Lear-Siegler, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 766 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lear-Siegler, Inc. and International Society of
Skilled Trades, Petitioner . Cases 7-RC-8476,
7-RC-8477, 7-RC-8478, 7-RC-8479,
7-RC-8480, 7-RC-8481, 7-RC-8482,
7-RC-8483, and 7-RC-8484
March 26, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
Upon the several petitions duly filed by Interna-
tional Society of Skilled Trades, Petitioner herein,
under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, a consolidated hearing was held
before Stanley H. Slazinski, Hearing Officer. Fol-
lowing the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8,
as amended, and by direction of the Regional
Director for Region 7, this case was transferred to
the National Labor Relations Board for decision.
Briefs have been timely filed by the Employer, the
Petitioner, and the Intervenor.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
.Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. In view of our findings below, no question af-
fecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
A. The Contentions of the Parties
Petitioner has filed the nine separate petitions
herein in order to obtain the severance of approxi-
mately 164 employees from the,established produc-
tion and maintenance unit, which is now composed
of about 1,550 employees.
The established unit has continuously been
represented by the Intervenor since 1951.2 The em-
ployees the Petitioner seeks to represent have vary-
ing kinds and degrees of skill. Approximately 20
are engaged in the building of test equipment, and
about 100 are engaged in tool and` diemaking and
other related tool work. The Petitioner would
represent each of these functional groupings of em-
ployees in two separate units. (Cases 7-RC-8480
and 8484, respectively.) The remaining 44 em-
ployees Petitioner seeks are all employed in the
maintenance department. Petitioner would
represent these employees either as a departmental
unit (Case 7-RC-8476), or as six separate units,
each limited to a particular functional grouping of
employees. (Cases 7-RC-8477, 8478, 8479, 8481,
8482, and 8483.)
Intervenor and the Employer oppose each of the
severance requests, contending that none of the
proposed units is appropriate under the standards
established in Mallinckrodt3 and related cases. For
the reasons hereafter set forth, we find merit in
their contentions.
B. Background
The Employer is engaged, at its Grand Rapids,
Michigan, plant, in the manufacture of highly so-
phisticated precision instruments and electronic
equipment. The facility consists of one long single
story building having one very large work area with
no wall or other immovable structural areas, except
for several adjacent small rooms which contain spe-
cial enviromental controls. All the employees
whom Petitioner seeks to sever work in the large
open work area together with other production and
maintenance employees not sought by the Peti-
tioner.
A large proportion of the Employer's products
are currently manufactured under Federal Govern-
ment contracts for use in the defense and aerospace
programs. These products include, among others,
complex instrumentations and component parts for
aircraft reference and navigation, missile guidance,
and weapons systems. A substantial part of the
tools and equipment in the plant is specially
designed or constructed at the plant for the particu-
lar products the Employer manufactures.
' International Union, Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, Local 330, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as In-
tervenor , was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of its cur-
rent contract covering the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees
Y In 1959, certain of the employees whom Petitioner seeks to represent
were granted a severance election on a petition filed by International As-
sociation of Tool Craftsmen, N I U.C However, those employees voted
against separate representation 124 NLRB 529 See also 123 NLRB 713.
1 Mallmckrodt Chemical Works , Uranium Division , 162 NLRB 387
170 NLRB No. 114
LEAR-SIEGLER, INC. 767
To meet the urgent demands for its products for
defense and other Government needs, the Em-
ployer must keep its production processes operat-
ing-constantly. It operates its plant 24 hours a day.
There is simultaneous production of a number of
products, and there are some differences in the
manufacturing processes, depending on the type of
product.
The work is arranged, and the personnel struc-
ture organized, in such a manner so as to obtain a
high degree of flexibility in the use of employees for
a variety of work functions. Accordingly, the Em-
ployer uses a "team" method of work assignment
both for production and maintenance repair activi-
ties, often combining in one group employees with
different kinds and degrees of skills or specialized
knowledge. Variety-skilled "teams" of maintenance
employees are always dispatched to an area where
there is a malfunction or breakdown of equipment
or machinery, and variously classified production
employees work together with skilled tool and die
classifications in making production tools.
All employees enjoy the same vacations,
holidays, health and welfare benefits, and share
common lockerroom, washroom, cafeteria facili-
ties , and timeclocks. Under the established seniori-
ty practices, all job openings are made available to
any employee applicant meeting the job qualifica-
tions on the basis of plantwide seniority. There are
only 75 job classifications which are grouped into
four differently wage rated categories described as
seniority groups I to IV, in an ascending order with
group IV containing the highest rated jobs.
In the event of a layoff, the Employer first de-
cides how many employees shall be laid off in each
job classification, and effects such layoffs in accord
with the employees' total accumulated seniority in
the particular classification. However, affected em-
ployees have the privilege of bumping down into
any lower rated classifications either within or
without their seniority group on the basis of their
total plant seniority. Almost all the employees here
sought by the Petitioner occupy classifications
found with seniority groups II, III , and IV. While
most of these, employees are regularly engaged in
maintenance or tool and die activities, a substantial
proportion of them have progressed into their
present classifications from production jobs.
Moreover, even though most of them do not regu-
larly perform production functions as part of their
presently assigned job duties, all of them have sub-
stantial day-to-day contact with production person-
nel.
The foregoing factors reveal the existence of
some of the considerations strongly opposing the
fragmentation of the overall unit. Thus, it appears
that all the employees who comprise the unit share
an unusual community of interest not only because
of their common employment at the same plant and
historical representation in the same, unit, but also
because of the uniform work opportunities enjoyed
by all without regard to existing job functions or
classifications.
In addition, analysis of each particular grouping
of employees described by each of the several peti-
tions reveals certain other factors adversely affect-
ing each of the requested severance petitions, as
shown below.
As already noted, the petition in Case
7-RC-8476 seeks the severance of all employees
comprising the maintenance department, and the
several petitions in Cases 7-RC-8477, 8478, 8479,
8481, 8482, and 8483 seek severance of individual
classifications within the maintenance department.
The combined maintenance department unit
which Petitioner seeks in Case 7-RC-8476 consists
of 10 electricians, 10 plumber-pipefitters and
refrigeration mechanics, 8 machine repairmen, 4
painters, 5 carpenters, 4 welders, and several tin-
smiths and oilers. It is clear, therefore, that this
combined unit contains an assorted group of em-
ployees who posses dissimilar skills and whose sole
common bond is that they all perform functions
broadly defined as "maintenance " and are assigned
to the administrative departmental unit. Petitioner
claims , nonetheless, that they are identifiable as a
group of highly skilled craftsmen who share a mu-
tuality of interest in being represented apart from
the production employees.
While the record is ambiguous as to the exact na-
ture of the skills possessed by each of the various
categories of maintenance department employees,
it seems that at most only those employees in the
following classifications perform maintenance func-
tions requiring the exercise of specialized skills:
electricians, plumbers-pipefitters (one classifica-
tion), refrigeration mechanics, machine repairmen,
and perhaps some in the welder classifications.4
There is no evidence that employees categorized as
tinsmiths, oilers, carpenters, or painters are skilled
craftsmen or that they are required to use craft
skills in the performance of their assigned duties.
Tinsmiths and oilers are engaged in the duties sug-
gested by their titles, and are at best only
semiskilled. The carpenters and painters presently
occupy one common classification-"General
4 Two of the welders are used alternately in production welding as well as
maintenance welding
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Maintenance and Helper." They normally perform
general maintenance work throughout the plant, in-
cluding, but not limited to, carpentry and painting.
Moreover, none of the employees in this classifica-
tion are engaged exclusively in the performance of
either carpentry, or painting functions, but, rather,
perform either function as required.
While all maintenance employees report to one
plant area (an open one), all spend the vast majori-
ty of their time performing their assignments in
production areas. Some are stationed at production
locations for rapid availability in case of break-
down. Those not so stationed are usually
dispatched to the location of a breakdown. None
work exclusively in the maintenance department
area. They may be called directly to the breakdown
location-by a production supervisor, or they may be
dispatched by a foreman in the maintenance de-
partment. To avoid unnecessary delays of time
when the exact cause of breakdown is not clearly
known, a "team" composed of variously classified
employees may- be assembled at the breakdown lo-
cation, even though subsequent diagnosis may
establish that very few, or even only one, of the em-
ployees were actually needed. All are expected,
however, to cooperate to get the job done without
regard to job classification lines.
However, even if we were to concede that some
of the employees in the maintenance department
appear a part of a multicraft group, we find their
community of interest in an overall unit has been
fostered by a long history of bargaining, geographic
proximity to and integration with open production
jobs, a pattern of promotion from production to
maintenance work, and occasional dual supervision
from production as well as maintenance foremen.
In sum, we do not find that this maintenance group
possesses a special mutuality of interest so different
in kind from that which they share with other
production and maintenance employees in the
established unit so as to justify their severance. We
shall, therefore, dismiss the petition in Case
7-RC-8476.5
We turn, then, to the smaller units of employees
which Petitioner seeks to sever. As noted hereafter,
only four of these petitions-those seeking units of
electricians, plumbers-pipefitters and refrigeration
mechanics, machine repairmen, and tool and die
employees, define groups which appear to include
employees with a craft identity; the rest do not.
Two of the petitions-those which purport to
identify separate units composed respectively of
Cf General Foods Corporation, Maxwell House Division, 166
NLRB 1032, Moloney Electric Co, 169 NLRB 464
fi The record also shows that welding work is frequently performed both
"painters" and "carpenters" in the maintenance de-
partment-are clearly inappropriate. For, as we
have noted, the Employer has no employees exclu-
sively engaged in either type of function and those
who do perform the maintenance painting and car-
pentry neither possess nor exercise particular craft
skills. We shall therefore dismiss the petitions in
Cases 7-RC-8481 and 7-RC-8482.
Of the four employees classified as welders whom
Petitioner seeks to represent in Case 7-RC-8483,
two are employed as part of the general main-
tenance department, and two are employed in the
flex shop. Those in the maintenance department
perform small welding repair jobs.- They work on
frames, racks, and tools, and in the event that a
mchine is malfunctioning, they work with tinsmiths,
the machine operator, electricians, and other em-
ployees in an attempt to correct the malfunction.
They perform most of these maintenance duties in
the production area. In the event no welding work
is available, these welders are either assigned to
other general maintenance work or to production
welding. The flex shop and tool fabrication welders
are mainly responsible for welding. tools, jigs, fix-
tures, and gauges.
As the welders are not identifiable as a separate
occupational or craft group, they clearly could not
constitute a group of employees eligible for
severance.6 We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition
in Case 7-RC--8483.
In Case 7-RC-8484, Petitioner seeks to sever a
unit composed of "test equipment builders," They
are primarily responsible for making inplant panels
and electronic devices which the Employer uses to
test its products. Their work functions are substan-
tially the same as those of test equipment assem-
blers, who are primarily engaged in' making test
equipment for use by the Employer's customers. It
is undisputed that the test equipment builders and
test equipment assemblers are interchanged in their
work assignments when the Employer's needs so
demand. There is no showing that test equipment
builders'have any craft identity.
Accordingly, as there has been no showing of
craft status, and as the primary work functions of
these employees are an intimate part of the produc-
tion process, we find that a unit confined to test
equipment builders is inappropriate for severance.
We shall therefore dismiss the petition in Case
7-RC-8484.
The proposed unit in Case 7-RC-8478 would
combine employees in the general maintenance-de-
by production employees engaged in other job duties and also by refrigera-
tion mechanics engaged in maintaining the refrigeration or air-conditioning
equipment
LEAR-SIEGLER, INC. 769
partment who are respectively classified as "plum-
bers-pipefitters" and "refrigeration mechanics."'
The record reveals no basis for the proposed com-
bination' of these two types of dissimilarly classified
employees. Although these two groups overlap in
some of their work tasks, they do not possess
identical skills, nor are they regularly assigned
identical duties.
The duties of those classified as "plumbers-
pipefitters" include bending , cutting threads, and
installing air, water , steam , and gas pipe fittings,
calking pipes and making hydrostatic pressure tests
of completed - plumbing work . In addition, they
diagnose malfunctions and make necessary repairs
on those production machines in the manufacturing
areas which operate with the use of plumbing in-
stallations. Their functions in connection with the
repair , constrcution , and installation of those manu-
facturing machines which require plumbing or re-
lated pipefitting work are frequently performed as
part of an integrated team effort which combines
their skills with those of other maintenance or
production employees.
The- duties of refrigeration mechanics include:
(a) the maintenance , repair, and adjustment of the
refrigeration and air-conditioning system which
provides the requisite enviromental control for the
entire plant ; and (b) the planning , laying out, and
servicing of the controls and of the auxiliary equip-
ment requisite to the operation of the plant's en-
viromental ', systems. Because of the critical im-
portance of the enviromental control system to the
manufacturing process , refrigeration mechanics are
stationed at various locations throughout the manu-
facturing area so as to assure their rapid dispatch to
any breakdown. When a breakdown does occur,
other employees in the immediate area assist
refrigeration mechanics in making the necessary
repairs.
In view of Petitioner's requested combination of
employees who perform dissimilar work, and in
view of the substantial degree to which the func-
tions of these employees are related to the produc-
tion process, we find that these employees do not
constitute a unit appropriate for severance under
the standards set out In Mallinckrodt.8 We shall,
therefore, dismiss the petition in Case 7-RC-8478.
In Case 7 RC-8477, Petitioner seeks a unit com-
posed of 10 licensed and master electricians. All
perform electrical work necessary to maintain the
plant's electrical system or to construct or to repair
the electrified machinery used in the manufacturing
processes. While the record does not establish that
these electricians are required to, or do, possess the
qualifications possessed by members of the tradi-
tional electrical craft , it appears that most, if not
all, have been given a journeyman card by the In-
tervenor . We shall assume , without deciding, that
the electricians in question perform some functions
which require the exercise of craft skills.
As is true of most other maintenance department
employees, electricians do not work in any
specified location or on any particular type of
machine. Rather , they are assigned as needed
throughout the plant. They frequently work
together with engineers , machine operators, and
test equipment builders in correcting malfunctions
or in constructing some of the production equip-
ment.
Some functions performed by production test
equipment assemblers are not only interrelated with
those performed by electricians, but also overlap to
such degree as to have provoked grievances over
particular work assignments.
We are unable to find in the foregoing facts suffi-
cient evidence to indicate that electricians, by
reason of their specialized skills , have the degree of
separate identity from other plant employees,
which would support Petitioner's severance
request. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition
in Case 7-RC-8477.9
In Case 7-RC-8479, Petitioner seeks to represent
the approximately eight machine repair employees
in the maintenance department who install , service,
and maintain various kinds of production and plant
machinery, and who are responsible for fixing any
breakdown of production machinery. The machine
repairmen work and repair machines in the produc-
tion area or in the machine shop area. When work-
ing in the production area, they frequently work
with welders , electricians, tinsmiths , or any other
employees who can most readily be of assistance in
fixing a defective machine.
Like the other employees in the maintenance de-
partment , several machine repairmen possess jour-
neymen cards issued by the Intervenor, even
though such cards are not a prerequisite for em-
ployment.
Machine repairmen may have craft skills, but
their intermingling of duties and contact with
' As the record shows that plumber-pipefitters and refrigeration
mechanics are licensed and that some hold journeyman cards from the In-
tervenor , we shall assume , despite the absence of clear record proof, that
these employees perform some functions requiring the exercise of the par-
ticular craft skills suggested by their classifications
8 Fn 3, supra. Cf Moloney , fn 5, supra
9 In considering the Petitioner 's requests for severance of the units of
craft groups of employees, we have given due regard to Petitioner 's claim
that the craftsmen have not been adequately represented . For reasons set
forth below, we find this claim to be-without merit
350-999 0 - 71 - 50
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL . LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
production and other skilled employees in the
production area demonstrate that their functions
have been largely integrated with the Employer's
overall production process and that their communi-
ty of interests is with the total work complement.
Based upon the foregoing, we find that the unit
described in Case 7-RC-8479 is inappropriate for
severance, and we shall therefore dismiss this peti-
tion.
In Case 7-RC-8480, Petitioner requests the
severance of a craft unit of tool and diemakers and
other tooling classifications performing related
work, together with their apprentices. It has alter-
natively defined its proposed unit as: (1) encom-
passing all toolroom and flex shop employees in-
cluding tool and diemakers, toolroom machinists
and their apprentices; or (2) confined along craft
lines to "tool and die makers associated or subor-
dinate classifications and their apprentices. "10
The employees whom Petitioner seeks to sever
are classified as either "toolmakers," tool machine
operators, tool grinders, tool jig operators, or tool-
maker apprentices. These employees hold the only
jobs for which the Employer maintains an ap-
prenticeship program, and they are the only ones
within seniority group IV-the highest rated wage
group . Some of these employees are assigned to the
toolroorn department, some to the flex shop depart-
ment . Neither department is housed in separate
rooms; each is located in a specified part of the
large open work area of the plant where it has a
.separate department foreman. Employees assigned
to the toolroom build, maintain, and repair tools,
dies, jigs, fixtures, and molds used by the Employer
in its normal production processes. They are under
the general supervision of the production manager.
Employees assigned to the flex shop make, main-
tain, and repair experimental tools which, however,
are sometimes used for actual production runs.
When engaged in experimental toolwork , these em-
ployees are under the general supervision of en-
gineering department personnel.
Toolroom employees spend most of their time in
the toolroom area performing the above-described
work. But they are also regularly engaged, for part
of their time, in the installation of tools and fixtures
on the production lines or areas, where they are
frequently assisted by other employees not similarly
trained and classified. - Although toolroom em-
ployees are primarily responsible for making and
repairing tools, production employees also perform
some similar tooling functions in the production
area. Thus, where a particular- toolmaking function
requires the use of a specialized machine located
outside the toolroorn area, the function is tradi-
tionally assigned to the operator of the machine
rather than to a toolroorn employee.ll Although,the
performance of tooling functions by these produc-
tion employees does not establish a pattern of in-
terchange between employees of the same or com-
parable skills, it does show a significant relationship
between the skills required of toolroom personnel
and those possessed by production employees. As
above indicated, employees in production classifi-
cations may bid for toolroorn jobs, and, in case of a
reduction in force, toolroom employees may bump
employees in production and maintenance catego-
ries.
Flex shop employees have an even greater inter-
relationship with the production and maintenance
employees. The record shows that some of the
machines in the flex shop are similar to those in the
production area,, and that production employees
use these flex shop machines to do production work
when necessary to meet production schedules. The
record further shows that when it,appears that flex
shop employees may be laid off because of a
shortage of standard flex shop work, the flex shop
employeeg*are assigned to work of the kind usually
performed in the production area by production
employees. As is also true in the case of some tool-
room employees, many flex shop employees have
transferred into their present classifications from
jobs in the production and maintenance unit. In
case of a layoff, flex shop employees may bump
down into production and maintenance categories.
Although we are satisfied that the tool and
diemakers and toolroorn machinists are craftsmen,
we nevertheless find that the unit sought is inap-
propriate for severance purposes under the stan-
dards set out in Mallinckrodt.12 Thus, the work of
both the toolroorn and the flex shop is intimately
i° This latter request could be interpreted to include some employees en-
gaged primarily in production functions who, at times, also perform some
toolwork. As Petitioner, however , is contending that its severance request
is justified because of the craft status of the tool and die workers it seeks,
we are assuming its alternative request does not encompass the described
production employees In any event , such production employees would not
be eligible for inclusion in any unit proposed for severance , inasmuch as
craft considerations would be the only ones which would justify a
severance , assuming that Mallinckrodt criteria are otherwise satisfied The
only employees who are primarily engaged in tool and -die work requiring
the exercise of traditional craft skills are assigned to the "tool room" or the
"flex shop ." We shall, therefore , confine our discussion to them.
11 This type of work assignment has been the subject of a dispute arising
from the claims of toolroom employees that they have exclusive jurisdic-
tion over all toolmaking functions The claim was processed through the
grievance channels by the Intervenor , and cuhmmated in an arbitration
proceeding The arbitrator found that there were no rules as to where tools
were made, and that there had been a traditional practice pursuant to
which toolmaking functions calling for the specialized use of equipment
could be performed on such equipment by its regular operator
12 Mallinckrodt, fn 3, supra, Holmberg Inc, 162 NLRB 407, Universal
Form Clamp Co, 163 NLRB 184, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 165
NLRB 188, Square D Company, 169 NLRB 1040
LEAR-SIEGLER, INC. 771
related to and is essential to the total production
process . Both departments are also avenues of
promotion for production and maintenance em-
ployees. Accordingly , we shall dismiss the petition
in Case 7-RG8480.
In assessing the merits of the petitions herein, we
have considered Petitioner 's claim that the em-
ployees it would sever have not been properly
represented by Intervenor . We find , however, this
claim is not supported by the record . The un-
disputed facts establish that the employees whom
Petitioner seeks to represent have enjoyed signifi-
cant representation in the Intervenor 's bargaining
committees . The six-man employee bargaining
committee has included two such employees in
1951; three in 1956; four in 1959 ; two in 1962; and
two in 1965 . In the contracts negotiated with the
Employer , the employees in the "skilled " classifica-
tions and those in production have received the
same holiday pay provisions , health and life in-
surance benefits, retirement benefits , vacation pol-
icy, rest periods, and night shift bonuses . Petitioner
failed to introduce any evidence regarding a com-
parison of wages paid to the employees in the clas-
sifications which the Petitioner seeks to represent
and those employees in similar classifications work-
ing elsewhere.
The two principal incidents relied upon by Peti-
tioner as evidence of inadequate representation re-
late to a revision of the model shop [ toolroom]
seniority rules in 1962 and a unilateral wage in-
crease given in 1967 to the employees in the clas-
sifications under consideration.
The seniority revision, which was negotiated into
the 1962 contract at the Employer 's insistence,
merged 'the separate model shop seniority rights
into the basic production and maintenance seniori-
ty provisions . The Petitioner claims that layoffs
among skilled employees resulted from the revision.
But the record fails to support this claim.
The 1967 wage increase to certain "skilled" clas-
sifications was negotiated by the Intervenor despite
a contract clause precluding reopening of wage
rates for the contract term. Petitioner claims that
this wage increase was obtained only because of the
pressure of "skilled " members of the bargaining
unit . If so, this incident , instead of showing in-
adequate representation , demonstrates the respon-
siveness of the existing bargaining representative to
the desires of these employees . Moreover, and
despite Petitioner 's claim that the established
bumping privileges operate to the detriment of
skilled craftsmen in layoff situations, the
aforedescribed seniority system permits them to
bump into production jobs instead of being laid off.
Nor does it otherwise appear that Intervenor has
neglected the special interests which may be pos-
sessed by tool and diemakers and other employees
in the maintenance department whom we have as-
sumed to be craftsmen . The tool and diemakers are
in the highest wage-rated group of plant employees,
and the electricians , plumbers-pipefitters , refrigera-
tion mechanics , and machine repairmen are in the
next highest wage-rated employee group.
In view of the foregoing , it is apparent that the
skilled employees Petitioner seeks to sever herein
have been afforded and have capitalized upon the
opportunity to participate in the Intervenor's af-
fairs. As a result , their special interests have been
adequately represented under the existing pattern
of representation . Furthermore, for at least 16
years they have shared with their fellow employees
a wide variety of benefits, privileges, and working
conditions . As a consequence of their long and
close association with the other employees in the
existing bargaining unit , it is clear therefore, that
the separate community of interests , which tool and
diemakers and toolroom machinists , electricians,
plumbers-pipefitters , refrigeration mechanics, and
machine repairmen might enjoy by reason of their
skills and training , have been largely integrated in
the broader community of interests which they
share with production and maintenance employees.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions filed herein
be, and they hereby are , dismissed.