Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1728 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
subject to the limitation that such membership is not required before completion by
them of at least 30 days' employment. This is a lawful union-security agreement.
The foregoing conclusion is reinforced by the clear evidence detailed above,
showing that the parties intended in 1948 to reach such agreement, that they have
in all succeeding contracts continued their agreement in virtually the same form,
and that they have always administered the contract in a manner consistent with
their intention.
Having found that at all times material to this case there was in existence a lawful
union-security agreement between the Company and the Union requiring Edger's
membership in good standing in the Union as a condition of his employment, and
that the Union caused and the Company effectuated his termination of employment
because he failed to maintain membership in good standing in the Union, I conclude
that the Company and the Union did not thereby violate Section 8 (a) (3) or 8 (b)
(2) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. With respect to the remaining allega-
tions of violations based upon alleged threats to Edger and other employees of loss
of employment for failure to make the death benefit payments to the Union and
consequent suspension from the Union, as these allegations rest also upon the sole
contention that there was not in existence a lawful union-security agreement, they,
too, must fall. 0 I find that the 8 (a) (1) and 8 (b) (1) (A) allegations against the
Company and the Union have not been sustained.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Company, Inc., Elmira, New York, is engaged
in and at all times material herein has been engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. American Flint Glass Workers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and
Local 135, American Flint Glass Workers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. George M.
Parker is the agent of the foregoing parent labor organization.
3. The allegations of the complaint that the above-named Company and labor
organizations have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
-meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) and Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the
Act have not been sustained.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company i and International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
5-RC-2088. May 23,1957
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 Sidney Smith, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed?
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 We find it unnecessary to determine whether or not the hearing officer properly revoked
subpenas granted the Intervenor, United Glass & Ceramic Workers of North America,
AFL-CIO. The information sought under the subpenas was to be used for the purpose
of showing that the Petitioner is not a "traditional representative" of employees here in-
volved. This case does not involve craft severance ; rather it concerns employes at a new
plant who have not previously been represented for collective-bargaining purposes. Ac-
cordingly, the Petitioner's status as a "traditional representative" of craft employees is
not in issue . Mock, Judson, Voehringer Company of North Carolina, Inc , 110 NLRB
437, at 441; E. 1. dii Pont de Nemours and Company (Dana Plant), 117 NLRB 1048, foot-
117 NLRB No. 227.
PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY 1729
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 9 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board funds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations 4 involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor move that the petition be
dismissed, contending that an existing contract bars a present deter-
mination of representatives.
The Employer's Cumberland, Maryland, plant commenced opera-
tions on September 8, 1956. At the present time the Employer manu-
factures, cuts, and ships rough plate glass. When the manufacturing
facilities are entirely completed and in operation, which will be about
July 1957, the Cumberland plant will produce, by a continuous process,
precision quality plate glass.
The parties stipulate that by letter dated October 10, 1956, the
Petitioner notified the Employer that it represented the majority of
the maintenance and construction electricians, instrumentmen, ap-
prentices, and helpers employed at the Cumberland plant, and re-
quested recognition as collective-bargaining agent. The petition was
filed on October 11, 1956. On October 15, 1956, the Employer notified
the Petitioner, by letter, that it was denying its request for recognition
"for reasons which will be developed in the course of a Board pro-
ceedings on this matter." On October 19, 1956, a notice of represen-
tation hearing was issued scheduling a hearing for November 1, 1956.
Subsequently, at the request of the Employer and the Intervenor, the
hearing was postponed to November 20, 1956. On November 8, 1956,
the Employer and the Intervenor entered into an agreement which
provided that an existing collective-bargaining contract covering em-
ployees at certain other of the Employer's plate and window glass
manufacturing plants 5 would be extended, with modifications, to the
new Cumberland plant. As the Cumberland plant is a new operation,
note 8. Moreover , the Board , with court approval , has found that the Petitioner herein
is a "traditional representative" of the kind of employees sought herein Libbey-Owens.
Ford Glass Company and L-O-F Glass Fibers Company, 115 NLRB 1452 , at 1457, enfd.
241 F 2d 831 (C A 4)
3 The Employer's and the Intervenor's requests for oral argument before the Board
are hereby denied as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of
the parties
4 The Employer and the Intervenor moved that the petition be dismissed because Local
307, an affiliated local of the Petitionei which assisted in the organization of employees
in the Cumberland plant, is not in compliance with the filing provisions of the Act. Con-
pliance is litigable in an independent proceeding, and not in a representation proceed-
ing Standard Cigar Company, 117 NLRB 852 Moreover, as we are administratively
satisfied that Local 307 is in compliance, the motion to dismiss is denied
5 These plants are located at Creighton and Ford City, Pennsylvania ; Crystal City, Mis-
souri ; Mount Vernon, Ohio, I3enryetta, Oklahoma; and Clarksburg, West Virginia
423784-57-vol. 117-110
1730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and as the petition herein was filed before the parties' action of No-
vember 8, 1956, the contract in question cannot serve as a bar, and we
hereby deny the motion to dismiss the petition.6
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of electricians, instrument repairmen,
electronics electricians, and all helpers' or apprentices assigned to
work with any such craftsmen at the Cumberland plant. The Em-
ployer and the Intervenor contend that the petition should be dismissed
because the integrated nature of its operations renders any unit inap-
propriate other than one embracing all production and maintenance
employees at the Cumberland plant. Relying principally on the inte-
grated nature of the Employer's operations and the pattern of collec-
tive bargaining on an industrial basis in the flat glass industry, they
contend, in principal part, that the doctrine announced in National
Tube Company e should be applied to the Employer's operations, and
that "the refusal to apply the principles of that case would be arbitrary
and unreasonable." We find no merit in this contention. In American
Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418, the Board clearly
stated that it will not further extend the National Tube doctrine beyond
those industries in which it had already been applied, and recently the
Board has reiterated this policy on several occasions.9 Moreover, there
is nothing raised herein concerning integration or pattern of collective
bargaining within the glass industry which has not been heretofore
considered by the Board, or which warrants a change of our established
policy.ib
Turning to the composition of the unit, it appears that the employees
sought herein are assigned to the electrical group within the Em-
ployer's maintenance department. The electrical group, operating
under the supervision of the plant electrical engineer, presently con-
sists of 16 shift electricians, 6 shop electricians, and 2 instrument
repairmen.11 The shift electricians, working under the direct supervi-
0 See General Motors Corporation , Chevrolet Motor Division, Tonawanda Foundry
Plant, 111 NLRB 841 ; General Electric Company (Medford Plant), 85 NLRB 150
° The Employer does not employ electrician helpers nor does it appear that they con-
template hiring such helpers in the future.
8 76 NLRB 1199.
9Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corp ., Ship Building Division, San Francisco Yard, 117
NLRB 579; General Refractories Company, 117 NLRB 81 ; United States Smelting, Re-
fining and Mining Company, 116 NLRB 661 , at 663; Bay City Division, The Dow Chem-
ical Company, 116 NLRB 1602 , at 1605.
10 See• Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company and L -O-F Glass Fibers Company, supra, a
case involving a plant in the glass industry where the Board, with court approval, per-
mitted a unit of electiicians to sever from an existing production and maintenance unit
even though there was a 2-year bargaining history on a plantwide basis; see also T. C.
Wheaton Company and Wheaton Glass Company, 109 NLRB 158, footnote 1, where the
Board rejected the argument that separate units of craftsmen are inappropriate in the
glass industry because this industry involves integrated production processes and because
the prevailing pattern of bargaining in the industry is industrial in character.
u The record shows that when the plant is in full production , the Employer anticipates
that there will be approximately 55 craftsmen employed as electricians , electronics eleo-
tricians , and instrument repairmen The parties make no contention that an election
should be delayed because of an expanding unit.
PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY 1731
sion of 1 of 4 shift electrical foremen, are assigned on a shift basis i2
to various operating areas within the plant, and they derive their re-
spective job classifications from the area to which they are assigned.
Thus, the shift tank electricians are responsible for the maintenance
of the complicated electrical equipment within the area of the batch-
house, tank, and lehr. The shift service electricians are responsible for
the maintenance of the power substations located throughout the
plant. The shift utility electricians do not work in any assigned area,
but perform electrical maintenance work throughout the plant, and
also assist the tank and service electricians in making major electrical
repairs within the tank or substation areas. The shop electricians,
working under the direct supervision of the shop electrical foreman,
spend about 50 percent of their time working in the electrical area
within the shop overhauling motors and other electrical equipment.
The remainder of their time is spent in performing electrical main-
tenance work throughout the plant. The instrument repairmen, work-
ing under the direct supervision of the instrument repair foreman,
calibrate, check, and repair the complicated electrical instrument equip-
ment located throughout the plant.
As to the shift electricians, shop electricians, and instrument repair-
men, it appears that they perform only the customary duties of their
craft, and maintain their craft identity in performing these elec-
trician functions. Although some of the electricians may receive
occasional instructions from the production foreman of the area in
which they are working, it is clear that the production foreman does
not direct the work of the electricians but merely points out to the
electricians areas of necessary electrical repairs and coordinates such
repair work with the continuous production process. According to the
Employer, the shift and the shop electricians and the instrument re-
pairmen are skilled journeymen electricians. Moreover, it further
appears that in order to develop and train additional skilled electri-
cians, the Employer is instituting an 8,000 hour apprentice training
program, which program is certified under Federal and Maryland
apprentice laws.
The record also shows that the Employer will employ six electronic
electricians when the plan is in full operation. The electronic electri-
cians will be assigned to the electrical group and work under the direct
supervision of either the electrical shift foremen or the instrument re-
pair foreman. They will repair and maintain exceedingly expensive
and intricate electronic devices utilized to inspect plate glass. These
employees will possess the basic skills and knowledge of the other
electricians described above plus additional electronics training.
From the foregoing, and on the basis, of the entire record, it is clear
12 The Employer operates the plant 24 hours per day and 7 days per week with 4 shifts
of production and maintenance employees
1732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the electronics electricians, contrary to the contentions of the In-
tervenor, are properly a part of an electrical craft unit with other
electricians and instrument repairmen.13
In view of the foregoing, and the record as a whole, we find that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act : All electricians, including shift, shop, and electronics electricians,
instrument repairmen, and apprentices for such classifications, em-
ployed at the Employer's plate glass manufacturing plant in Cum-
berland, Maryland, excluding all other employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.14
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation , Georgia Division, 111 NLRB 594 , at 597-598
14 Thiokol Chemical Corporation , 113 NLRB 547 ; see also General Motors Corporation,
Chevrolet Motor Division . Tonawanda Foundry Plant , Tonawanda, New York, supra.
We also find without merit the Intervenor 's contention that the Cumberland plant is
a mere accretion to an existing unit of other flat glass plants of the Employer , and that
therefore the unit should include all similar employees at all the Employer 's plate and
window glass plants The Employer 's Cumberland plant is an entirely new operation ;
thus, according to the Employer , this plant was designed and constnucted to manufacture
a new product , namely "precision quality plate glass" of the "finest quality of finished
plate glass in the ,United States ," and of a quality that "will surpass all other plate glass in
optical and stiength qualities " In manufacturing this glass , new techniques and equip-
ment have been devised to create a continuous ribbon of glass of some 1,800 feet or "the
longest ribbon of glass to be found anywhere in the world ." Moreover , we note that:
The Cumberland plant is a considerable distance from the Employer 's other plants, a
large number of employees will ultimately be hired ( approximately 600) ; although some
maintenance employees had previously worked at other of the Employer 's plants, it
appears that most of the employees will be hired locally ; and there is no evidence of
interchange between the employees of the new Cumberland plant and employees at other
plants of the Employer In these and other respects , the accretion cases cited by the
Intervenor are factually distinguishable See Bornstein Sea Foods , Inc, 111 NLRB 198 ;
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company ( Special Products Plant "C"), 80 NLRB 1347.
The T. H. Rogers Lumber Company 1 and United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , Carpenters Local 986, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC-1954. May 23,1957
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 John F. Funke,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer operates a mill and warehouse at McAlester,
Oklahoma, and a chain of lumberyards in several States. Twenty-
2 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing
2 The Employer' s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction is hereby denied
for the reasons stated below.
117 NLRB No. 230.