Ravenna Arsenal, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 1, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

RAVENNA ARSENAL, INC., and LOCAL 810, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF ELECTRICAL W,ox Ens, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-
1460. February 1, 1952
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 Charles A. Flemming, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
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 Intervenor, Local 4581, United Steelworkers of America,
CIO, contends that the Petitioner is not a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act because it admits to membership employees of
the United States Government. However, the Petitioner does not seek
to be certified as the bargaining representative of any employee of the
United States Government in this proceeding. Moreover, it is undis-
puted that the Petitioner is an organization to which employees of the
Employer belong and that it exists, at least in part, for the, purpose of
bargaining with the Employer with respect to wages, hours, and other
working conditions of such employees. Accordingly, we find that the
Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.2
3. The Intervenor contends that the petition herein was untimely
filed and that Section 9 (c) (3) of the Act prohibits the holding of an
election in the requested unit of maintenance electricians because an
' At the hearing in this matter and in its brief , the Intervenor , Local 4581 , United Steel-
workers of America , CIO, contended that the hearing officer was biased , prejudiced, and
partial , alleging that he cut off the Intervenor 's examination of witnesses . subjected the
Intervenor 's witnesses to severe cross-examination , and developed - the Petitioner's case
through the examination of other witnesses . Our review of the record discloses no support
for the contention of the Intervenor We find that such rulings as the hearing officer made
curtailing the extent of the Intervenor 's examination of witnesses were necessary and
proper to limit the testimony to relevant matters and to prevent repetitious and cumulative
testimony . Nor is there any basis for the Intervenor 's contention that the hearing officer
improperly cross -examined the Intervenor 's witnesses and developed the Petitioner's case
As representation proceedings are investigatory rather than adversary , it is the hearni
officer ' s function to produce a full presentation of factual material upon which the Board
can decide the issues involved The record does not disclose bias, prejudice , partiality or
incapability on the part of the hearing officer Nor does it disclose that any party Alas
denied the opportunity to introduce pertinent evidence , or was otherwise prejudiced
Accordingly, we find the Intervenor's contention to be without merit Anqus Chea,rolet Co
88 NLRB 929, General Plywood Corporation, 79 NLRB 1458, Stokely Foods, Inc, 78
NLRB 842.
2 Section 2 (5) of the Act. Cf. American Broadcasting Company, Inc , 93 NLRB 1410,
footnote 3 ; International Brotherhood of Teamsters , 87 NLRB 702, 721.
98 NLRB No. 10.
I
Z DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election was held in an over-all production and maintenance unit at the
Employer's plant on October 2, 1951. The sequence of events on which
the Intervenor bases its contention is as follows :
On August 22,1951, the Intervenor filed a petition in Case No. 8-RC-
1411, seeking certification as bargaining representative for employees,
including maintenance electricians, in a production and maintenance
unit at the Employer's plant. On September 20, 1951, a hearing was
held on the Intervenor's petition in Case No. 8-RC-1411. The Peti-
tioner herein was not served with notice of the hearing in Case No.
8-RC-1411, nor did it intervene in those proceedings. On September
24, 1951, the Board in Washington issued its decision 3 in Case No.
8-RC-1411, directing an election in a production and maintenance unit
which included the maintenance electricians. On the same day, Sep-
tember 24, 1951, but after the issuance of the Board's decision in Case
No. 8-RC-1411, the Petitioner filed its petition in this case at Cleve-
land. The election directed in Case No. 8-RC-1411 was held on
October 2, 1951, and the Intervenor was designated as bargaining
representative by a majority of the employees in the unit. However,
the ballots cast by maintenance electricians were challenged and
impounded pending disposition of the petition filed in this case. On
October 16,1951, the Regional Director for the Eighth Region certified
the Intervenor as the bargaining representative for employees in the
production and maintenance unit at the Employer's plant, excepting
therefrom the maintenance electricians whose ballots had been
challenged and impounded.
The Intervenor contends that this case is governed by those decisions
in which the Board has held that a labor organization is not entitled
to intervene in a case where it does not make its showing of interest
prior to the hearing in that case.' However, the records of the Board
show that on September 16, 1951, and prior to the hearing in Case
No. 8-RC-1411, the Petitioner herein had made a showing of interest
sufficient to support a petition for a unit of maintenance electricians
at the Employer's plant. It follows, therefore, that the cases cited by
the Intervenor do not govern this case. Under the circumstances, the
Petitioner herein should have been given notice of the hearing in Case
No. 8-RC-1411 and permitted to intervene in that case.
The Intervenor contends, however, that regardless of whether or
not the Petitioner herein was served with formal notice of the hearing
in Case No. 8-RC-1411, it had actual notice of the hearing, and that,
having failed to present its claim of representation at that time, the
Petitioner should not now be permitted to seek certification as bar-
3 Ravenna Arsenal, Inc., 8-RC-1411, September 24, 1951, not reported in printed volumes
of Board decisions.
4 Sprague Electric Company , 81 NLRB 410, footnote 2; Grand Central Airport Company,
70 NLRB 1094, 1095 , footnote 1 ; The Unsted Boat Service Corporation , 55 NLRB 671;
American Woolen Company , 32 NLRB 1, 9.
T. -•
RAVENNA' ARSE
t
NAL, INC. 3
gaining representative of the Employer's maintenance electricians.
The Intervenor bases this contention upon the fact that a 'strike at
the Employer's plant at the time of the hearing in Case No. 8=RC-1411
and the pendency of the hearing itself had received publicity in the
local newspapers and on the local radio stations. The Intervenor
further contends that the Petitioner was represented, at the scene of
the strike by an individual who was informed of the pending petition
in Case No. 8-RC-1411 and who was present at the time of the hearing
in the building in which the hearing in that case was held.
However, the record in this case shows, and we find, that the indi-
vidual to whom the intervenor refers is the business agent of another
local of the Petitioner's Interilational Union; that he was concerned
during the strike with electricians working for independent contrac-
tors who were engaged in construction work at the Employer's plant;
and that he had no authority to act for the Petitioner in seeking recog-
nition as bargaining representative of the maintenance electricians
involved herein 5 Nor, absent proof that the pendency of the petition
in Case No. 8-RC-1411 was actually brought to the attention of the
Petitioner, do we believe that the fact that radio stations and local
newspapers publicized the pendency of the petition along with news
of the strike can be found to constitute actual notice of the proceedings
in that case. Accordingly we find, contrary to the contention of the
Intervenor, that the Petitioner did not receive the requisite notice of
hearing in Case No. 8-R `01411.
The election of October 2, 1951, insofar as it included the mainte-
nance electricians, was based upon a material mistake for which the
Petitioner was not in any way responsible. We believe, therefore,
that with respect to the maintenance electricians the election was not a
"valid election" within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (3).1 Accord-
ingly, we find no obstacle in Section 9 (c) (3) to conducting an elec-
tion among the maintenance electricians at this time.' We further
find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of certain employees of the Employer'within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent employees in a unit consisting
of all maintenance electrical workers. The Intervenor contends that
' The fact that the constitution of the Petitioner ' s International Union does not contain
a specific prohibition against such action by the business agent of another local does not
prove, as the Intervenor seems to assume , that another local's business agent was authorized
to represent the Petitioner in Case No 8-RC-1411.
'Great Atlantic d Pacific Tea Company , 81 NLRB 880 , 881-882; cf . Kearney & Trecker
Corporation, 62 NLRB 1174 , 1175 ; Willys Overland Motors, Inc , 15 NLRB 864, 868; cf.
also Cadillac Motor Car Division , 94 NLRB 217 ; General Moto is Corporation, 82 NLRB 928.
Of the 545 ballots cast in the election in the production and maintenance unit, 476 were
cast for the Intervenor The 7 challenged ballots could not, therefore , have affected the
results of the election in the production and maintenance unit Accordingly , we find it
unnecessary to order any further disposition of the impounded challenged ballots.
7 Central Swallow Coach Lines, Inc , 82 NLRB 487 , footnote 1 ; Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Company , supra ; The Nashville Corporation , 77 NLRB 145, 147, footnote 8.
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the requested unit is inappropriate upon the ground that the Em-
ployer's maintenance electricians are not craftsmen. The Intervenor
also contends that the integration of the work of the maintenance elec-
tricians with that of other production and maintenance employees, the
interchange between electricians and other production and mainte-
nance employees, and the lack of separate supervision for maintenance
electricians render the requested unit inappropriate.
The Employer's maintenance department has a complement of 15
maintenance electricians. The maintenance department is supervised
by a maintenance foreman, and operates on a 24-hour basis, with a
shift foreman in charge of each shift. A maintenance' electrician is
assigned to each of the Employer's 3 production lines during the 2
shifts on which the lines are operated, and the remaining maintenance
electricians are assigned to the shop area of the maintenance depart-
ment, where an electricians' workbench is located. Although the
maintenance electricians are thus distributed throughout the Employ-
er's plant, they at all times remain under the supervision of the main-
tenance foreman and the maintenance shift foreman.
The duties of the maintenance electricians require that they perform
work involving the installation, maintenance, and repair of electrical
systems and equipment, such as switches, sockets, outlet boxes, electri-
cal motors, and other electrical devices. Maintenance electricians test
circuits for continuity and proper connections. They are required to
work with rheostats, thermostats, relays, distribution panels, and other
types of controls and fixtures. They may be required to read and
interpret blueprints, wiring diagrams, and sketches. Although most
of the electrical equipment with which they work carries 220 or 440
volts, at least two of the motors on which they work carry 2,300 volts.
Each of the maintenance electricians owns and uses a kit of the usual
tools of the trade in the performance of his duties. Thus, it appears
that the Employer's maintenance electricians perform the customary
work of the electricians' craft.
Although it appears that the Employer's maintenance electricians
are skilled employees, the Intervenor contends that the absence of a
training program for electricians shows that they are not craftsmen.
However, such a training program has been unnecessary because the
Employer has been able to hire trained electricians, and, through an
interview conducted by the maintenance foreman, has determined
whether or not applicants for such positions are fully qualified. Where
the employees concerned are craftsmen performing the work of their
trade, the absence of a training program does not lessen their status
as craftsmen .8
The Intervenor also contends that the work of the maintenance elec-
tricians is so integrated with that of other production and maintenance
8 Unated States Time Corporation, 95 NLRB 941.
RAVENNA ARSENAL, INC. 5
employees that the Board should deny a separate craft unit to main-
tenance electricians on the basis of its decisions in Ford Motor Com-
pany (Maywood Plant) ,9 National Tube Company, 10 and related cases.
We do not agree. The Board has held in numerous decisions that in
order to apply the Ford doctrine, the facts must show, among other
things, that the employees who seek to sever from a plant-wide unit
in certain industries perform routine and repetitive tasks of a type
which are integrated and inseparable from the production process .',-
The record in this case shows that the Employer's maintenance elec-
tricians do no production work, nor are they assigned to any par-
ticular portion of the Employer's production processes. Even those
electricians who have been assigned to maintenance work on the Em-
ployer' production lines do the more difficult parts of their work at
the electricians' bench in the maintenance shop. Maintenance elec-
tricians perform their work only as it becomes necessary, and the work
which they do is not routine or repetitive. They are not under the
supervision of production supervisors, and work 44 hours a week on
a 3-shift basis, whereas production employees work 40 hours a week
on a 2-shift basis.
We find that the operations of the Employer, while integrated and
continuous, do not require an integration equivalent to that found in
the 'cases on which the Intervenor relies. Nor do we believe that the
fact that maintenance electricians are under the•same immediate super-
vision as other maintenance employees 12 or the fact that they spend
a small portion of their time in assisting other maintenance employees
in nonelectrical work 13 provide a sufficient basis for denying mainte-
nance electricians an opportunity to obtain separate representation.
Where, as here, employees constitute a homogeneous group of em-
ployees doing skilled work within the confines of their own craft, the
fact that they may work alongside of, or in close connection with, other
employees does not derogate from their right to constitute a separate
bargaining unit. 14
The Petitioner has requested that substation operators, linesmen,
apprentices, and helpers be included in the unit with the maintenance
78 NLRB 887.
10 76 NLRB 1199.
11 Ford Motor Company , Aircraft Engine Division , 96 NLRB 168 ; Tin Processing Cor-
poration , 96 NLRB 300 ; Cadillac Motor Car Division, a4 NLRB 217 ; The Atlantic Refining
Company , 92 NLRB 651.
12 Ford Motor Company , Aircraft Engine Division, supra, General Electric Company,
89 NLRB 726, 753-754.
13 Maintenance eleetricians are not required by the Employer to do any work other than
electrical work , and they perform such work only at times when they have no electrical
work to do The Board has frequently held that the fact that employees in a proposed
craft unit may occasionally assist employees in another craft category does not destroy
their identity as a craft group Sinclair Rubber Inc , 96 NLRB 220 , Plumbing Contractors
Association of Baltimore , 93 NLRB 1081, footnote 27.
1' Glass Fibe) s, Inc, 93 NLRB 1289
998666-vol 98-52-2
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
electricians. However, the Employer does not now employ any in-
dividuals in such classification and has no definite plans for employing
them. We shall, therefore, in accordance with the Board's usual policy,
make no decision as to the unit placement of such categories.15
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find that the electricians may
constitute a separate appropriate unit. They may also appropriately
be represented in the production and maintenance unit with the Em-
ployer's other employees. We shall therefore direct an election in a
voting group composed of all the maintenance electricians at the Em-
ployer's Apco, Ohio, plant. If a majority of the maintenance elec-
tricians vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional
Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit described
above, which the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appro-
priate for the purpose of collective bargaining. In the event a major-
ity vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing production
and maintenance unit to be appropriate, and the Regional Director
will issue a certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
15 Cities Service Refining Corporation, 94 NLRB 840, footnote 2; Saco Lowell Shops,
89 NLRB 598, 600, footnote 6; The Schaible Company, 88 NLRB 733, 734, footnote 3.
REDFERN SAUSAGE COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 10-RC-1626. February 6,
1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Frank E. Hamilton, Jr.,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record im this case, the Board finds :
The Employer is a Georgia corporation with its principal office
and place of business at Atlanta, Georgia. It is engaged in the process-
ing and sale of sausage meat and related products. During a 12-month
period ending June 30, 1951, the Employer's total purchases amounted
to about $627,000 in value. Of this amount, $167,000 represents pur-
chases directly from out of States. Of the balance of the purchases
98 NLRB No. 6.