101 N.L.R.B. 1766 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

Minneapolis-Moline Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 31, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1766 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Error Clerk-Traffic Control Senior Clerk General` Assist-Service Section General' Assist-Delivery Sect. General Assist-Telephone Sect. Printer, Morse Operator Route Clerk Service Writer R/Q Clerk Delivery Clerk Traffic Control Clerk Printer/Multiplex Operator Check Clerk Searcher/Filer Telephone Operator, 67 Broad St. San Francisco, Marine Division Pick up/B `e 1 t Inspector/T u b e Clerk/Ditto Machine Operator Operating Technician Teletype Technician Shop Technician "A" Shop Technician "B" Call Box and Branch Office Serv- iceman Installation and General Mainte- nance Technicians Conveyor Systems Technicians Branch Office Operator/Clerk Messenger-Night/Evening Messenger-Utility (Main Office Only) Messenger-Marine Messenger-Full Time Messenger-Part Time Building Maintenance Porter Main/Branch Office Handyman LOUISVILLE PLANT OF THE MINNEAPOLIS-MOLINE COMPANY and LODGE 681, DISTRICT #27, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 9-RC-1735. December 31, 1952 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Orville E. Andrews, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. I At the hearing, the Intervenor , Local 715 , United Automobile Workers of America, AFL, moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it did not clearly set forth the unit sought ; that the issues presented had been decided in a previous proceeding ; and that there had been no change affecting-the employees in question since the Board 's decision in that proceeding. We find no merit in these contentions. The motions to dismiss are therefore denied. 101 NLRB No. 244. LOUISVILLE PLANT OF MINNEAPOLIS-MOLINE COMPANY ;x.767 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 Petitioner seeks to sever from an existing production and maintenance unit at the Employer's plant at Louisville, Kentucky, a unit of all employees of the machine shop, and all machinists, main- tenance mechanics and/or millwrights, maintenance welders, and their helpers and apprentices. In the alternative, it requests any unit or units composed of these employees that the Board may find appropriate.' The Employer, a manufacturer of farm equipment, operates plants in Minnesota, Illinois, and Kentucky. At its Louisville plant,3 the only plant involved in this proceeding, it has approximately 865,em- ployees. -With the exception of foundry workers, toolroom employees, and maintenance electricians, all production and maintenance em- ployeeshave been represented since 1941 by the Intervenor.4 The machine shop, also known as the maintenance machine depart- ment, is physically separated from the other departments in the plant, and has its own foreman. Its chief function is to repair the Em- ployer's production equipment. Eight of the 16 employees in the department are classified as maintenance machinist mechanics. These employees repair and service all plant machinery and snake special mechanisms, accessories, and parts for repair. In their work, they use such machines as lathes, drill presses, planers, saws, and chain hoists. It is clear, as the Board found in an earlier proceeding in- volving the same plant,5 that they are highly skilled employees who perform the usual duties of the machinist's trade. The other em- ployees appear to be either less skilled than the maintenance machinist mechanics, or unskilled. They include a forging die maker, a cast iron die fitter, 2 hi-lift mechanics, 3 maintenance department helpers, and a tool crib tender e All these employees, except the tool crib tender, work throughout the plant. Ordinarily, however, they do no production work. From these facts it is clear that the machine shop employees con- stitute a homogeneous and identifiable departmental group having a substantial craft nucleus of machinists. Under the Board's present practice, it will permit the severance of such a group from a broader $ Contrary to the contention of the Employer and the Intervenor, we find that the petition adequately describes the unit sought. This plant vas formerly owned by B. F. Avery & Sons Company. 4 Until 1949 , when the Board found appropriate separate units of toolroom employees and maintenance electricians , these employees were included in the prcduction and main- tenance unit. See B . F. Avery & Sons Company, 86 NLRB 24 (1949 ). The employees in these units are not involved in this proceeding. E B. F. Avery if Sons Company , supra. Normally , there is also a shop machinist , but there was no one in this classification at the time of the hearing. 1768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unit if the craftsmen involved are the only ones of their type in the plant. If there are other such employees, however, it will grant severance only on a craft basis.' The record indicates that in the production machine department there are various employees who use machines similar to those in the machine shop. In the prior representation proceeding, the Board found that these employees were skilled machinists, who differed from the maintenance and toolroom machinists only in that they did pro- duction work, making parts for the machinery sold by the Employer, not for the machinery used by it.,' From the record in the present proceeding, however, it appears that the employees in the production machine department, unlike the maintenance machinist mechanics, are not required to be able to operate all the machines in the depart- ment. They set up and operate the particular machines to which they are assigned, and are classified accordingly as lathe operators, milling machine operators, etc. They work under an incentive plan. Because of these circumstances, we are of the opinion and find, con- trary to the Board's previous finding, that the machine operators in the production machine department are not skilled machinists such as to form a necessary part of a machinists' craft group. The pres- ence of these employees in the production machine department does not, therefore, preclude a finding that the machine shop employees may form an appropriate unit. We find that the machine shop employees may, if they so desire, sever from the existing production and maintenance unit and constitute a separate unit. The millwrights and maintenance welder whom the Petitioner also seeks to represent are employed in the maintenance department, which is located in a different building from the machine shop, and is under different supervision. The function of this department is to do maintenance work on the plant buildings .9 The millwrights move and set up machinery and equipment, repair elevators, install line shafting and gratings, and make minor repairs, incidental to their work, on machinery and equipment. There are no other employees in the plant performing similar duties. The maintenance welder repairs miscellaneous equipment and fabricates new equipment by welding. He does not work with any particular craft. Although there is only one welder in the maintenance department, there are other welders in production. * Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 101 NLRB 441. 8At the time of the Board's former decision, these employees were employed in the harvester and tractor shops. These two shops have since been combined to form the production machine department. 8In addition to the millwrights and maintenance welder, the maintenance department employees include electricians, pipefitters, oilers, a stationary engineer, a fireman, a fireman's helper, a tool tending clerk, and a maintenance department helper. TRENTON FOODS, INC. 1769 As the millwrights, by themselves, constitute a distinct craft group, we find that they may, if they so desire, constitute a separate unit. The maintenance welder, although employed in the same department, does not appear to be closely allied to the millwrights. We shall therefore exclude him. Accordingly, we shall direct separate elections among the employees of the Employer at its Louisville, Kentucky, plant, in the voting groups set forth below, excluding from each group office clerical em- ployees, guards, professional employees, all other employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 1. All employees in the machine shop. 2. All millwrights. If a majority of the employees in either group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, under such circum- stances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority in either group vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to remain a part of the existing bargaining unit, and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] TRENTON FOODS , INC.' and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GRAIN MILLERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 17-RC-1433. December 31, 1952 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 Michael T. Lucero, 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, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. ' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 101 NLRB No. 248.