Peerless Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1586 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

1586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
amendment, be executed in the same manner as this agreement,
and be approved by the International Office of this Union.
By letter dated July 29,1955,-and received by the Employer prior to
the Mill B date, the Intervenor proposed three changes in the con-
tract, involving wage rates and certain fringe economic benefits.
However, no changes were agreed upon.
The Petitioner requested recognition on August 20, 1955. The Em-
ployer denied recognition on August 22 and the instant petition was
filed on that date.
The Intervenor contends that its contract with the Employer was
automatically renewed as it was not "changed or terminated" and
that it, therefore, bars this proceeding.
Petitioner contends that the Intervenor's notice removed the con-
tract as a bar to a present determination of representatives, citing
American Lawn Mower Co.' In that case, the Board held that a
broad-modification notice given Sunder a contract- containing cotermi-
nous modification and termination clauses implies an intent to, and
does, terminate the contract.
We do not regard the American Lawn Mower principle as applica-
ble to the present factual situation. Aside from other possible con-
siderations, the notice herein, which involves merely wages and fringe
economic benefits, is not sufficiently broad to require an implication
of intent to terminate, nor does the subsequent conduct of the parties
in relation thereto indicate such an intent.3 Accordingly, as the par-
ties took no action which forestalled the operation of the automatic
renewal clause, we find that the contract bars the petition.
In view of our determination with respect to the scope of the notice,
it is unnecessary to pass upon the applicability of the Mallinckrodt
Chemical Work84 and Michigan Gear c Engineering Company
cases, relied upon by the Intervenor.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2108 NLRB 1589.
3 Eagle Signal Corporation, 111 NLRB 1006.
4114 NLRB 187.
5114 NLRB 208.
Peerless Products Company and United Brotherhood of Car-
penters & Joiners of America , District Council of Kansas City,
and Vicinity , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-2104.
December 30,1955
DECISION AND ORDER.
Upon an amended petition duly filed, a hearing was held before
Harry Irwig, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
i International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local
520, intervened in this proceeding.
114 NLRB No. 252.
PEERLESS PRODUCTS COMPANY 1587
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 labor organizations involved claim to represent 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 limited to the employees of'the produc-
tion department of the Employer's Kansas City,•Missouri, plant.' Ex-
cept for the exclusion of the measuring man, the Intervenor also desires
a unit confined to the production department. The Employer contends
that the only appropriate unit is a plantwide unit. There is no history
of collective bargaining.
The Employer's operations, which are under overall supervision of,
a plant superintendent, are divided into the following departments:
(1) office; (2) production; (3) installation; and (4) construction.
Production department: The employees of this department fabri ,
cate aluminum windows, doors, awnings, and related articles. The
record fails to establish that any of these employees are craftsmen.,
To the contrary; a representative of the Employer testified, without,
contradiction, that a new employee could learn in 10 minutes to oper-,
ate' the punch presses and powersaws used in this department.. These
employees-are paid on an hourly basis.'
Installation department: The employees of this department install,,
for the Employer's customers in the Kansas City area, the products
fabricated by the production department. Each morning, these em-
ployees report to- the plant to inspect and pick up from the production
department the articles to be installed. The installation employees
are paid on a unit or piecework basis.
Construction department: The employees of this department are,
engaged in Kansas City and vicinity in the construction of porches,
sidings, and roofings for customers of the Employer; Although not
all materials used in such construction are manufactured by the Em-
ployer, such materials that are fabricated by the production depart-
ment are used. On some jobs these employees are paid on an hourly;
basis and, on other jobs on a contract basis.
The record is clear that interchanges are not uncommon between
employees of the production department. and the installation depart-
ment. Also employees of the construction department have worked
in the production department. Further, the installation employees
have worked in the construction department and the construction em-
2 The employees in this department are sometimes referred to in the record as plant or
factory employees.
387644-56-vol. 114--101
1,588, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees, when required, install. products normally assigned to the-in-
stallatione department employees. The work of the installation de-
partment employees depends upon the continued operations of the
production department employees and vice versa.
Although the Petitioner here seeks a unit confined to the produc-
tion department employees, the record shows that the Petitioner has
collective-bargaining agreements with seven other Kansas City con-
cerns , which fabricate articles similar to those fabricated by the Em-
ployer here involved, and in all these contracts the installation em-
ployees are included with the other production or plant ' employees s
Upon the foregoing and the entire record in the present case, es-
pecially the interchange of employees between the production and the
installation departments, the interrelationship of their work, and the
fact that Petitioner currently bargains with other employers in the
area or units which include installers with production employees, we
are of the opinion that the requested unit is too limited in scope 4
The difference in the situs of the employment of the employee groups
here involved does not necessarily determine, as contended by the Peti-
tioner, that they do not have a community of interest in their em-
ployment.' Nor does the fact, as is also contended by the Petitioner,
that the employees of the production department have different meth-
ods of pay from the other departments destroy their community of
interests in their employment .6
The only factor appearing in this case in support of the requested
unit is the extent of the Petitioner's and Intervenor's organization
among the employees involved. The extent of employee organization
is not, standing alone, a proper determinant of a bargaining unit. Nor
may it be the controlling factor in such determination.? No labor
organization is seeking to add these employees to a unit which might
be appropriate. Under all the circumstances, we find that the pro-
posed unit is an arbitrary segment of the Employer's working force
and therefore inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition."
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3 It appears that none of these seven concerns has a construction department such as
here involved.
' See San Antonio Machine & Supply Company, 85 NLRB 143; see also Textile Machine
Works, Inc., 72 NLRB 56. White- Construction and Engineering Company, 92 NLRB 53;
Moynahan Bronze Company, Inc., 112 NLRB 1476; and Southern Paperboard Corporation,
80 NLRB 1456, cited by the Petitioner, are inapplicable under the facts of the instant case,
particularly the interdependence of the operations of the production department employees
and the installation department employees and the area bargaining by Petitioner as
noted above.
6 San Antonio Machine & Supply Company, supra ; Textile Machine Works, Inc., supra.
George W. Prior Company, 86 NLRB 1259, footnote 2.
+ Marshall Field and Company, 80 NLRB 557.
s The record does not indicate that the Petitioner and Intervenor desire, or have a
sufficient showing of interest in, any other unit than the requested unit of production
department employees.