The Rauland Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 29, 1952

97 N.L.R.B. 1333 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

THE RAULAND CORPORATION 1333
THE RAULAND CORPORATION and DISTRICT 8, INTERNATIONAL ASSO-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-0i18fi. Jan-
uary 29, 1952
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 P. von Rohr,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire recor in this case the;Board' finds :
1. The Employer is eigaged in comrneice'>within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. On October 8, 1950, the Employer and International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 1031, Intervenor herein,
executed a contract effective for 1 year ending October 7, 1951, auto-
matically renewable from year to year thereafter, and providing
for a 30-day notice for termination and a 60-day notice for amend-
ment. On July 30, 1951, the Intervenor, pursuant to the terms of the
agreement, notified the Employer of its desire to amend the contract.
On August 24, 1951, the Petitioner wrote the Employer requesting
recognition as bargaining representative of the Employer's "produc-
tion and maintenance employees." This letter was received by the
Employer on August 27, 1951. On the same date, August 27, 1951, but
after receiving the Petitioner's letter, the Employer and Intervenor
executed an agreement extending the 1950 contract to October 7, 1952.
On August 29, 1951, the Petitioner filed a representation petition seek-
ing to represent a unit described in the petition as comprising the
"production and maintenance employees."
On September 6, 1951, at a conference at the Board's Regional
Office at which representatives of the parties were present, the Peti-
tioner stated that it wished to represent only the Employer's machine
shop employees and not all its production and maintenance employees
as described in the petition previously filed on August 29, 1951. On
the same date, September 6, 1951, the Petitioner filed an amended pe-
tition seeking an election among the Employer's machine shop em-
ployees only.
The Intervenor asserts its current contract as a bar to this proceed-
ing. The Intervenor contends that the Petitioner's letter of August
'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 [Chairman Herzog and Mem-
bers - Murdock and Styles].
97 NLRB No. 198.
986209-52-vol 97-85
1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
24, 1951, requesting recognition, and its original petition filed August
29, 1951, should be regarded as nullities because both asked for a
"production and maintenance unit" rather than a "machine shop unit."
It urges that under the circumstances the petition in this proceeding
should be treated as having been filed initially on September 6, 1951,
rather than August 29, 1951, and therefore was untimely because
(1) filed after the execution of the agreement extending the 1950 con-
tract, and (2) unrelated to any written notification previously given
the Employer. The Employer took no position with respect to the
contract bar issue.
The Board has held that where the categories of employees involved
in the petition as finally amended are covered in the original petition,
it will not regard the amended petition as a new or original
petition.2 This holding is clearly distinguishable from cases where,
unlike here, the original petition sought a narrow unit and the peti-
tion, as amended, sought a more comprehensive unit.3 In the instant
case, the machine shop employees involved in the petition as finally
amended were plainly included in the production and maintenance
unit as originally sought. Under the circumstances, we find, contrary
to the Intervenor's contention, in view of the Petitioner's written no-
tification of August 24, 1951, received by the Employer before it
executed the agreement extending the 1950 contract and perfected by
the filing of the original petition on August 29, 1951, well within,the
10 days required by the Board,4 that the petition in this proceeding
was timely filed. The contract between the Employer and the Inter-
venor executed after receipt of this notice is therefore not a bar.-'
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 appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of machine shop employees. The Em-
ployer and Intervenor contend that only a production and mainte-
nance unit is appropriate.
The Intervenor was certified by the Board as exclusive bargaining
representative of the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees in 1945, and has since continuously represented a unit of
these employees, and executed a series of collective bargaining agree-
ments with the Employer covering such unit.
2 DTathieson Chemical Corporation , 81 NLRB 1355, 1357 ( footnote 7)
3 Hyster Company, 72 NLRB 937.
4 General Electric X-Ray Corporation , 67 NLRB 997.
e De Soto Creamery and Produce Company, 94 NLRB 1627 , on which the Intervenor
relies is not controlling in the circumstances of this case. Here, unlike the De Soto case,
the contract was executed after notice of the Petitioner's claim, followed by a petition
within 10 days
THE RAULAND CORPORATION 1335
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of television tubes.
Of the 450 employees at its Chicago, Illinois, plant, 13 are employed
in its machine shop and 2 are employed as tool crib attendants in an
enclosure adjacent to the machine shop. Of the 13 employees in the
machine shop, 8 are classified as experimental machinists, 4 as sheet
metal model and layout men, and 1 as a model shop trainee. The
machine shop is on the main floor of the plant and is separated from
the rest of the plant by a wire fence. It contains various machines such
as lathes, milling machines, grinders, shears, brakes, and drill presses.
The experimental machinists and model layout men make jigs, dies,
reamers, and complete parts for experimental models . and for ma-
chines. They also repair production machinery in various parts of
the plant. Both classifications do substantially the same work except
that the model and layout men generally confine themselves to work-
ing on sheet metal. Machine shop employees are not required to work
in other departments or to do production work. There is no inter-
change between these employees and the employees in production de-
partments. New machine shop employees are generally hired from
the outside and are required to have a background of at least 2 years'
machine shop experience. Although the Employer has no formal ap-
prenticeship program, one machine shop employee is classified as a
trainee and is being given informal training by the foreman and other
experienced machine shop employees. The Employer considers them
as "skilled craftsmen." One of the experimental machinists testified
that lie had 15 years' machinist experience before being hired by the
Employer, and that the 8 employees he works with on the day shift
all had at least 5 years' experience before being hired by the Em-
ploy er.
There is one foreman for each of two shifts who supervise only the
machine shop employees and the two tool crib attendants. These
foremen report to the engineer in charge of the machine shop. The
experimental machinists and model and layout men spend about 60
percent of their time in the machine shop and about 40 percent of
their time in other departments where they do repair work on com-
plicated electronic machinery. They remain, however, under the
supervision of their own foremen while working in other departments-
The tool crib attendants, who work in an adjacent enclosure, hand
out tools and materials to machine shop employees, and keep records
in connection with this work.
The machine shop employees are substantially higher -paid- than
the production workers. The pay of the tool crib attendants approxi-
mates those of the production workers. All plant employees are
hourly paid, punch the same time clocks, and share the same general
working conditions and benefits.
1336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that the machine shop
employees constitute a traditional craft group who may, if they so,
desire, properly constitute a separate bargaining unit, notwithstanding
their prior inclusion in an over-all unit of production and maintenance
employees .5 We shall, moreover, include the tool crib attendants
in the voting group because of their close association with the skilled
employees in the machine shop.
However, we shall make no final determination with respect to
the appropriate unit until a voting group consisting of all machine
shop employees at the Employer's Chicago, Illinois, plant, including
experimental machinists, sheet metal model and layout men, model
shop trainee, and tool crib attendants, excluding all other employees,
office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors, express their desires in a self-determination election.
If a majority of the Employees in the voting group select the Peti-
tioner 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 instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the Petitioner for the unit above 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 that they may continue to be represented as 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 in this
volume.] .
6 The Carborundum Company, 96 NLRB No. 108.
L. A. HE, ARNE, D/B/A KING CITY WAREHOUSE COMPANY 1 and GENERAL
TEAMSTERS , WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS , LOCAL 890, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN &
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 2O-RC-1434.
January 29, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition and amended petition duly filed under Section 9
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before
Robert V. Magor, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
'As we do not find in/re that L. A. Hearne, d /b/a King City Warehouse Company, and
L. A. Hearne and J. J. Barbree , d/b/a San Lucas Warehouse Company, constitute a single
Employer, we are amending the name of the Employer to conform to this finding.
97 NLRB No. 207.