McKelvie Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 800 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of.MCKELvIE MACHINE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and LODGE
No. 1762, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 34-RC-23.-Decided July 90, 19418
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. _
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of Chairman Herzog and
Members Murdock and Gray.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the employer.
3. The, alleged question concerning representation ; the alleged ap-
propriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all production and mainte-
nance employees, machinists,' employees who install, maintain, repair,
build, assemble, or dismantle all types of machinery, excluding foun-
dry employees, chrome-plating employees, office and clerical em-
ployees, and supervisors. The Employer contends that the proposed
unit is inappropriate, asserting that its foundry and chrome-plating
employees should not be excluded from the unit.
The Employer manufactures foundry, machine-shop and industrial
hard chrome-plated products in its plant, which consists of a machine-
shop building, foundry building, and chrome-plating building.
There are approximately 22 production and maintenance employees.
The Petitioner seeks to represent a machinist and 9 machine operators.
1 There is only one employee in this classification.
78 N. L. R. B., No. 95.
800
McKELVIE MACHINE COMPANY 801
These employees are under the direct supervision of the tool and die
maker,2 and work in the machine-shop building. The other employees
consist of 1 office and clerical employee, 8 foundry employees, and 2
chrome-plating employees, all of whom work under the tool and die
maker.
Among those in the proposed unit, only the machinist is considered
by the Employer to be highly skilled. When the volume of work
requires it, the Employer temporarily assigns workers from the ma-
chine shop to the foundry or to the chrome-plating operations, or vice-
versa. Such transfers occur frequently, and, on several occasions,
machine-shop employees have been assigned permanently to the foun-
dry. In the finishing of certain products, such as clamps and jigs,
the chrome-plating workers are required to perform some of their
work in the machine shop. A substantial number of the castings pro-
duced by the foundry are transmitted to the machine shop or to the
chrome-plating operation for further processing or finishing. The
plant is not organized into separate departments for administrative
purposes, and the employees in the machine shop, foundry, and chrome-
plating operations all have the same working conditions and benefits.
In support of its-unit _contentio n, the Petitioner relies on the differ-
ences between the functions of the employees in the three operations
mentioned above, and upon the present extent of the employee organi-
zation. It is clear that the requested unit is not a craft group. As set
forth above, the Employer's production process is highly integrated
and there is substantial employee interchange among the three opera-
tions. In addition, there is similarity of work performed as between
employees within and without the proposed unit. There is no history
of collective bargaining at the Employer's plant. We conclude, in
view of the entire record, that the extent of employee organization
would actually be the controlling justification for finding that the
unit here sought is -appropriate. Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act, as
amended, provides, -however, that the extent to which the employees
have organized shall not be controlling. We therefore find that the
unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate.3
As we have held that the bargaining unit sought by the Petitioner
is inappropriate for collective bargaining purposes, we find that no.
question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of
employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. The
petition, therefore, will be dismissed.
2 The tool and die maker Is a supervisor-within the meaning of the Act.
8 Matter of Delaware Knitting Company. Inc., 75 N. L. R. B 205 ; Matter of Pomeroy'&,
Inc., 76 N: L. It. B. 633.
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed in the instant
matter be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER GRAY took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Order.