Moe Light, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 1013 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

MOE LIGHT, INC. 1013
On April 6, 1954, after Local 691 had reopened the contracts for
negotiation, and after the petition herein was filed, approximately 11
manufacturers, including the Employer, met and agreed that they
"would work together" and "they would sit and listen to the proposals
of the union." At that time, they formally met for the first time,
adopted the name "The Bedding Manufacturers Council of South-
ern California," appointed a negotiation committee and a representa-
tive to act as their spokesman with Local 691. They also agreed to be
bound by group action of the Council, although the disagreeing mem-
bers could withdraw from the Council. However, the Employer in-
dicated unqualifiedly that it wished to bargain with Local 691 through
the Council.
In these circumstances and upon the entire record, we find that the
Employer has been a part of the overall pattern of multiemployer bar-
gaining among the mattress manufacturers of southern California
and has unequivocally expressed its desire to continue to participate
in and be bound by multiemployer bargaining. Accordingly, as the
unit sought by the Petitioner is limited to the Employer's employees
and therefore inappropriate," we shall dismiss the petition."
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
10 Acryvin Corporation of America, 107 NLRB 917 ; Martinolich Shipbuilding Co., 108
NLRB 179, and cases cited therein.
11 In view of our determination herein, we find it unnecessary to consider the other unit
and contract-bar contentions of the parties.
MOE LIGHT , INC. and LODGE 957, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA-
CHINISTS , AFL,' PETITIONER . Case No. 13-fC-3528. August 25,
1954
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 Robert G. Mayberry, 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 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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
'Local 1110, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, was permitted to
intervene on the basis of its existing contract with the Employer.
109 NLRB No. 150.
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) andSection 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing production and
maintenance unit at the Employer's plant at Fort Atkinson, Wis-
consin, separate alleged craft units of (1) tool- and die-makers and
allied classifications 2 and (2) electricians. The Employer and the In-
tervenor contend that the proposed units are inappropriate because
of (1) the history of collective bargaining on a plantwide basis since
1938, (2) the highly integrated nature of the plant's operations, (3)
the fact that the employees sought are not true craftsmen, and (4) the
frequency of interchange between the employees sought and the pro-
duction and maintenance employees.
As to (1), in a recent decision,' the Board announced a policy of per-
mitting severance of a group of employees, despite a history of bar-
gaining on a more comprehensive basis, if the employees sought (1)
constitute either a true craft group or a functionally distinct and
homogeneous departmental group and (2) the union seeking to repre-
sent them is one which traditionally represents that craft or depart-
mental group. As to (2), we held in that case that apart from certain
situations not here relevant, integration of production processes would
not preclude severance of such units. Accordingly, we find no merit
in the Employer's and the Intervenor's first two contentions. We shall
now consider the remaining contentions.
Tool- and Die-Makers' Unit
The Employer is engaged in the manufacturing of lighting fixtures
and defense work at the plant involved herein. There are approxi-
mately 800 employees in the plantwide unit. For administrative pur-
poses, the Employer has divided its plant into several departments,
including among others, the toolroom, the model shop, and the main-
tenance department. The tool- and die-makers, toolroom machinists,
toolroom machine operators, and tool grinders are assigned to the tool-
room, and are separately supervised by the toolroom foreman. The
tool and die modelmakers and their helpers work in the model shop,
adjacent to the toolroom, and are separately supervised by the model
shop foreman. The maintenance department, which is next to the
toolroom, includes the maintenance mechanics, electricians, and vari-
ous other maintenance employees, all of whom are supervised by the
maintenance department supervisor.
2 The Petitioner seeks to represent the following employees in the proposed tool- and
die-makers ' unit : all tool- and die-makers , tool and die modelmakers, tool and die group
leaders, maintenance mechanics , tool grinders , tool grinder leaders, toolroom machinists,
toolroom machine operators , and all helpers and apprentices of the foregoing.
3 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
MOE LIGHT, INC. 1015
- The 17 tool- and die-makers make and repair various types of tools,
dies, jigs, and fixtures 4 They use the customary machines of their
trade and are required to work to very close tolerances as well as read
blueprints. They own their own hand tools valued at about $500.
At present, there are two apprentice tool- and die-makers indentured
under Wisconsin law, who are required to serve as apprentices for 4
years. Although the record reveals that some of the tool- and die-
makers were transferred to their present jobs from other plant posi-
tions, it is clear that a substantial number were already journeymen
tool- and die-makers when they were hired. Others progressed to such
classification after an apprenticeship or comparable on-the-job train-
ing. The top grade tool- and die-makers are the highest hourly paid
employees at the plant, and in order to be eligible for that grade the
Employer requires an employee to have at least 4 years' experience in
his trade.
The tool grinders are requird to work to close tolerances. Those in
the two top grades need to have a knowledge of mathematics. There
is no evidence as to the period of training required to qualify for these
jobs. The toolroom machinists must be able to work from blueprints,
to use the usual precision gauges and measuring devices of their trade,
and to operate such machines as turret lathes, shaper, doall saw, and
external and internal grinders. There is no evidence in the record as
to the experience required for this job. The toolroom machine opera-
tors must have over 2 years' experience, have a knowledge of advanced
shop mathematics, and work to close tolerances. They set up and
operate engine lathes, milling machines, and grinders.
The duties of the two tool and die modelmakers are similar to those
of the tool- and die-makers. They make experimental tools and dies
in connection with the development of new products as well as new
models and frequently use the machine tools in the toolroom. During
slack periods they are transferred to the toolroom and perform the
same duties as the other tool- and die-makers.
The maintenance mechanics, A and B, have a separate work area in
the maintenance department, although their duties frequently take
them to other departments. Their duties are to repair all kinds of
production machinery as well as toolroom machines. In their work,
they use such machine tools as lathes, drill presses, welders, and saws.
They are required to work from blueprints and own their own hand
tools valued at about $150. The Employer requires class A mainte-
nance mechanics to have 3 to 5 years' experience in their work, and
A They occasionally perform some work on products made by the Employer . However, it
is clear that when they are engaged in this production work, they exercise the skills of
their craft. We therefore find that this does not militate against their separate repre-
sentation . The Cornelius Company, 93 NLRB 368 at 370.
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
class B maintenance mechanics are required to have 1 to 3 years' ex-
perience.
Although the Employer and the Intervenor contend otherwise, the
record shows that there is little interchange between the employees
sought and the other employees.5 Nor does the record support the
contention of the Employer and the Intervenor that other employees
exercise the same skills as the employees sought.
As it is clear from the record that the employees in at least one of
the categories sought by the Petitioner-the tool grinders-are not
craftsmen, we are precluded from finding that the entire unit sought
is appropriate as a craft group. Nor may such proposed unit be
deemed appropriate as a departmental group, since it encompasses
the maintenance mechanics who constitute part of the maintenance
department, the balance of which is not sought by the Petitioner.
-However, we find that all the employees in the toolroom and model
shop constitute a functionally distinct and homogeneous departmental
group, who may, if the employees so desire, constitute a separate
appropriate units Although the toolroom and model shop are sepa-
rate departments for administrative purposes, as stated above, the
record shows that both groups are engaged in closely related func-
tions.' As the Petitioner is a labor organization which has tradi-
tionally served the special interests of such employees, we shall permit
the toolroom and model shop employees to determine whether they
desire to be represented separately by the Petitioner."
Electricians' Unit
As the Petitioner does not traditionally represent electrician craft
units, we find that the unit of electricians here sought may not ap-
propriately be severed from the existing plantwide unit.
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be held in the follow-
ing voting group at the Employer's Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin, plant,
s The samples set forth by the Employer at the hearing to show the alleged interchange
for the most part either did not involve the employees sought, or were permanent trans-
fers, or dealt with unique situations.
6 For reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in the A. P Controls case, infra, Board
Member Murdock would deny severance on a departmental basis in this case but would
grant severance on a craft basis by restricting the voting group to all members of the
same craft in the toolroom and model shop, together with their regularly assigned helpers
and apprentices , excluding all lesser skilled employees working in these two departments.
7 See A P. Controls Corporation, 108 NLRB 593.
8 Board Member Rodgers is in complete agreement with the findings and disposition set
forth in the text with respect to the Petitioner' s proposed tool- and die -makers' unit. He
notes, moreover , that in this case the Board has examined into and considered the real
nature of the group for which severance is sought , has made its unit determination in the
light of such inquiry , and has not held that its unit determination is circumscribed by the
precise language in which the Petitioner 's unit request is cast. To the extent therefore,
that his colleagues have taken this position , Board Member Rodgers is happy to note that
they have apparently now adopted the views expressed by Board Member Murdock and
himself in their dissenting dpinion in the recently issued case of Kinnear Manufacturing
Company, 109 NLRB 948
GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL NO. 2 1017
-excluding all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act :
All employees in the toolroom and the model shop.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have in-
dicated their desire to be represented in a separate unit, and the Re-
gional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed
in, that event to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner
for such unit, which the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. If, however, a
majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to remain part of the existing production and mainte-
nance unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certificate
of results of election.to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL No. 2, PETITIONER and TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, CIO and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL. Case No. 10-RM-93. August 05,1954
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election
Pursuant to a Decision and Order issued by the Board,' Section 9
(c) (3) of the Act and Section 102.62 of the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations, an election and a runoff election were conducted on March 19
and May 7, 1953, respectively, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Tenth Region. The tally of ballots for
the runoff election showed that there were approximately 1,181 eligible
voters, and that 922 ballots were cast, of which 450 were for the
TWUA, 450 were against the TWUA, 8 were void, and 14 were chal-
lenged. The challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the
results of the runoff election.
On May 11, 1953, TWUA filed objections to conduct affecting the
results of the election. On June 26, 1953, the Regional Director issued
his report on election, challenged ballots, objections, and recommenda-
tions to the Board, recommending, after due investigation, that the
challenges be overruled, that the challenged ballots be opened and
counted, that certain of the objections be overruled, and that a hearing
be held with respect to certain other objections which raised material
issues of fact, unless the resolution of the challenged ballots rendered
such hearing unnecessary. On July 3, 1953, the Employer and TWUA
1102 NLRB 1329.
109 NLRB No. 146.