Munro-Van Helms Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 129 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of MUNRO-VAN HELMS MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
PETITIONER
Case No. 10-RC-168.-Decided January 13, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon an amended petition duly filed, a hearing was held before
a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hear-
ing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. The Petitioner's motion to correct
the transcript of the hearing is hereby granted.
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 the undersigned Board
Members. *
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 Petitioner and an intervening union, International Molders
and Foundry Workers Union of North America, A. F. L., herein
called the Intervenor, are labor organizations claiming to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit, for purposes of collective bargaining,
composed of machine and pattern shop, machine production depart-
ment, and maintenance department employees at the Employer's
Munford, Alabama, plant. The Employer and the Intervenor con-
tend that the unit sought is inappropriate.
*Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray.
81 N. L. R. B., No. 19.
129
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of soil pipe and fit-
tings. Its plant consists of a large foundry where pipe castings are
made, and several connected rooms and adjacent buildings where pat-
terns are made, castings are drilled, machined and ground, and mainte-
nance department employees are housed.
The group which the Petitioner seeks to represent is composed of
plant employees who are not foundry workers., These employees are
predominantly craftsmen, classified as carpenters, tool makers, ma-
chinists, pattern makers, welders, electricians, and machine repair
mechanics.2 There is no appreciable interchange between them and
the foundry workers; and the two groups, for the most part, work
different hours.
The bargaining history at the Employer's plant shows that on
April 25, 1946, the Employer recognized the Intervenor as the bargain-
ing representative of all production and maintenance employees at
its plant, including those now sought by the Petitioner, and, on that
date, executed a 1-year bargaining contract with the Intervenor
covering such employees. Thereafter, on April 25, 1947, a new 1-year
agreement, covering the same employees and containing a union shop
clause, was executed by the Intervenor and the Employer ; and that
agreement was subsequently amended by the parties in August 1947,
and again in January 1948. As a result of an extension clause in the
1948 amendment, the Intervenor represented the production and
maintenance employees when the instant petition was filed .3
Inasmuch as the employees within the proposed unit constitute a
multi-craft group with different skills, and because of the collective
bargaining history on a more comprehensive basis, we find that the unit
1 There are approximately 225 employees , classified , in part, as molders, laborers,
mill operators , grinders , and casting handlers , who work in the foundry The foundry
workers are , for the most part, paid on a piece -work basis.
2 There are approximately 44 employees in the group which the Petitioner seeks to,
represent These employees are paid hourly rates.
, There is evidence in the record showing that on two occasions during the incumbency
of the Intervenor , employees within the unit proposed by the Petitioner were represented
by a Machinist Committee in the negotiation of wage rates . On the first occasion, in
October 1946 , it is evident that the Intervenor took part in the negotiations , and a re-
sulting agreement was executed by it, alone , on behalf 6f the employees concerned. On
the second occasion , in early 1948 , the Employer signed a memorandum of agreement,
concluded solely with the Machinist Committee , which established wage rates for recently
hired machine operators ; such memorandum , however , referred to the Employer's then
existing agreement with the Intervenor, and specifically affirmed the machine production
rates established thereby for other employees.
Such evidence , in our opinion , is not sufficiently decisive to override the collective
bargaining history on an over-all basis and to cause us to depart from our rule of deny-
ing multi -craft severance in the face of a history of bargaining on a wider pattern
Contrast Matter of Armstrong Cork Company, 80 N. 'L R. B ., 1328, and Matter of
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Go, 80 N. L. R B ., 1347 , where the Board established multi-
craft units in the absence of a contrary bargaining history.
MUNRO-VAN HELMS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 131
sought is inappropriate for collective bargaining.4 Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
4 Matter of Pepsi-Cola Company , 78 N L. R B 790 ; Matter of Libbey Owens-Ford
Glass Company , 78 N. L. R B. 1170 ; See also Matter of Kimberly-Clark Corporation,
78 N. L It. B. 478 , and Matter of George S Mepham Corporation , 78 N. L It. B. 1081.
The decision in Matter of T. C. King Pipe Company , et at., 74 N. L. It . B 468, is hereby
overruled to the extent that the King case permitted the severance of multi-craft units
in the face of collective bargaining histories on more comprehensive bases
829595-50-vol. 81-10