Magma Copper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

Magma Copper Company and International Association of Ma-
chinists and International Union of Mine , Mill & Smelter
Workers, Ind., Petitioners. Cases Nos. 21-RC-41028 and 21-RC-
4029. January 3, 1956 ,
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
Norman H. Greer, 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
employees 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 Employer is engaged in the underground mining, the mill-
ing, and the smelting of copper ore at its Superior, Arizona, plant, the
only operation involved in this proceeding. There is no history of
collective bargaining for employees at this plant. The International
Association of Machinists, herein referred to as the IAM, seeks to
represent the Employer's maintenance employees in a single unit but
in the alternative would accept craft units. International Union of
Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, Ind., herein referred to as the Mine,
Mill & Smelter Workers, seeks to represent a plantwide production
and maintenance unit.
The Employer's employees are organized into three main divi-
sions-corresponding to the mining, milling, and smelting opera-
tions-and several smaller service departments. The employees the
IAM seeks to represent are those in what may be considered mainte-
nance departments in the mining, milling, and smelting divisions and
employees in the two service departments-the garage and electrical
shop-which are engaged in maintenance, work. These employees
perform functions customarily associated with maintenance classifi-
cations, functions which are not to any significant extent performed by
production employees. The Employer contends that a separate main-
tenance unit is inappropriate principally on the ground that all its
115 NLRB No. 1.
390609-56-vol . 115-2 1
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
maintenance employees are not organized into a single, separate main-
tenance department. However, as the immediate supervision of
maintenance employees is separate from that of production employees
who handle and process ore, albeit in several departments rather than
in a single department covering the whole plant, and as they perform
maintenance functions, we find the Employer's maintenance employees
constitute a functionally distinct and homogeneous group having em-
ployment interests distinguishable from those of the Employer's
other employees.' Nor do we find these differences in employment
interests to be obscured by the insubstantial incidence of transfer or
promotion between maintenance and production job classifications, by
the fact that maintenance and production employees enjoy the same
fringe employment benefits, or by the absence of a formal apprentice-
ship program for maintenance classifications. In the absence of a his-
tory of collective bargaining on a more comprehensive basis at this
plant, we find that the Employer's maintenance employees may consti-
tute a separate unit if they so desire.2 It is also clear, and we find,
that the production and maintenance unit requested by the Mine, Mill
& Smelter Workers may be appropriate. And finally, we find that if
the maintenance employees desire separate representation, as deter-
mined in the elections directed herein, a unit of production employees
may also be appropriate.' Accordingly, we shall direct self-determi-
nation elections in both maintenance and production voting groups.
There remains for consideration the specific composition of the main-
tenance and production voting groups.
The Maintenance Voting Group
Car loaders and cage inspectors : Although these employees are
supervised by a mine maintenance supervisor, the mine master me-
chanic, the record does not reveal the nature of their duties. There-
fore we shall permit them to vote in the maintenance group subject
to challenge. If these employees are not in fact maintenance em-
ployees, they are properly included in the production group. For
this reason we shall also permit these employees to vote in the produc-
tion group subject to challenge.
Hoistmen and the locomotive crane operator: These employees are
under the supervision of the mine master mechanic only in regard to
the manner in which they operate their equipment and for'purposes
of hiring, firing, and time records. However, they perform no main-
tenance work, their entire working time being devoted to the operation
'National Carbon Company, 107 NLRB 1486, at 148T; The Ruberoid Company, 109
NLRB 257
3 Shore0, a Freezers, Inc, 108 NLRB 723, at 727; East Texas Pulp & Paper Company,
113 NLRB 539 The Employer's motion to dismiss the IAM's petition on the ground that
only a production and maintenance unit is appropriate is hereby denied
3 American Forest Pi oducts Corporation, 114 NLRB 1200
D MAGMA COPPER COMPANY 3
of their equipment in the handling of mine cages and mine timbers
under the supervision of production foremen. Accordingly, we shall
exclude them from the maintenance group.
Mine bull gang: Separately supervised by the mine surface fore-
man, this gang consists of miners, tiinbermen, and helpers who work
throughout both the mine and surface installations making excava-
tions, constructing machinery foundations, welding, erecting struc-
tural steel, and doing heavy carpentry. We find them to be main-
tenance employees and shall include them in that group.
Smelter repairmen: There are two repairmen in the smelter who
are not supervised by the smelter master mechanic, the maintenance
supervisor for the smelter. The- first- is- a mechanic stationed in an
area of the converter floor where he is constantly engaged in 4 or
5 recurring maintenance tasks under the supervision of the smelter
operating foreman. The other is supervised by the crusher foreman
in the maintenance of a group of machines in a small area of the
crusher department. As both these repairmen, under the supervision
of production foremen, perform routine repetitive tasks in the main-
tenance of certain production machinery, as they are stationed in
production areas, and as they are seldom assigned to work with smelter
maintenance employees, we find their employment interests to coin-
cide more closely with those of production employees.' Accordingly,
we shall exclude them from the maintenance group.
Janitors, janitresses, and the gardener: The IAM seeks to exclude
these employees from the unit. However, as the Board has held jani-
tors to be maintenance employees 5 and as the gardener is engaged es-
sentially in outside maintenance work, we shall include them in the
maintenance group.
The Production Voting Group
Fire guards: These employees devote the major part of their time
to timber repair. Between shifts, however, they patrol an assigned
area of the mine in which no other employees are present, inspecting
for fires or conditions, caused by blasting, defective electrical equip-
ment or cigarettes, which may cause fires. Upon discovering a fire
they either act to extinguish it or notify the surface to send a fire-
fighting crew. As fire guards are not authorized or expected to en-
force fire regulations or to initiate disciplinary action for the infrac-
tion of any of the Employer's mine regulations, we find them not to
be guards within the meaning of the Act, and shall include them in
the production group.
* See American Can Company , 112 NLRB 509
5 See Boro Wood P,'oducts Company, Inc., 88 NLRB 886
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We shall direct elections in the following voting groups of em-
ployees at the Employer's Superior, Arizona, plant, excluding from
each voting group the employees in the other voting group and all office
employees, professional and technical employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act :
(1) All maintenance employees, including mechanics, tool sharp-
eners, the plumber, and helpers employed in the mine shop; the
mechanics and helpers in the underground mine repair crews; the mine
cable inspector; the fire inspector; 6 employees in the mine bull gang;
the mill repairmen, machinists, oilers, and their helpers employed in
the mill shop; the machinists, blacksmith, boilermakers, welders, and
their helpers employed in the smelter machine shop; the powerhouse
engineers employed in the powerhouse; employees employed in the
garage; electricians; the painter; the carpenter; janitors; janitresses;
and the gardener; excluding the foreman of the mine shop, foremen
of the underground mine repair crews, hoistmen, the locomotive crane
operator, the mine surface foreman, the mill repair foreman, the
smelter machine shop foreman, the smelter bull gang, the two repair-
men working under the supervision of the crusher boss and the smelter
operating foreman, the garage leadman, and the chief electrician.
(2) All hourly paid production employees, including fire guards,
plant clerical employees, hoistmen, the,locomotive crane operator, the
smelter bull gang, the two repairmen working under the supervision
of the crusher boss and the smelter operating foreman; but excluding
watchmen and assayers.?
We have found that employees in the production voting group may
also constitute an appropriate unit if the employees in the maintenance
voting group vote for separate representation. If employees in the
maintenance voting group do not vote for separate representation, they
must be included in the production and maintenance unit. Accord-
ingly, if a majority of the employees in the maintenance voting group
select the IAM as their representative, they will be taken to have in-
dicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit and the
Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a cer-
itification of representatives to the IAM for such unit, which the
Board, under these circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining. And in that event, should a majority
of the employees in the production voting group select Mine, Mill &
Smelter Workers as their representative, the Regional Director is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to Mine, Mill &
6 For reasons stated above , the cage inspector and car loaders will be permitted to vote
subject to challenge in both the production and maintenance elections.
'The Employer and Mine , Mill & Smelter workers stipulated assayers to be highly
skilled technical employees . They also stipulated that the watchmen employed by the
Employer are guards within the meaning of the Act.
A. O. SMITH CORPORATION OF TEXAS 5
Smelter Workers for a unit of production employees, which the Board,
in these circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. On the other hand, if a majority in the maintenance
voting group do not select the IAM, the ballots of the employees in the
maintenance group will be pooled with those of the employees in the
production group.8 If Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers achieves a
majority of the votes in the pooled group,' the Regional Director is
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to that labor
organization for a unit of production and maintenance employees,
which the Board, in such circumstances, finds. to be an appropriate
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.-
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
8 If the ballots are pooled , they are to be tallied in the following manner: Votes for
the TAM shall be counted as valid votes,'but neither for nor against Mine, Mill & Smelter
Workers, all other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for Mine, Mill &
Smelter Workers or for no union.
u At the hearing Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers requested that its name not appear on
the ballot of any election directed in a unit sought by the TAM In view of the Board's
decision to pool 'the ballots under the circumstances described above, we shall accord
Mine, Mill & Smelter workers a place on the ballot in the election directed in the main-
tenance voting group
A. O. Smith Corporation of Texas and District 37, International
Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner and United
Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 39-RC-894.
January 4,1956
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election dated
September 12, 1955,1 an election was conducted herein on October 11,
1955, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Sixteenth Region. The election was conducted by secret ballot
among a voting group of machine shop employees. Upon the con-
clusion of the balloting, a tally of ballots was issued and served upon
the parties in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations.
The tally of ballots shows that there were approximately 14 eligible
voters in the voting group ; 7 ballots were cast for the Petitioner; 7
ballots were cast for the Intervenor; and the ballots of 9 persons were
challenged.
Thereafter the Regional Director investigated the issues raised by
the challenged ballots, and duly issued a report on challenged ballots.
In his report the Regional Director found that the Board agent had
1114 NLRB 56
115 NLRB No. 3.