Robintech Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 23, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 571 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

TUBING DIVISION, ROBINTECH INC. 571
Tubing Division , Robintech Incorporated , Employer-
Petitioner and District Lodge # 172, International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO. Case 38-UC-48
January 23, 1976
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
On August 29, 1975, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 13 issued his Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding in which he found that the
Employer's Plastic Siding Division constituted an ac-
cretion to the Employer's Copper Tubing Division at
the Employer's Danville, Illinois, plant. Accordingly,
the Regional Director dismissed the Employer's unit
clarification petition which sought to exclude "all
employees of the plastic siding division of Robintech
Incorporated" from the unit of employees of the
Tubing Division currently represented by District
Lodge #172, International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union. Thereafter, in accordance with the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a
timely request for review of the Regional Director's
Decision and Order on the grounds, inter alia, that,
in dismissing the petition, he departed from well-es-
tablished precedent.
By telegraphic order dated October 16, 1975, the
Employer's request for review was granted.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case and makes the following findings:
In August 1966, the Employer and the Union en-
tered into a collective-bargaining agreement in which
the Employer recognized the Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of "all employees of the
Company excluding watchmen, guards, office-cleri-
cal employees, salesmen, foremen, engineering em-
ployees, professional employees and all supervisory
employees as defined in the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended." Since that time, the parties
1 In April 1973, Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local No 26, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers &
Warehousemen of America, was certified as collective-bargaining represen-
tative of all over-the-road truckdrivers at the Employer's Danville plant
2 There are 20 plants in the Employer's organization with 19 of them
being plastic pipe operations
have entered into successive collective-bargaining
agreements, the most recent of which expired on July
14, 1975. All the agreements contained the same rec-
ognitional clause and provided for the establishment
of new job classifications:'
At the time of the execution of the first collective-
bargaining agreement in August 1966, the Employer
manufactured copper tubing used in air conditioning
and heating equipment at its plant in Danville, Illi-
nois. The Danville facility consists of two 35,000-
square-foot areas (known as "A Bay" and "B Bay")
which share a common opening. The opening allows
free access through the bays, making them essentially
one building.
The copper arrived at the Danville plant already
formed into tubes. After it was cleaned, the copper
was drawn (or stretched and reduced in diameter) to
a set size. The copper tubing was then straightened,
tested for defects, cut, cleaned, heated, cleaned
again, put through a hairpin bender, inspected,
weighed, and shipped to the Employer's customers. B
Bay housed what was known as the bullblock ma-
chinery. The only difference between the bullblock
operation in B,Bay and the operation in A Bay was
that the copper tubing produced by the former meth-
od emerged in coils, whereas the copper tubing pro-
duced by the latter method was formed in hairpin
bends. Skills necessary for the production of copper
tubing involved the operation of various bending,
drawing, sawing, and lifting machinery. The employ-
ees were also involved in furnace tending, packing,
and shipping operations.
In early 1974, the bullblock operation in B Bay
was phased out because it was unprofitable. In,Sep-
tember of that year, the Employer began a series of
layoffs of unit employees due to a decline in demand
for its product. At that time, unit employment, which
had reached a high of approximately 154 production
and maintenance employees in 1970, was down to
115.
Meanwhile, after a successful pilot, project at the
Employer's Vestal, New York, plant,' a corporate de-
cision was made to manufacture plastic house siding
which could be used both for the construction of new
homes and the renovation of old housing. The Em-
ployer decided to locate its plastic siding operation in
the Danville plant because the copper tubing busi-
ness was declining and the plant could be adapted,
with modifications, to the siding operation. Helmut
Linsgeseder, who had worked on the pilot project at
the New York plant, was transferred to the Danville
facility and appointed plant manager of the newly
established Plastic Siding Division.
Plant Manager Linsgeseder and the plant manager
222 NLRB No. 92
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Copper Tubing Division 3 report to the general
manager who has the overall responsibility for the
Employer's Danville operations. At the higher man-
agement levels, responsibility for the copper tubing
and plastic siding operations is separate. Thus, re-
garding the Plastic Siding Division, the Danville gen-
eral manager reports to the regional vice president
for the midwestern division who, in turn, reports to
the corporate vice president of operations. Neither of
these two individuals has any supervisory authority
over the Copper Tubing Division.
In January 1975, the copper tubing equipment was
removed from B Bay and the installation of the plas-
tic siding equipment began. This work was per-
formed by the Employer's maintenance employees
represented by the Union. Approximately $1,400,000
to $1,500,000 was spent by the Plastic Siding Divi-
sion to convert B Bay to the house siding operation.
Modifications of B Bay included installation of rail
siding, a sprinkler system, two loading docks, a mix-
ing room, and a 30-by-280-foot addition to the build-
ing.
None of the copper production equipment could
be used in the manufacture of plastic siding due to
the differences in the production processes. In manu-
facturing plastic siding, raw materials are automati-
cally mixed and fed into an extruder which produces
plastic sheets by the use of heat and pressure. These
sheets go through a series of shaping templates, have
holes punched in them, are sawed to various lengths,
and then are wrapped and packed in cardboard car-
tons for shipping. The Employer has established the
following classifications of employees engaged in the
manufacturing of plastic siding: machine tender, ex-
truder operator, compound operator, compound
helper, utility man, and warehouseman.
On April 17, 1975,4 the Employer commenced pro-
duction of plastic siding. At that time, the Employer
was still engaged in the production of copper tubing.
There was no interchange of production employees
between the Copper Tubing and Plastic Siding Divi-
sions when at that time they were both in operation.
Shortly after plastic siding production commenced,
the 12 maintenance employees of the Copper Tubing
Division were told that they could either be transfer-
red to the Plastic Siding Division on a temporary
basis or be laid off. Ten of them chose to accept the
3 The record reveals that the plant manager of the Copper Tubing Divi-
sion does-not have any production responsibilities or supervisory authority
in regard to the Plastic Siding Division. Although the Copper Tubing Divi-
sion plant manager, Proietti, did interview and hire some production em-
ployees for the plastic siding operation, he did so only on a few occasions
when that process was still in its developing stages and Plant Manager
Linsgeseder was out of town working on the pilot line at the Vestal, New
York, plant
4 All subsequent dates herein are in 1975 unless otherwise indicated
transfer and began working in the Plastic Siding Di-
vision on May 5 as temporary employees. The main-
tenance employees hired by the Plastic Siding Divi-
sion were required to submit employment applica-
tions as new employees and did not retain their
former wage rates.' However, they retained their se-
niority for' vacation purposes and their insurance
coverage. The maintenance employees continued to
use the same tools and work under the same mainte-
nance supervision as when they were employed by
the Copper Tubing Division.
On June 12, approximately 2 months after com-
mencing production of the plastic siding, the Em-
ployer closed down its copper tubing operation. At
the time of the hearing in July, only 6 of the 22 pro-
duction employees of the Plastic Siding Division
were former employees of the Copper Tubing Divi-
sion. Like the maintenance employees who transfer-
red to the Plastic Siding Division, the former produc-
tion employees were also required to file employment
applications but were hired as permanent new em-
ployees. The job classifications of the production em-
ployees hired were changed and new wage rates were
established on the basis of those prevailing in the
plastic siding industry and in the Danville area.
Fringe benefits were also changed to conform to
those existing in other plastic plants of the Employer.
The former production employees who were hired
have not retained their seniority except for vacation
purposes. These employees had to receive several
days of training in order to operate the plastic siding
equipment. Similarly, the foremen in the Plastic Sid-
ing Division, who were formerly supervisors in the
Copper Tubing Division, also had to be trained and,
in fact, spent 2 weeks working on the pilot line at the
Vestal, New York, plant to gain the necessary experi-
ence in the plastic siding operation.
Although at the time of the hearing the Employer
had a complement of 22 production employees and
the 10 temporary maintenance employees working in
the Plastic Siding Division, the Employer's immedi-
ate plans for expansion involve the operation of 5
extruder lines and the employment of 50 to 55 pro-
duction employees. It is also anticipated that some of
the temporary maintenance employees will be re-
tained as permanent employees.
In view of the foregoing and the record as a whole,
we conclude, contrary to the Regional Director, that
the establishment of the Plastic Siding Division at the
Danville plant resulted in the creation of a new in-
dustry and the employees hired to perform the tasks
in the new division cannot be accreted to the Copper
5 For example , employee Walblay testified that as an employee of the
Copper Tubing Division he was classified as a maintenance machinist and
was paid $5 26 per hour As an employee of the Plastic Siding Division, he
is classified as a maintenance man and paid $5 per hour
TUBING DIVISION, ROBINTECH INC. 573
Tubing Division unit represented by the Union.6
Thus, it is clear that, after a successful pilot program,
the Plastic Siding Division was established as a new
division to manufacture a new product requiring
considerable new capital investment and plant modi-
fications. The machinery and production process in-
volved in the manufacture of plastic siding are sub-
stantially different from that used in the prior copper
tubing operation. From its inception, the Plastic Sid-
ing Division operated under a new plant manager
and with separate supervision at higher management
levels. While it is true that 6 of the initial 22 produc-
tion employees were transferred from the Copper
Tubing Division and 10 maintenance men were
transferred as temporary employees, according to the
record the employee complement was soon to be in-
creased.
Under these circumstances, we do not believe that
the location of the Plastic Siding Division on the
same premises as the Copper Tubing Division and
the continuity in firstline supervision relied upon by
the Regional Director require a contrary result. Ac-
cordingly, we find that the Plastic Siding Division is
not an accretion to the Copper Tubing Division unit
and we shall so clarify the unit to exclude the em-
ployees of the Plastic Siding Division from-that unit.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the collective-bargaining
unit of all employees of Robintech Tubing Plant, lo-
cated in Danville, Illinois, excluding watchmen,
guards, office-clerical employees, salesmen, foremen,
engineering employees, professional employees, and
all supervisory employees as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, be, and it hereby
is, clarified by excluding from said unit all employees
of the Plastic Siding Division of Robintech Incorpo-
rated.
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting:
Contrary to my colleagues, I do not find the Re-
gional Director to be clearly erroneous in finding
that the Employer's Plastic Siding Division consti-
tutes an accretion to its Copper Tubing Division at
the Danville plant.
The Employer had recognized and bargained with
the Union, since 1966, for a unit of Danville employ-
ees described as "all employees of the Company."
Since recognition, the parties have entered into three
successive collective-bargaining agreements,? each of
which ,contains the above-quoted unit description
and provides for the establishment of new job classi-
fications when a different product line is introduced.
Due to the decline in the demand for copper tub-
ing, the Employer, in 1975, began producing plastic
house siding at its Danville plant. Six of the twenty-
two production employees and all of the mainte-
nance employees hired in the new Plastic Siding Di-
vision were formerly employed in Copper Tubing.
The total plastic siding operation is accomplished by
various machinery. One former Copper Tubing em-
ployee testified, without contradiction, that he re-
ceived no training for his job in the plastic operation.
Another such employee stated that it took him only 2
days to fully train for his new job.
The maintenance employees in Plastic used the
same tools and skills and, as did the production em-
ployees, worked under the same supervision as they
did when employed in Copper Tubing.
In view of the foregoing, I find that the Employer
cannot divest the unit employees of their right to
continued representation by unilaterally replacing or
substituting one production process for another
when it has had a long bargaining history in which
the Union is recognized as the representative of all
the Employer's employees and the,parties' bargain-
ing agreements provide for the establishment, of new
job classifications; and when it reemploys 50 percent
of the unit employees to work in the new process
under the same supervision and with no appreciable
difference in skills required. Accordingly, I would af-
firm the Regional Director's finding of accretion and
dismiss the Employer's petition.
6 See British Industries Company, Lyra Systems, Divisions of Avnet, Inc,
218 NLRB No. 172 (1975).
' The parties most recent bargaining agreement had a 3-year duration
and expired on July 14, 1975