Mesta Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 13, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 112 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cumstances , the Board ordinarily does not order animmediate
election .6 Even assuming , therefore , that because of the
unsettled conditions at the Morgantown plants , the three-plant
unit proposed by the Petitioner is appropriate , we would
nevertheless not direct an election now. Accordingly , because
the unit requested is in the process of definite and imminent
substantial expansion , we shall dismiss the petition without
prejudice to the subsequent filing of another petition at a more
appropriate time.
[The, Board dismissed the petition.]
6 Coast Pacific Lumber Co., 78 NLRB 1245 ; A. O. Smith Corp. (Air Frame Component
Division ), 100 NLRB 1379; Individual Drinking Cup Co., Inc., 101 NLRB 1751.
MESTA MACHINE COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF LABOR, Petitioner . Case No. 6-RC-1291 . July 13, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph C.
Thackery , hearing officer . 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 Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three -member panel [ Members Murdock, Styles , and Peter-
son].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to representcer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A 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 Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent aunit of all bricklayers,
bricklayer helpers , and apprentices employed by the Employer.
The Employer contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate
for the reasons set forth below . The employees involved are
engaged in the construction , maintenance , and repair of
bricklinings and other brickwork used by the Employer in the
process of manufacturing steel and steel products at its plant
in West Homestead , Pennsylvania . The bricklayers possess and
exercise craft skills , acquired after a 4-year apprenticeship.
There is no history of collective bargaining for these em-
ployees.
The Employer contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate
because of the integrated nature of the Employer ' s operations,
because the bricklayers are engaged in a program of replacing
and repairing equipment on regularly succeeding occasions and
106 NLRB No. 16.
MESTA MACHINE COMPANY 113
because of the community of interest and working conditions
between the bricklayers and the production employees.
In this connection the Employer relies on the National Tube
case ,' in which the Board declined to sever a group of brick-
layers from a long -established plantwide unit in a plant which
was part of the basic steel industry . In that case the Board
stressed the following factors:
(1) The history of industrial bargaining in the basic steel
industry and in the plant involved in that case.
(2) The fact that the bricklayers were engaged in a definite
program of making replacements and repairs on regularly
succeeding occasions , of instrumentalities used in the con-
tinuous production of basic steel.
(3) The similarity between the working conditions of the
bricklayers and the steel production employees , including their
participation in a common job - evaluation plan.
While factor ( 3) appears to be present in the instant case, it
is clear that as to ( 1) the Board found in a previous case in-
volving the same Employer that, although it was engaged in the
manufacture of various steel products , it was not a part of the
basic steel industry .' The Employer does not here renew the
contention , rejected in that case , that it is part of the basic
steel industry or that the history of industrial bargaining in
that industry precludes a finding that the craft unit here sought
is appropriate . It is clear , also , that, unlike the situation in
National Tube , there has been no history of bargaining for the
Employer ' s employees on a plantwide basis . Nor does any
union now seek to represent the bricklayers as part of a
broader unit.
As to factor ( 2), while the record contains a statement by a
representative of management that the bricklayers are engaged
in a program of making replacements and repairs on regular
succeeding occasions , the record also shows that at least 70
percent of their time is in making emergency repairs, which
are not prescheduled.
In view of the foregoing , and upon the entire record , we find
that there is insufficient basis for applying the doctrine of the
National Tube case to the instant case.
The Employer contends also that in any event the helpers
should be excluded from the proposed unit. The helpers work
only for the bricklayers . They assist the bricklayers by trans-
porting tools and materials to the work site , mixing mortar,
carrying mortar, bricks , and other materials to. the bricklayer
and doing other tasks incidental to the bricklayer ' s work. We
shall, in accordance with Board practice, include the helpers
in the unit.3
Accordingly we find that all bricklayers , bricklayer helpers,
and apprentices at the Employer ' s West Homestead , Pennsyl-
'National Tube Company, 76 NLRB 1199
2 Mesta Machine Company, 94 NLRB 1624. In that case, the Board found appropriate a unit
of patternmakers in the instant plant . The record does not show whether there has since
that decision been any bargaining for patternmakers.
3See The Standard Register Co , 101 NLRB 744; The Kroger Co., 103 NLRB 210.
1 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vania, plant , excluding all other employees , guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Peterson , concurring:
The record in this case discloses that the bricklayers con-
stitute an identifiable , homogeneous group of craftsmen; that
there is no history of their inclusion in a broader unit; and
that the type of integration found in the National Tube case 4
does not exist here. None of the factors to which I referred in
my dissent in the Hamilton cases as bases for finding a craft
group an inappropriate unit are present . Accordingly , I agree
with my colleagues that an election should be directed for the
bricklayers.
4 Footnote 1, supr.
5 W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627.
NEBEL KNITTING COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF HOSIERY WORKERS , AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 11-
RC-496 . July 13, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Sidney J.
Barban , hearing officer . 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 Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three -member panel [ Members Houston , Murdock , and Peter-
son].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged incommerce withinthe meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to representcer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer withinthe
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit:
The parties agree that a unit of production and maintenance
employees is appropriate , but disagree as to the composition
of the unit . The Petitioner , in opposition to the Employer, would
exclude fixers , the maintenance fixer-learner , foreman-fixers,
the foreladies in the.finishing and inspecting , mending , greige
goods inspecting , and packing departments , the head dyer, the
106 NLRB No. 11.