Remington Rand, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 622 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
standards clerks, professional employees, guards, and supervisors, as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (h) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
REMINGTON RAND, INC. and DISTRICT No . 157, INTERNATIONAL ASSO-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-1288.
July 30, 1954
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 Bernard Marcus, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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 labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.2
3. The Intervenor contends that its contract with the Employer,
which is to expire September 24, 1954, with automatic renewal date 60
days prior thereto, constitutes a bar to an election in the unit sought
by the Petitioner. Inasmuch as the "Mill B" date of the contract is
about to occur, we find that it is not a bar. It is therefore unnecessary
to consider other contract-bar contentions made by the parties. We
find therefore that a question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer operates three plants at Ilion, New York, as a
single operational unit under a single administrative head. The 3
plants are in close proximity to one another and the Intervenor has
represented the production and maintenance employees at the 3 plants
in a single unit for approximately 7 years. The Petitioner now seeks
to sever from that unit a unit of all tool- and die-makers, model-
makers, and apprentices or trainees at the three plants. The Inter-
venor contends that the unit is inappropriate; the Employer takes no
position.
The Intervenor contends that a successful 7-year bargaining history
on a broader basis precludes severance of the unit sought. The Board
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Intervenor 's motion to dismiss the petition
on the grounds of contract bar and inappropriateness of the unit sought. This motion is
denied for the reasons stated below.
2 Local 334, International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, inter-
vened at the hearing on the basis of a current contractual interest
109 NLRB No. 78.
REMINGTON RAND, INC. 623
has recently rejected a similar contention in American Potash do
Chemical Corporation 3 and there decided, inter alia, that it will per-
mit the severance of a unit of true craftsmen from an established in-
dustrial unit where such unit is sought by a union which traditionally
represents such craftsmen. Accordingly, we will consider whether the
conditions for severance set forth in American Potash are met in the
instant case.
Tool- and die-makers work at 3 separate locations in the Ilion
plants : the toolroom in plant 2, the model shop in plant 2, and the
automatic screw machine department in plant 3. Those in the tool-
room make and repair tools, dies, jigs, fixtures, and gauges for use in
production throughout the plants. They occasionally go into produc-
tion areas to dismantle defective dies and fixtures or to locate defects,
but always bring defective tools back to the toolroom to perform
actual repairs. They remain under the supervision of the toolroom
foreman at all times. The tool- and die-makers in the model shop
perform essentially the same duties as those in the toolroom in connec-
tion with the production of the Wahl Adder, a computing device pro-
duced by the Employer. Those in plant 3 make and repair similar
tools in connection with the automatic screw machines located in that
plant. All of the tool- and die-makers exercise similar skills, and fall
into the two highest paid classifications in the plants.
The Employer formerly maintained a 4-year apprenticeship pro-
gram for training tool- and die-makers, which it has, however, dis-
continued and replaced with a so-called "training" program in the
tool- and die-room, which has the same objective as the apprenticeship
program, although it has not been approved as meeting State appren-
ticeship standards. Employees have been selected for training pri-
marily on the basis of aptitude tests. The program has not been in
effect long enough for anyone to have completed it.
Modelmakers all work in the separate model room in plant 2, under
separate supervision. They make tools, dies, jigs, and fixtures in con-
junction with the Employer's experimental and developmental work,
as well as parts and models for the same purpose. Most of the ma-
chine tools found in the toolroom have their counterparts in the
model room, and the modelmakers are required to operate them all in
the course of their duties. At least one of the modelmakers served his
apprenticeship as a tool- and die-maker, and, while the record does not
indicate the background of the other modelmakers, it would appear
that the modelmakers are essentially tool- and die-makers chosen to
work in the model room either because of high skill or their personal
preference for working on experimental products. The modelmakers,
like the tool- and die-makers, fall into the two highest pay grades in the
contract unit, and there is a training program in the model room
3 107 NLRB 1418.
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
similar to that in the toolroom. As noted above, there are also a
number of tool- and die-makers in the model room who use the same
equipment as do the modelmakers and are under the same super-
vision. All the tool- and die-makers and the modelmakers are re-
quired to furnish their own tools and all work to close tolerances.
No one contends that the tool- and die-makers and modelmakers
are not craftsmen. However, the Intervenor contends that the model-
makers should be excluded from the unit sought because they are
technical employees or, in any event, should not be placed in the same
unit with tool- and die-makers as they exercise different skills from
those of the tool- and die-makers. While the Employer takes no posi-
tion as to the unit sought, it opposes placing modelmakers in a different
unit from tool- and die-makers.
In support of its first contention the Intervenor relies on the Board's
decision in General Electric Company 4 finding that laboratory as-
sistants employed in the engineering model shop were technical em-
ployees rather than craftsmen. In that case it appeared that while
the laboratory assistants were journeyman machinists, they also had
specialized academic training and education which they utilized in
designing, developing, and constructing test models on the basis of
ideas presented to them by engineers. In the instant case the model-
makers' functions appear to be limited to the fabrication of tools and
parts for the construction of new models. While they may work from
rough sketches, they do not themselves design and develop models.
Consequently, we find that the modelmakers in the instant case are not
technical employees.5 Furthermore, it is clear from the record, that,
contrary to the Intervenor's second contention, the tool- and die-
makers and the modelmakers exercise essentially the same skills. We
find, therefore, that the tool- and die-makers and modelmakers are true
craftsmen and that they belong to the same craft.6 In addition, we
find that the Petitioner traditionally represents such craftsmen for
purposes of collective bargaining.7 Accordingly, we conclude that the
conditions set forth in American Potash & Chemical Corporation s
for severance of craft units from established production and main-
tenance units have been met, and find that the tool- and die-makers
and modelmakers together constitute a separate appropriate unit if
they so desire. We will include trainees in the tool and model rooms
4 105 NLRB 921
5 Kelsey Hayes Wheel Company, 85 NLRB 666
8 Superior Sleeprite Corporation, 106 NLRB 228. General Electric Company, 101
NLRB 1341.
7 Representation of these employees by the Petitioner is not precluded , as contended by
the Intervenor, by the fact that the Petitioner represents other employees of the Employer
on a plantwide basis , or by the fact that the Petitioner also represents employees other
than machinists elsewhere.
8 107 NLRB 1418.
NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL, ETC. 625
in the voting group set forth below, as they are in the line of direct
progression to journeyman classifications.
While the Petitioner does not seek to include other employees in
the unit, the question arose at the hearing whether certain other em-
ployees in the three plants should be included in the unit. These
employees are classified as machine repairmen, machine setters, ma-
chinists, grinding and lathe specialists, patternmakers, tool inspectors,
attendants, and errand boys in the toolroom. It appears that none
of these employees exercise the skills of tool- and die-makers or model-
makers. Accordingly, even if some of them may exercise skills of ma-
chinists or of other crafts, the unit sought by the Petitioner, excluding
these employees, is 'appropriate, and we will exclude these employees
from the proposed unit.
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be held among the
employees of the Employer at its Ilion, New York, plants, in the
voting group consisting of :
All tool- and die-makers, tool- and die-maker trainees, modelmakers,
and modelmaker trainees, excluding all other employees, supervisors,
and guards as defined in the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they shall be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and
the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for
the unit described above, which the Board, under the circumstances,
finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective ' bargaining. If a
majority vote for the Intervenor, they will remain a part of the exist-
ing unit and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results
of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DURHAM, NORTH
CAROLINA and INSURANCE WORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER.
Case No. 4-RC-2343. July 30,1954
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 Morris Mogerman, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
109 NLRB No. 100.