Lear-Siegler, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 26, 1968170 N.L.R.B. 766 (N.L.R.B. 1968) Copy Citation 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. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation