Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 462 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on concerted activities or union membership. Respondent herein contended that
the wall-washing work was not encompassed within the terms of the contract and
sought to force acceptance of its contention. Although others may not agree as
to how the contract should be interpreted and applied, such disagreement does
not detract from Respondent's right to seek its interpretation and application.
Also, whether the layoffs were merited or unmerited, just or unjust, mild or
drastic are not before the Trial Examiner, the Trial Examiner having only the
limited issue of whether the layoffs were for reasons not sanctioned by Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. In the opinion of the Trial Examiner this was a
struggle involving the appropriate composition of the bargaining unit and encour-
agement or discouragement of concerted activities or union membership was, at
best, only remotely and indirectly involved. This was not a situation, like that
involved in Marlin Firearms, where the natural substantial tendency of Respond-
ent's conduct was to defeat the purposes of the Act and eliminate concerted
activities or union membership and the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes.
The Trial Examiner believes and finds that Respondent's conduct was not violative
of the sections of the Act under consideration.
In view of the foregoing, it is believed that the complaint, in its entirety, should
be dismissed.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corp. and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corp . and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local No. 611, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases
Nos. 33-RC-708 and 33-RC-710. March 30, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND AMENDED
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On February 17, 1959, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Elections in the above-entitled proceeding,,- in which it directed
separate elections in two voting groups of employees, one consisting
of production and maintenance employees and the other of elec-
tricians, helpers, apprentices, and electrical repairmen at the mines,
mill, and auxiliary departments of the Employer's operations near
Grants, New Mexico. Thereafter on February 24, 1959, the Em-
ployer filed a motion for reconsideration of the Decision and Direc-
tion of Elections insofar as it granted a self-determination election
for a voting group of electricians in Case No. 33-RC-710. In its
motion the Employer asserted that since the hearing, it has progressed
from a construction to a full production stage, as outlined in an
affidavit by Robert L. Cline, its industrial relations manager, dated
January 28, 1959; and that a separate voting group of electricians is
therefore inappropriate.
The Board, on March 6, 1959, issued a telegraphic notice 2 to all
parties stating that, unless any party to this proceeding shows good
cause to the contrary, the Board will admit Cline's affidavit into the
1122 NLRB 1512.
2 The notice also ordered the Regional Director to defer the conduct of the elections
directed pending further action herein.
123 NLRB No. 69.
KERMAC NUCLEAR FUELS CORP. 463
record and will reconsider its Decision and Direction of Elections.
Answers to such notice were filed by United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, and by Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers' International
Union, AFL-CIO, who interposed no objections; and by Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 611, AFI.-
CIO, herein called IBEW, who opposed the motion,' but presented
no facts contradicting the facts set forth in Cline's affidavit. Absent
good cause to the contrary, we therefore admit Cline's affidavit into
evidence, and shall reconsider our Decision and Direction of Elec-
tions, de novo, on the basis of all the facts now before us.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 4 finds :
The decision in Case No. 33-RC-710 was based on evidence ad-
duced at the hearing at a time when the Employer's operations were
still partially in the construction stage and not yet in full production.
Such evidence 5 seemingly established that the electricians' unit sought
by the IBEW might constitute an appropriate unit.
However, conditions have now changed. Construction work has
been completed. The Employer's operations have been organized
on a permanent integrated basis, and the Employer is now operating
on a full production basis. Thus the record shows that the Employ-
er's maintenance division is now divided into three departments-
mine maintenance, mill maintenance, and general shops-each under
a separate superintendent. All maintenance work throughout the
operations, whether mechanical, electrical, or construction, is per-
formed by teams of maintenance employees. Each such team usually
consists of two mechanical maintenance men, an electrical mainte-
nance man, and a carpenter. A leadman is designated for each team.
When the work to be performed is primarily mechanical, the
mechanical maintenance man with the most ability is designated as
the leadman and the others act as his helpers. The same is true when
the work to be performed is primarily electrical or construction, in
which event an electrician or carpenter, as the case may be, is desig-
nated as the leadman with the other team members acting as helpers.
Thus the maintenance employees perform all types of work regard-
less of whether or not it is associated with their classifications, and
the electricians are no longer a part of a separately supervised de-
partment.
Further, there is no evidence to show that the electrical mainte-
nance employees are licensed, or possess and exercise the gamut of
skills characteristic of their craft. They are not hired as journey-
3 No answers were received from the other Intervenors.
"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 [ Chairman Leedom and
Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
e Formerly there was a separate electrical maintenance department supervised by a chief
electrician , a separate electrical shop, and employees were hired as electricians and required
to have electrical skill and knowledge.
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
men electricians and the Employer has no apprenticeship or formal
training program for them. They work the same hours, under work-
ing conditions and with benefits and interests similar to that of pro-
duction and other maintenance employees.
Based on all the foregoing, we are unable to find that the skills
and duties of the Employer's electricians are such as to justify a
conclusion that they constitute a distinct and homogenous group of
skilled journeymen craftsmen, working as such, or that their in-
terests differ materially from those of other employees. As the record
does not show that the electricians constitute an appropriate de-
partmental group or that they meet requirements for craft status,
we find, upon reconsideration of the entire record, that the unit
sought by the IBEW does not constitute a separate appropriate
unit, and that they are properly a part of the production and main-
tenance unit found appropriate herein.6
Upon the entire record herein, we now find that the following
employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's mines, mill,
and auxiliary departments at its operations near Grants, New
Mexico, including electricians, helpers, electrical repairmen, and
plant clerical employees, but excluding office clerical and profes-
sional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 33-RC-710.]
[Text of Amended Direction of Election omitted from publica-
tion.]
9 See American Brass Company , 120 NLRB 1276; E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company,
119 NLRB 723; Precision Castings Corporation, 114 NLRB 63.
United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-CIO and
M. L. Taliaferro
Thomas H. Vincent, As Agent of United Packinghouse Workers
of America, AFL-CIO and M. L. Taliaferro
Local No. 680, United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-
CIO and R. L. Zeigler, Inc. Cases Nos. 10-CB-849, 10-CB-852,
and 10-CB-854. March 31, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 6, 1959, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding
that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the
123 NLRB No. 53.