St. Louis Car Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1388 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as the case may be, in the existing maintenance unit. If either
group selects no bargaining agent, the Regional Director shall
issue a certification of results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
ST. LOUIS CAR COMPANY and DISTRICT NO. 9, INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 14-RC-2474. June 21, 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 Harold B.
Norman, 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 employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer withinthe meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of all toolroom and
machine shop employees (excluding a polisher) and two
machinists in the truck shop, from an existing production and
maintenance unit at the Employer's St. Louis, Missouri, plant,
on the ground that these employees may appropriately con-
stitute either a separate craft or departmental unit.
In about 1937, the Employer voluntarily recognized the Inter-
venor, the United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein called
the Steelworkers, as the collective-bargaining representative
of all production and maintenance employees at its St. Louis
plant, including the employees here sought by the Petitioner,
and the Steelworkers has represented the plantwide unit until
January 1954. Because the Petitioner, on December 28, 1953,
requested recognition as the representative of the employees
here in question, they were excluded by agreement of the
parties from a 2-year collective-bargaining contract executed
by the Employer and the Steelworkers on January 5, 1954. This
contract is not urged as a bar to this proceeding.
The Employer and the Steelworkers oppose severance of the
unit requested, contending that: (1) Only a production and
maintenance unit is appropriate in view of the bargaining
history of these employees in a production and maintenance
unit; (2) none of the employees involved are true craftsmen;
108 NLRB No. 204.
ST. LOUIS CAR COMPANY 1389
and (3) the operations of these employees are not functionally
distinct, but are highly integrated with the operations of the
production employees.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of streetcars
and railroad cars. Its St. Louis plant is comprised of 19
departments housed in 9 buildings. Operations are headed
by a plant superintendent, under whom is a foreman for each
department. The toolroom and machine shop are separately
supervised, but are regarded as one department by all
parties. The Employer has always so regarded them for admin-
istrative purposes. The employees of both are on the same
departmental seniority list, and have the same series payroll
numbers. The toolroom and machine shop are located adjacent
to each other along one wall of the building which they occupy,
and utilize approximately one-third of the space in the building.
They are separated only by a narrow aisle. The truck shop is
located along the wall opposite the toolroom and machine shop,
and also occupies approximately one-third of the building. An
aisle approximately one-third the width of the building runs
through the center of the building. The toolroom and machine
shop contain 11 types of machine tools usually associated with
machine shops.
The toolroom and machine shop employees include 5 tool- and
die-makers, 10 toolroom machinists, 1 tool grinder, 1 die
grinder, 10 machine operators, 9 drillers and threaders, 1
machinist, 1 bench assembler, 1 polisher, and a tool-crib
attendant. Four of the tool- and die-makers make and repair
tools and dies which are used elsewhere in the plant, and some-
times fashion models of new parts. The other tool- and die-
maker serves as "setup man," whose duties are to set up
all machine tools for operation as required, and instruct
operators in their use. Tool- and die-makers are paid at a
higher rate than any other hourly paid employees in the plant.
The toolroom machinists perform sensitive machine operations
on tools and dies, Although the Employer has no formal
apprenticeship or job progression program, it is clear from
the record that the 15 tool- and die-makers and toolroom
machinists, who range in experience from 6 to 36 years, are
skilled journeymen craftsmen whose duties require the exercise
of the skills usually required of journeymen tool- and die-
makers and machinists, and we so find.
We shall now consider the other employees sought by the
Petitioner.
In addition, there is 1 tool grinder and 1 die grinder. The
tool grinder sharpens and shapes cutting tools, primarily for
the use of the tool- and die-makers and toolroom machinists,
and the die grinder finishes die surfaces by grinding or filing.
Evidently, both these employees work primarily in conjunction
with the tool- and die-makers and the toolroom machinists,
but lack the necessary training and experience to qualify as
true craftsmen in their own right.
1 390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The machine operators, the driller and threaders, and the
machinist 1 spend nearly all of their time performing machining
operations on parts being produced for incorporation into the
Employer's end product, and the bench assembler assembles
or performs machine operations on production parts. The
polisher hand or machine polishes production parts. The tool-
crib attendant is storekeeper of tools and materials. Although
these employees exercise skills, it is clear from the record
that the work performed by them does not require the exercise
of true craft skills such as those utilized by the tool- and die-
makers and toolroom machinists. Moreover, they are not in a
line of progression to those journeymen classifications. On
the basis of these facts, including their nonexercise of the
skills of craftsmen in the performance of their duties, we find
that the machine operators, the driller and threaders, the
machinist, the bench assembler, and the polisher, are not true
craftsmen.' Accordingly, we find that the employees sought by
the Petitioner do not constitute a severable group on the basis
of overall craft status.
However, the Petitioner has in effect requested, in the
alternative, a departmental unit of toolroom and machine-
shop employees. It is clear from the record that despite the
fact that some of these employees spend a major portion of
their time working on parts for the Employer's end product,
the toolroom and machine-shop employees comprise a dis-
tinct, homogeneous, departmental group, performing a special-
ized function in the Employer's operations. Furthermore, we
find that the work of this department is not so integrated with
the production processes as to preclude a finding that it con-
stitutes an appropriate departmental unit. 3 Although the Em-
ployer states that certain machine tools used by these em-
ployees are also used in production departments, these,
except for those used in the truck shop, are limited to minor
machine tools such as planers, drills, and grinders. Moreover,
the fact that other employees in the plant perform a few of the
same operations performed by the lesser skilled employees in
a department does not militate against the appropriateness of
the departmental unit.4 Accordingly, we find that the toolroom
and machine-shop employees constitute a distinct traditional
departmental group such as the Board has granted a self-
determination election despite a history of bargaining on a
broader basis, and that these employees are sought by a union
which historically and traditionally represents such toolroom
and machine-shop departments.'
In view of our finding that a departmental unit may be
appropriate, the polisher and tool-crib attendant will be in-
'This "machinist" is in effect a more skilled machine operator.,
2 Hyster Company, 106 NLRB 347.
3Allison Steel Manufacturing Company, 105 NLRB 723.
4Ibid, at page 3.
5American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418; A P. Controls Corporation,
108 NLRB 593.
ST. LOUIS CAR COMPANY 1391
cluded in the unit.6 The two machinists in the truck shop,
being outside the department, may not be included:
In view of the foregoing determinations, we shall direct an
election among the following employees of the Employer's St.
Louis, Missouri, plant, which we hereby find may constitute
an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All toolroom
and machine-shop employees, including tool- and die-makers,
toolroom machinists , tool grinders , the grinders , machine
operators , driller and threaders , machinists , bench assem-
blers, polishers , and the tool - crib attendant , excluding super-
visors 6 as defined by the Act and all other employees. 9
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to
have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit, which
the Board finds, under the circumstances, to be appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining, and the Regional Director
is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
Petitioner for such unit. If amajority vote for the Steelworkers,
they may be represented as a part of the existing production
and maintenance unit and the Regional Director will issue a
certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication. ]
6Although the polisher performs an undetermined percentageofhis work in a small building
outside the building in which the toolroom and machine shop department is located, he is
assigned to the toolroom and machine shop, and performs most or all of his work on items
processed therein. He therefore has a sufficient community of interest to be included in the
unit. Similarly, although the tool-crib attendant may disburse certain tools or materials
upon requisition from other departments, his function is performed primarily in connection
with the toolroom and machine shop, and we are satisfied that he has a sufficient community
of interest to be included in the unit,
7 These truck shop machinists are engaged in the repetitive machining of axles and pressing
wheels on axles, and although their work requires some skills, they do not perform true craft
functions or in any way duplicate the skills of the toolroom and machine shop employees,
6 The Employer contends that one Servais, a tool- and die-maker, and one Meyer a toolroom
machinist, should be excluded from the unit as supervisors, on the basis of testimony by
Servals that he and Meyer direct the work of unskilled and inexperienced helpers which are
occasionally assigned to them for temporary periods. The record indicates that they have no
other authority with respect to these helpers, and the direction exercised is in the nature of
instruction as to how properly to perform specific tasks or types of work for which the
helpers were assigned. In these circumstances, we find that Servais and Meyer are not super-
visors within the meaning of the Act, and include them in the unit.
MMember Murdock joins in the decision to grant departmental severance in this case because
he agrees with the finding that the toolroom and machine shop together constitute a single
functionally distinct department containing a nucleus of highly skilled craftsmen whose skills
are not duplicated by other employees elsewhere in the plant (the truck shop machinists,
whose duties and function are described in footnote 7, are not true craftsmen, in his opinion).
Therefore, for these reasons, Member Murdock considers this case distinguishable from A.
P. Controls Corporation (108 NLRB 593) in which he dissented.