Screw Product Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 401 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

SCREW PRODUCTS CORPORATION OF AMERICA 401
SCREW PRODUCTS CORPORATION OF AMERICA and LOCAL
UNION 11, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC TRI-
CAL WORKERS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-3124.
July 24, 1953
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 Arthur Hailey,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
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, Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
On May 12, 1953, UAW-CIO filed a petition in Case No. 21-
RC-3094, seeking to represent all production and maintenance
employees of the Employer. UAW-CIO, the Employer, and IAM,
the intervenor in that case, entered into a stipulation for
certification upon consent election. On May 21, 1953, IBEW
filed its petition in the instant case, seeking only maintenance
electricians. In order not to delay the consent election, the
parties to the stipulation agreed to exclude from the voting
group in Case No. 21-RC-3094 the electrical maintenance
employees sought by IBEW, and to proceed with the consent
election. All parties, including IBEW, agreed that the exclu-
sion of the electrical maintenance employees did not constitute
an admission that a separate unit of these employees was
appropriate. The consent election resulted in a majority vote
for no union. The Employer now contends, in effect, that the
sole purpose of the IBEW's petition was to prevent merger of
the electricians in the plantwide unit, and that as such merger
has been obviated by the result of the consent election, the
petition should now be dismissed. However, as the Employer
has declined to recognize IBEW as the representatives of the
electricians, we find that a question concerning representation
exists , and the Employer's request that the petition be dis-
missed is denied.
4. Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees in the electrical
maintenance department at the Employer's plant classified
as maintenance electricians, including helpers, apprentices,
and leadmen. The Employer contends that this unit is inap-
propriate and that a production and maintenance unit is alone
106 NLRB No. 70.
402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate because (1) all craft employees, including the
maintenance electricians, are under the general supervision
of the superintendent in charge of production and maintenance;
(2) maintenance work in the shop is closely integrated with
production work; (3) electricians work with other maintenance
employees in the moving about and installation of machinery;
(4) electrical energy and the work of the electricians is essen-
tial to the operation of the plant; and (5) a finding that this
unit is appropriate would ultimately result in bargaining with
a multiplicity of small craft units.
There appear to be four employees, including a leadman,
sometimes called foreman, and a helper in-this department.
They perform all electrical work in the plant, including that
involved in installing and moving equipment and in construct-
ing additions to the plant. New installations must conform
with the requirements of the local electrical code and are
inspected by a city inspector. The electrical-maintenance
employees have a separate electrical shop, which is used by
no other employees. The only maintenance electrician who
testified at the hearing, a journeyman with 27 years' ex-
perience, testified that the duties of the Employer's other
maintenance electricians were similar to his.
Contrary to the Employer's contention, the appropriateness
of the unit sought does not depend on whether the electricians
have separate immediate supervision,' nor is the work of the
eledtricians so integrated with the production process as to
preclude establishment of a separate craft unit.2 Nor does the
fact that the electricians work in close contact with other
maintenance employees in the installation and moving of equip-
ment preclude the establishment of such a unit. 3 Dependence
upon electrical energy by the rest of the plant is, likewise,
no bar to separate representation of the electricians.4 Nor
does the speculative possibility that the Employer may be
required to bargain with a number of representatives of
separate craft units militate against the separate representa-
tion of the electricians. S
Upon the entire record, we find that the maintenance electri-
cians are craftsmen who perform duties requiring the exercise
of their craft skills, and that they constitute a separate ap-
propriate unit.6
The Petitioner seeks to include the leadman, and the Em-
ployer does not oppose his inclusion. The only evidence in the
record as to his duties indicates that he assigns work to the
other three electricians, inspects the quality of their work,
and spends most of his time doing the same work as the
'Reynolds Metals Company, 85 NLRB 110 at 118, footnote 25.
2 B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company, 84 NLRB 429
3A. C. Spark Plug Division, 88 NLRB 1214.
4A. C. Spark Plug Division, supra
5 Calumet & Hecla Consolidated Copper Company, 86 NLRB 126.
6 Goodyear Engineering Corporation, 100 NLRB 971.
AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY 403
others. Upon the entire record, we find that he is not a super-
visor and we will include him in the unit.
We find that all employees in the electrical-maintenance
department at the Employer's South Gate, California, plant,
including maintenance electricians, apprentices, helpers, and
the leadman, but excluding all other employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute aunit appropriate
.for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (.b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY and LOCAL
NO. 314, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRI-
CAL WORKERS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-3069.
.July 24, 1953
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 L. A. Gordon,
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 Peter-
son].
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
employees of the Employer.'
3. 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 is engaged in the smelting and converting
of copper and other nonferrous metals at its plant at Hayden,
Arizona. The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of powerplant
employees from the existing production and maintenance unit. 2
The Smelter Workers contends that a unit of powerplant em-
ployees is inappropriate because they are not craftsmen and
because bargaining has been conducted at the plantfor the past
6 years on a broader basis. The Employer takes no position.
1Local 886, Hayden Smelternlen's Union, International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter
Workers, hereafter referred to as Smelter Workers, intervened on the basis of a current
contractual interest.
2 A unit of electricians was severed from the production and maintenance unit 4 years ago,
and is presently represented by the Petitioner herein.
106 NLRB No. 69.
322615 0 -54 - 27