The Flxible Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 4, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 536 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of TIIE FLXIBLE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNA-'
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA (AFL) ,
PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 8-RC-417, 8-RC-418, and 8-RC-419. Decided August 4,
1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held in these
cases before Philip Fusco, hearing officer of the National Labor Rela-
tions 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
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor, Independent Workers' Asso-
ciation, Local No. One, are labor organizations claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
3., The question concerning representation :
The Employer and the Intervenor executed a contract on June 12,
1948, with a stated duration of 1 year and with provision for automatic
renewal in the absence of written notice by either party 60 days prior
to the expiration date. No notice was given by either party. The
Employer and the Intervenor maintain that this contract bars the
instant petitions. Inasmuch as the petitions in these cases were filed
on February 23, 1949, well in advance of the automatic renewal date,
it is clear that the contract is not a bar. Accordingly, we find that a
question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of
employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 93.
536
THE FLXIBLE COMPANY 537
4. The alleged appropriate units :
The Petitioner requests three separate units of the Employer's em-
ployees, described in the petitions as all machinists, helpers, and ap-
prentices; all patternmakers, helpers, and apprentices; and all tool and
die makers, helpers, and apprentices. In each case the Petitioner would
exclude supervisors and all other employees. The Employer and the
Intervenor contend that the bargaining history and all other pertinent
factors demonstrate the inappropriateness of the requested units and
maintain that only the factory-wide unit presently represented by the
Intervenor is appropriate.
The Intervenor was first recognized by the, Employer as the repre-
sentative of its employees in 1941, at which time their first contract
was executed. Contractual relationships, covering a factory-wide
unit, have been maintained since that time. In 1945, upon a petition
filed by the Petitioner, a consent election was held and the Intervenor
was certified as the bargaining representative in the factory-wide unit.
In 1946 and 1948, following petitions filed by the United Automobile
Workers of America, CIO, consent elections again resulted in the
certification of the Intervenor as the factory-wide representative. In
none of these instances was there any issue pertaining to the severance,
of the employees involved herein.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of busses, ambulances,
and funeral cars. Its operations, which include experimental work,
consist of the fabrication of doors, frames, and other parts not pro-
duced elsewhere, and the assembly of those -units into the finished prod-
uct. The greatest part of the Employer's operations is concentrated in
5 main buildings, known collectively as Plant No. 2, and employing
499 of the factory's 556 employees. The 52 employees involved in these
petitions all work in Plant No. 1, which is located at a distance of ap-
proximately 2 blocks from Plant No. 2. Employee interchange be-
tween plants is frequent and in cases of expansion or reduction of the
working force, men are transferred or upgraded from one plant to
,another. Seniority is factory-wide and is retained by an employee
when he is shifted into a new department. Economic benefits, such as
insurance, vacation, and other programs, are administered for the fac-
tory as a whole and grievances are processed in the same manner in
each department and plant. The pay roll is made up for the entire
factory and while some employees are on an incentive plan, the em-
ployees concerned in these petitions are on the same general basis
as the remainder of the personnel.
At the hearing, the Petitioner stated that the "patternmakers" unit
for which it petitioned consisted of all employees in the Template
Department; that the "tool and die makers" unit consisted of all em-
538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees in the Die and Jig Department; and that the "machinists" unit
comprised all employees in the Machine Shop and Stores Departments.
These departments are wholly located in and occupy virtually all of
the space in Plant No. 1.1 The foreman of the Machine Shop and the
Stores Departments reports to the bus production superintendent,
whose major jurisdiction is over employees in Plant No. 2. The
Template Department is supervised by a foreman who reports to, the
planning department manager. The latter individual is the immedi-
ate supervisor of the Die and Jig Department.
The Template Department. This department performs the lay-out
of sheet metal templates used in production and makes sheet metal
sample parts as well as occasional production parts. Of the nine
employees in the department, eight are classified as template lay-out
men-sample part markers. A' tool marker, who marks the templates
as well as the tools produced in the Machine Shop Department, is also
assigned to this group. In the course of their duties, template makers
are often required to work in Plant No. 2 checking the templates
as they are used in production. They work from drawings and blue-
prints with drafting tools similar to those used by patternmakers.
However, the two classifications are not synonymous aitd the record
indicates that the template makers could not qualify as patternmakers
elsewhere. All jobs in the factory are classified according to skills
in "Labor Grades", on a scale ranging from Grade 1, at the top, down
to Grade 10.1 Template makers are classified in Labor Grades 4 and
7, and the Employer requires 2 to 3 years of experience for assign-
ment to these positions. The tool marker is classified in Labor Grade
10, and is required to have only a few months' prior experience. There
is no apprenticeship program for these employees and vacancies are
filled by upgrading or transfers from other departments and plants.
The Machine Shop Department and Stores Department. The Ma-
chine Shop Department makes machine tools, blanking, notching, and
punched dies and experimental parts besides machining other parts
used in production. Of the department's 26 employees, 5 are tool
makers, 3 experimental part makers, and 2 are milling machine oper-
ators. To qualify for these positions, the most skilled in the shop,
from 2 to 5 years of experience is required. The remainder of the
department is composed of drill press operators, deburrers, grinders,
lathe operators, milling machine operators, welders, and tool grinders.
'Generally, for these jobs, only a year or less of prior experience is
necessary. Labor Grades in the department range from Grade 3 to
I The buildings in Plant No. 1 are also occupied by the general offices of the Employer, a
small force of janitors and firemen, and two employees in the car delivery service.
2 The Employer utilizes a job evaluation system developed by the National Metal Trades.
Only one position in the factory is classified above Grade 3.
THE FLXIBLE COMPANY 539
Grade 10; with most employees in Grades 6 and 7. Sixty percent of
the work done by. the Machine Shop Department is production work.
Die making constitutes 20 percent of the department's work and many
of the same machines are shared with the Die and Jig Department.
Employees holding jobs similar to the highest grades in the shop are
assigned to production departments in Plant No. 2 and vacancies are
filled by upgrading and transfers to and from the different plants and
departments. As in the case of the template makers, no apprentice-
ship program is in effect for the machine shop.
The Stores Department consists of four comparatively unskilled
employees in Labor Grades 9 and 10, who are classified as storekeeper,
material handler, and power saw operators. Their duties are to re-
ceive, store, and handle stock, including steel, tube, and-bus production
supplies, for all of the plants. Stock for the Machine Shop and Die
and Jig Departments is sawed and distributed by the Stores
Department.
The Die and Jig Department. Sheet metal forming dies, tools, jigs,
and fixtures of both wood and metal are produced in the Die and Jig
Department. This work is handled by 13 employees classified as die
and jig makers (1) and (2) in Labor Grades 3 and 4. Equipment and
machines used in the department, the record shows, are not comparable
to those found in the average tool and die shop. It is not necessary
in the work of this department for the employees to achieve the close
tolerances required elsewhere. Employees of similar skills and clas-
sifications are assigned to other production departments and there is
considerable interchange and transferring of employees to and from
the department. Die and jig makers, in the course of their duties,
must accompany their work to production departments in Plant No.
2 and are called upon to iron out production "bugs."' No apprentice-
ship program is in existence for die and jig makers and the Employer
requires 2 to 3 years of experience for these jobs in contrast to the 5
to 6 years which, the parties agreed, is ordinarily the minimum quali-
fication for tool and die makers.
The Petitioner contends that the employees in each of these depart-
ments constitute a well-defined, skilled, and integrated group whose
separate interests and working conditions should entitle them to an,
opportunity for severance from the factory-wide bargaining unit.
We do not agree. The factors which ordinarily are present in cases
where we have held that patternmakers, machinists, or tool and die
workers may form separate bargaining groups lyre absent in the
present case. The record shows that the employees in the Template
Department and the Die and Jig Department do not possess the high
skills of craft patternmakers or tool and die makers. Nor does the
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work or the equipment of the Machine Shop Department measure up
to the usual craft standards of machinists. In none of these three
departments is there an apprenticeship program such as we have
often held to be indicative of craft status.' The continuous and
considerable interchange and transfer of employees between these
departments and others, and the presence in Plant No. 2 of many em-
ployees having functions and skills similar to those of employees in
the proposed units, show that these departmental groups are not dis-
tinct. No clear work boundaries appear to be in existence, as wit-
nessed by the similarity of tasks performed by two of the departments
on dies and common use of machines and personnel noted above.
Both the Machine Shop Department and the Template Department
participate in direct production and in all of the departments involved
herein employees have frequent contact with, and, on occasion, work
alongside production employees. Moreover, no substantial differen-
tiations in wages, working conditions, or supervision appear to exist
as to these departments. Finally, the Petitioner's representative
admitted at the hearing that the Petitioner's principal reason for
seeking to sever these three groups is that it has organized them, having
failed to organize successfully on a factory-wide basis. We find,
therefore, in view of these facts and the background of successful
bargaining history on a factory-wide basis, that there is insufficient
justification. for separating the three departmental groups from the
present factory-wide unit.' Accordingly,. we shall dismiss the peti-
tions herein.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record
in these cases, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the petitions herein be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
8 See Matter of Allis -Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 77 N. L. R. B . 719, 724.
4 See Matter of Knudsen Bros. Shipbuilding f Drydock Co ., 80 N. L. R . B. 320; Matter of
G eneral Motors 'Corporation, Chevrolet Forge, Spring and Bumper Division, 80 N. L. R. B.
145; Matter of Marine Iron and Shipbuilding Company, 78 N. L. R. B. 309. Cf. Matter of
International Harvester Company, 79 N. L. R. B . 1452, where a unit containing a nucleus
of skilled craftsmen together with less skilled but related employee classifications was
held appropriate in view of separate supervision , lack of employee interchange , different pay
basis, and other factors not present here.