Southern States Equipment Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 537 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

SOUTHERN STATES EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 537
Section 2,(5 ) of the Act and admits employees of the Respondent Employer to
membership.
3. By discriminating with respect to the hire and -tenure of employment of
Paul C. Yearwood, thereby encouraging membership in Local 107 , the Respondent
Employer has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act and also of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. By causing the Respondent Employer to discriminate against an employee in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, Local 107 has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
6: By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, Local 107 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
{Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Southern States Equipment Corporation and Patternmakers'
Association of Atlanta and Vicinity , Patternmakers' League of
North America, AFL, Petitioner . Case No.1O-RC-3098. August
9,1955
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 John C. Carey, Jr-,'hearing
officer. The hearing off'icer '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.''
3. A 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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to sever from an existing production and main-
tenance unit at the Employer's ,Hampton, Georgia, plant, all employees
classified as patternmakers, patternrnakers advanced, patternmaker
repairmen, pattern shop helpers, and pattern shop handymen who are
assigned to the pattern shop and spend their time exclusively in the
making and alteration of patterns. The Employer and the Intervenor
contend that this unit is inappropriate, and the Intervenor moves that
the petition be dismissed. The motion to dismiss is denied for the
following reasons:
I International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1314, AFL, was allowed to Inter-
vene on the basis of its current contractual interest.
113 NLRB No. 57.
538 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR" RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer's plant is engaged in the manufacture of textile'ma
chine and higli voltage transmission equipment. The metal division
at this plant includes' a machine shop, a toolroom, a foundry, and a
pattern shop. The pattern shop, although located in a building which
also houses the foundry, pattern storage, and warehouse, is physically,
separated from 'the machine shop and toolroom by four walls. The
pattern shop foreman is a patternmaker.
There are 4 patternmakers, 1 patternmaker advanced, 2 pattern-
maker repairmen;1 pattern shop helper, and 1 pattern shop handyman
regularly assigned to the pattern shop. These employees work ex-
clusively on the construction, alteration, and cleaning of patterns. A
majority of their time is devoted to the construction. of master wooden
patterns and, as a result, they work principally with wood and wood-
working equipment. However, a portion of their time is spent in filing
and shaping metal patterns, and in bringing to tolerance aluminum
castings that are made in the foundry from the master wooden pat-
terns. Although there is no apprentice program for the pattern-
makers, all employees in the pattern shop, with the exception of one
employee who was hired as a journeyman patternmaker, have been
trained in the patternmaking trade after assignment to the pattern
shop. Promotion within the pattern shop is based upon the employee's
ability and the foreman's recommendation.
In addition to the wooden master patterns that are made exclusively
by the employees in the pattern shop; metal patterns are also made and
repaired at the Employer's plant. This work is done ,by employees
assigned to the machine shop and the toolroom. There, employees clas-
sified as machinists, machine tool operators, engine lathe operators,
milling machine operators, radial drill operators, gear hob operators,
and machine shop helpers devote a portion of their time to making or
repairing metal patterns. Some of these employees spend at times as
much as 50 percent of their time in such work. All the machine work
on the metal patterns is done in the machine shop or toolroom. After
this work has been completed the employees in the pattern shop clean
the metal patterns. No evidence was introduced which would indicate
that any of the employees with machinist classifications are training to
be, or are at the present time, metal patternmakers. According to the
record, these employees are skilled machinists who are required to
work on metal patterns a portion of their time.
It is apparent from the above facts that only wood patternmakers
are employed and, trained in the Employer's pattern shop. The ma-
chine work customarily performed by metal patternmakers in a typi-
cal pattern shop has been distributed among various machinists in the
Employer's machine shop and toolroom.a However, the fact that the
See General Motors Corporation , et at., 111 NLRB 841.
I EAST TEXAS PULP & PAPER_-COMPANY 539
machinists do metal pattern work a portion of their time does not con-
stitute them metal patternmakers, nor has this been contended by any
of the parties. On the other hand, the fact that some metal pattern
work is done by machinists does not destroy, as contended by the Em-
ployer and Intervenor, the appropriateness of the unit sought by the
Petitioner for all craftsmen of the patternmaking skill are assigned
to the pattern shop where they devote their entire time to patternmak-
ing. , Therefore, we find that the employees in the pattern shop con-
stitute a homogeneous group of skilled craftsmen, working as such,
together with their helpers and those in direct line of craft progres-
sion, who may, if they so desire, be represented as a separate unit by
the Petitioner which has historically represented such units.
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be conducted in the
following voting group of employees at the Employer's Hampton,
Georgia, plant:
All patternmakers, patternmakers advanced, patternmaker repair-
men, pattern shop helpers, and pattern shop handymen in the pat-
tern shop excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined
in the Act.
5. If a majority 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 in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for
the unit described in paragraph numbered 4, which the Board, under
such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the
Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate and the Regional Di-
rector will issue a certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
East Texas Pulp & Paper Company and International Brother-
hood of Paper Makers, AFL, Petitioner
East Texas Pulp & Paper Company and Beaumont Metal Trades
Council , AFL, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 39-RC-874 and 39-RC-875.
August 10, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held in the above-
entitled cases before C. L. Stephens, hearing officer. The Petitioner,
International Brotherhood of Paper Makers , AFL, herein called the
Paper Makers , and the Intervenor, United Paper Workers • of Amer-
113 NLRB No. 62.