Paris Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1967

163 N.L.R.B. 964 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Paris Manufacturing Company, Inc., and
International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 6-RC-4237.
April 7,1967
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On November 23, 1966, the Regional Director for
Region 6 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding in which he
directed a self-determination election in a unit of
machinists and helpers employed at the Employer's
Brockway, Pennsylvania, plant. Thereafter, in
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, the Employer and the
Intervenor' each filed a timely Request for Review,
alleging that the requested unit was inappropriate
for severance on a craft or departmental basis. The
Board, by telegraphic Order dated January 18, 1967,
granted review and stayed the election. The
Employer filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the Regional Director's
determination under review and finds, in substantial
accord with the position of the Intervenor and the
Employer, that the requested unit is inappropriate
for severance on either a craft or departmental basis.
The Employer is engaged in the business of
manufacturing clothes-pressing machinery for the
clothing and drycleaning industry. It employs
approximately 57 production and maintenance
employees, all of whom have continuously been
represented as a single unit by the Intervenor since
about 1952. The employees the Petitioner would now
sever from such unit (approximately seven in
number) are currently classified as machinist and
machinist-helper.
Petitioner claims, and the Regional Director
found, that such employees perform work of the kind
generally associated with the machinists' craft.
However, the record shows that only about
10 percent of the work they customarily perform
' International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of
America, intervened on its own behalf and on behalf of its
Local No 14553, on the basis of its contractual interest
2 Only one of the Employer's machinists was a journeyman
machinist when employed Most of the others had been previously
employed as machine operators The Employer also accepts
applicants for its machinist jobs with no prior machine work
experience, and will provide such applicants with on-the-job
training It does not, however, maintain a fornjal apprenticeship
program
163 NLRB No. 126
involves the exercise of any special skills, and that,
in fact, the Employer does not require those hired for
its machinist jobs to have any prior machinist
experience as a condition of hire.2 The record
further shows that, for approximately 90 percent of
their worktime, the Employer's machinists are
engaged in machining component parts for the
Employer's pressing machinery. They perform this
work largely with the aid of lathes or milling
machines. Such machines are located in a separate
but nonpartitioned area of the plant, designated as
the machine shop; and the machinists generally
perform most of their work in such shop. They are
supervised by a foreman who also' supervises other
production employees. The latter employees
perform other work involved in the production or
assembly of the same component parts as are
machined by the machinists. While employees
engaged in other operations do not regularly do any
work involving the operation of the machines in the
machine shop, some of them have, on occasion, been
called upon to do so when there is an overload of
work in the machine shop. Likewise, machinists
have, on occasion, been called upon to operate
production machines located in other parts of the
plant.
The record also reveals that until the execution of
the most recent bargaining agreement between the
Employer and the Intervenor, the jobs now carrying
the "machinist"classification, were classified as
"machine operator" jobs. The change was instituted
at the Intervenor's request. It also appears that,
under the most recent agreement, the machinists
enjoy separate seniority and hourly rates of pay
higher than those of any other production-
maintenance employees with the exception of
welders.3
Under all the circumstances, including the fact
that the employees sought by the Petitioner are
primarily engaged in production work, that they are
under the same supervision as other production
employees, that there is a long history of bargaining
on the basis of a production and maintenance unit
which has included the employees sought to be
severed, and that no showing is made that any of
their alleged special interests have been prejudiced
by their inclusion in the existing unit , we find no
warrant, after according appropriate weight to all
relevant factors as discussed in the Mallinckrodt
case,4 for granting the requested severance. We
shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.
3 Welders are compensated at the same rate as machinists
Such rate is approximately 30 cents per hour more than the
contract 's starting rate for other production and maintenance
jobs
Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Uranium Division, 162
NLRB 387, Holmberg, Inc, 162 NLRB 407, Universal Form
Clamp Co, 163 NLRB 217
BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES 965
ORDER TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Building Service Employees International
Union , Local No. 29 , AFL-CIO and
Columbus Services of Pittsburgh, Inc.
Case 6-CC-399.
April 7,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On November 3, 1966, Trial Examiner William
W. Kapell issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions, with a
supporting brief, to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and Recommended Order.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision and the entire record in this
case, including the exceptions and brief of the
Respondent, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.I
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Building Service
Employees International Unon, Local No. 29,
AFL-CIO, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents , and representatives , shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
I Our agreement with the Trial Examiner is predicated on the
fact that Respondent threatened to picket the entire airport We
do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's reasoning that any cease doing
business effect necessarily entails a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)
163 NLRB No. 128
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner . Case 6-CC-399,
a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act, was
heard in Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , on September 9, 1966,1
with all parties participating pursuant to due notice upon a
complaint2 issued on July 20 by the Regional Director of
Region 6 of the National Labor Relations Board , hereafter
called the Board , alleging violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i,)(B)
of the Act by Building Service Employees International
Union, Local No. 29, AFL-CIO, hereafter referred to as
Respondent.
The complaint, in substance , alleges that since on or
about May 25, Respondent threatened Allegheny Airlines,
Inc., hereafter referred to as Allegheny , that the Greater
Pittsburgh Airport, hereafter.referred to as the Airport,
would be picketed and closed down if Columbus was
permitted to perform cleaning services at Allegheny's
office building , as a result of which threat Allegheny
canceled its cleaning contract with Columbus
Respondent in its duly filed answer and in its opening
statement at the hearing raised only one issue with respect
to its alleged violative conduct , namely, whether it
threatened Allegheny's managerial personnel, as
asserted.3
All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
introduce relevant evidence , to present oral argument, and
to file briefs . At the close of the hearing General Counsel
and Respondent argued orally , and thereafter Respondent
submitted a brief which has been duly considered. Upon
the entire record in the case , and from my observation of
the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
Columbus is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal office in New Castle, Pennsylvania, and is
engaged in the business of rendering cleaning services.
During the 12-month period immediately preceding the
issuance of the complaint herein, it provided cleaning
services valued in excess of $50,000, inter alia, to
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, which annually ships
goods in excess of $50,000 from its Pennsylvania facility to
points outside said State; and to Sears, Roebuck and
Company's retail establishment in Monroeville,
Pennsylvania, which has a gross annual income in excess
of $500,000.
Allegheny, a common carrier engaged in transportation
by air, annually performs services valued in excess of
$1,000,000 in connection with its interstate transportation
of passengers and freight in and out of the Airport.
Respondent admits, and I find, that Columbus and
Allegheny are employers engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 2(5) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
I All dates hereafter refer to the year 1966 ui,ess otherwise
noted
2 Based on a charge filed on June 6, by Columbus Services of
Pittsburgh, Inc , hereinafter referred to as Columbus.
3 In its summation , Respondent again conceded that if threats
were made to Allegheny to sever its relations with Columbus,
such conduct constituted a violation of the Act