Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 4, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 541 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of RICE-STIx DRY GOODS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 9,
PETITIONER
Case No. 14-RCD51.Decided August 4, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Zeigel W.
Neff, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Gray].
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 claims 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 Employer is engaged in the manufacture of men's and women's
clothing. At St. Louis, Missouri, the only establishment of the Em-
ployer involved in this proceeding, the Employer has three factories,
all located in one building; Factory 1, on the eleventh floor, where
the Employer makes men's clothing; and Factories 6 and 9, on the
eighth floor, where it makes women's clothing.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of "machinists, their helpers and ap-
prentices" in Factories 1, 6, and 9. The Employer contends that the
proposed unit is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, on the grounds (1) that the employees involved in this proceeding
1 International Ladies' Garment workers' Union of America, A. F. L., served with notice
of hearing, did not appear at the hearing.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 94.
541
.542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are not true craft machinists; (2) that the duties and interests of these
employees are so integrated with those of production employees in
the three factories that the former should not be separated from the
latter for bargaining purposes; and (3) that the separate collective
ibargaining histories on a broader basis for employees engaged in the
manufacture of men's and women's clothing, respectively, preclude
the establishment of the proposed combined unit at this time.
The Employer classifies as "machinists" all those who do mechanical
maintenance work. Of the five "machinists" 2 involved herein, two
work in Factory 1, in the manufacture of men's clothing, and are
carried on the factory pay roll; the other three work in Factories 6
.and 9, in the manufacture of women's clothing, and are carried on the
pay roll of Factory 9. The Employer generally hires these workers
`"off the street" on the basis of their mechanical aptitude. The Em-
ployer has no apprentice program, but gives these employees an in-
formal on-the-job training. The record does not disclose the length
or pattern of this training period. In the course of their varied
duties, the employees sought by the Petitioner line up machines and
,shafts; repair steam irons; repair and connect electric motors; make
-and modify wooden work tables; paint, stain, and shellac; clean
and adjust machines; instruct operators in the use of machines; make
and repair steam line connections; and make minor electrical repairs
and changes. They make small mechanical parts. The Employer
purchases complex mechanical parts from outside dealers. Though
these employees occasionally use such tools as micrometers, calipers,
and depth gauges, which they own, they do not use mandrils and do
no complicated chucking. They do not perform all the Employer's
mechanical maintenance work, for the Employer sends machines re-
quiring major repairs to outside repair shops.
In order to attain mass production, the Employer has so broken down
its operations that its products, in'various stages of completion, flow
from one machine to another during the manufacturing process.
Thus, the Employer conducts its manufacturing virtually on an as-
sembly line basis. In order that there may be a minimum of inter-
ruption in the flow of production, the workers now under discussion
.serve as a "stand-by" crew to adjust and repair machines and to keep
them in steady operation. They work the same hours, including over-
time hours, as production workers. To a considerable extent, these
.employees necessarily work on the production floors. When it is
not possible to repair a machine on the production floor, they remove
the machine temporarily fromthe production line and adjust or repair
2 The employees sought by the Petitioner are to be distinguished from the "machinists"
or building maintenance mechanics who have their headquarters in the basement.
RICE-STIX DRY GOODS COMPANY 543
it in one of the two small repair shops.3 They punch the same time-
clocks, receive the same employee benefits, including general wage
increases, and are subject to the same employee regulations and to
the same lines of supervision as production workers.
For more than 6 years, the Employer has recognized Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, C. I. 0., as the bargaining agent off
employees in Factory 1, who make men's clothing, and International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union of America, A. F. L., as bargaining
agent of employees in Factories 6 and 9, who make women's clothing.
In fact, the Employer regards the manufacture of men's clothing and
the manufacture of women's clothing as two distinct departments of
its organization, which at times require different over-all policies. The
factories in which the Employer makes men's clothing and those in
which it makes women's clothing regularly operate under separate.
over-all supervision.
As stated above, two of the five "machinists" sought by the Peti-
tioner work in, and are on the pay roll of, Factory 1; the other three;
work in Factories 6 and 9 and are on the pay roll of the latter factory..
They work, therefore, in two different administrative organizations;
operating under different lines of supervision, and are presently inte-
grated parts of two different employee groups, for which the Employer-
has bargained separately for more than 6 years.
The employees involved in this proceeding are clearly not true craft
machinists, in that it has not been shown that they have served an,
apprenticeship in, nor do they principally perform tasks cha.racteristie
of, the machinist's trade. They do not operate under separate super-
vision. They do not constitute a single identifiable group or adminis-
trative sector of the Employer's operations. Their work interests and
duties, are fused with those of general production employees in the:
two manufacturing industries represented in the Employer's opera-
tions. The Employer, for a long period of time, has bargained for
these employees with different bargaining agents in two larger and
separate units corresponding to customary industry groupings. Under
these circumstances, we find that the unit proposed by the Petitioner is.
inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.4 We shall.
therefore dismiss the petition.
3 Factory 1 has its repair shop on the eleventh floor of the Employer's building ; Fac-
tories 6 and 9 on the eighth floor . In each case , the different production processes are
carried out on the same floor.
4 Matter of Welding Shipyards Inc., 81 N. L. R. B. 936; Matter of Wilson & Co., Inc., 81
N. L. R. B. 504; Matter of Dodge San Leandro Plant, 80 N. L. R. B. 1031. See also Matter
of Rice-Stiv Dry Goods Company, 78 N. L. R. B. 311 in which we dismissed a petition re-
lating to "all [the Employer's] electrical workers" at its St. Louis, Missouri, wholesale
dry goods house.
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.