Union Carbide Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1973

205 N.L.R.B. 794 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union Carbide Corporation , Nuclear Division and In-
ternational Association of Tool Craftsmen & Its Lo-
cal No . 20, N.F .I.U., Petitioner . Case 10-RC-9275
August 27, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Robert C. D. Mc-
Donald. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the
Regional Director for Region 10, this case was trans-
ferred to the National Labor Relations Board for de-
cision. Briefs have been timely filed by the Employer,
Petitioner, and Intervenor.' In addition, the Atomic
Energy Commission and the Industrial Union De-
partment, AFL-CIO, submitted timely briefs as amici
curiae.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free of prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs submitted by the parties and amici curiae, the
Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. It was not disputed, and we find, that the Peti-
tioner and Intervenor are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the
petition before us raises no question concerning the
representation of the employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
The Employer operates three installations under
contract with the Atomic Energy Commission at Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, employing altogether approximate-
ly 14,000 people. All these facilities are engaged in
various aspects of the development and use of atomic
energy. Only one facility, however, is here involved-
the K-25 Gaseous Diffusion plant. While the other
two facilities are engaged in manufacturing and re-
search, the K-25 facility is directly engaged in the
chemical process of enriching uranium for its eventual
use in producing nuclear power.
Intervenor has represented the approximately 1,040
hourly employees at K-25 in a production and main-
tenance unit since 1946, when it was first certified by
i Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union and its Local
3-288 was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contract interest
the Board. Petitioner seeks to sever, in a craft or de-
partmental unit (or in any other unit the Board finds
appropriate), 93 employees in the following classifica-
tions:
All machinists first class, machinists second
class, machinists trainees, machinists trainee
helpers and instrument makers in the Employer's
machine shop in Bldg. K-1401 at its K-25 plant,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, excluding all other em-
ployees, office clerical employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
Of the 93 employees sought by Petitioner, 91 are first-
class machinists and 2 are instrument makers. As a
result of layoffs and transfers, there are presently no
employees in the classifications of machinists second
class, machinists trainees or machinist trainee helpers.
However, with expected increased production in the
near future, it is possible that some of the employees
formerly in those classifications may be rehired.
The Employer's K-25 facility consists of 5 large
production buildings, interconnected by piping for a
continual flow of chemicals required in the uranium
enrichment process, and about 75 auxiliary buildings.
Included in the auxiliary systems supporting produc-
tion is the fabrication and maintenance division,
which in turn is broken down into several mainte-
nance departments, one of which is the fabrication
and maintenance shops located in Building 1401. The
classifications sought by Petitioner, along with the
several other classifications of employees performing
maintenance functions at Employer's K-25 complex,
are assigned to this department and work in Building
1401. All of the employees sought by the Petitioner
work in either the main machine shop (40 machinists
and 1 instrument maker) or in the jig & fixture ma-
chine shop (51 machinists and 1 instrument maker),
and spend the major portion of their working day in
these two areas. Five maintenance mechanics are also
assigned to work in the machine shops, primarily as-
sisting the machinists in rigging and running errands.
Except for the jig & fixture shop, which is partitioned
off from the rest of the building for purposes of air
conditioning, the other shop areas in Building 1401
are not segregated by physical barriers. Instead, the
boundaries of the various shops are determined only
by the machinery the personnel of each shop routinely
work on, though it is admitted that the employees
regularly assigned to work in Building 1401 would
know where to go if they were sent to either of the
machine shops.
While all the petitioned-for employees are under
the supervision of the machine shop superintendent,
that individual also supervises another shop, shop
205 NLRB No. 126
UNION CARBIDE CORP. 795
services, wherein work two machinists and a mixture
of other maintenance classifications. The other main-
tenance personnel working in shop services spend a
substantial portion of their time repairing machines
which break down in the machine shops.
Because of the advanced state of instrumentation,
there are seven maintenance personnel to every two
production employees. The function of the produc-
tion employees is primarily that of watching instru-
ments to make certain that all the machinery is
operating normally. If a breakdown is registered, field
maintenance personnel may be called in to perform
emergency maintenance. While the machinists and
instrument makers rarely perform such maintenance
at the operation site, frequently it will be necessary for
the field maintenance personnel to dismantle the mal-
functioning machine and ship it back to one of the
maintenance shop areas, including the machine
shops, to perform more extensive maintenance work
or, in some cases, to completely rebuild the machine.
In addition, the machinists along with the other main-
tenance classifications perform scheduled or preven-
tive maintenance, which entails the planned periodic
rebuilding of certain machinery. As in the case of
emergency maintenance, preventive maintenance
generally involves the dismantling and transporting of
production machinery to the K-1401 maintenance
building where it is rebuilt in an assembly line process
with each shop performing its specialized functions,
whereupon the equipment is moved to the next shop.
From the early sixty's to just recently, during which
time national defense requirements for atomic energy
had decreased and private demand had not yet devel-
oped to any substantial degree, Employer had the
machinists performing a substantial amount of work
on projects for other AEC contractors throughout the
U.S. However, with increased private demand, Em-
ployer has ceased such work and expects to use all the
machinists and other maintenance classifications in
restoring the present equipment at K-25. This restora-
tion program is expected to last for at least another
year. Employer has also commenced what is called
the Cascade Improvement Program, which involves
the replacement of older, less efficient converters with
new converters. This program is scheduled to be com-
pleted in 1975 and will also involve some machinists
work.
The parties stipulated that the machinists and in-
strument makers are skilled craftsmen, with the work
of the instrument makers requiring a higher degree of
skill than that of the machinists. While the Employer
requires as part of the basic qualifications for a ma-
chinist at the K-25 machine shop that the individual
have served a 4-year apprenticeship with an accredit-
ed school or company, the Employer also maintains
its own 3-year training program which qualifies craft-
type maintenance classifications, including machin-
ists, to reach the top rate of their classification upon
completion of the course. Several of the first-class
machinists have reached that level solely through the
Employer's training program.
Machinists and instrument makers generally have
the same working conditions and fringe benefits as
the other unit employees. They work the same hours,
punch timeclocks, wear similar protective clothing,
receive the same vacation, holidays, insurance cover-
age, and share wash and change rooms, lunchroom
facilities, and medical facilities with the other unit
employees. Like most of the other craft-type classifi-
cations, the machinists and instrument makers are
placed in a separate seniority grouping for purposes
of layoffs and transfers, but for other purposes they
accumulate plantwide seniority same as the other em-
ployees. The instrument makers are the highest paid
classification in the unit and the machinists are the
next highest.
With regard to Intervenor's representation of the
machinists and instrument makers, Intervenor's inter-
nal organization provides for the election of shop
stewards by the various shops, and the election of
officers and executive board members by the entire
membership. Thus, the machinists have always had
two elected stewards to represent them, and have run
candidates for officers and executive board positions,
although always unsuccessfully. Over the years, indi-
vidual machinists have participated on several of the
Intervenor's committees, and have represented In-
tervenor at district council meetings and conventions
of Intervenor's International.
The record further shows that during this time, In-
tervenor has represented the special concerns of the
machinists. Thus, over the years, Intervenor has pro-
cessed several of the machinists' grievances, pro-
cessing at least two such greivances all the way to
arbitration. Since the midfifties Intervenor has repeat-
edly negotiated with Employer for a tighter contractu-
al provision governing the assignment of work along
traditional craft lines-one of the primary concerns of
the machinists and the other craft-type employees-
with some degree of success. Moreover, Intervenor
has provided the machinists more than equal opportu-
nity to voice their concerns within its organization.
Thus, in addition to its regularly scheduled meetings,
Intervenor called a special meeting in 1969 in which
the machinists were invited to air their grievances in
the presence of the Local and International officers.
Internevor has represented the hourly rated em-
ployees at K-25 since 1946 in a production and main-
tenance unit. During this time there have been only
two strikes; one in 1960 lasting 16 days, and the other
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
occurring in 1954 and lasting 2 days.
With regard to representation in Employer's 100-
plus other organized plants around the country, all
but 2 are represented in production and maintenance
units (the remaining two have separate warehouse un-
its). There are only two other gaseous diffusion plants
in the U.S. and the employees in these are also repre-
sented in production and maintenance units, one of
which is represented by a sister local of Intervenor.
Viewing these facts in light of the relevant factors
set forth in Mallmckrodt Chemical Works,' we con-
clude that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act
to permit the Petitioner to "carve out" the unit it
seeks, and that such unit is inappropriate under the
Mallinckrodt standards.
We recognize that the machinists and instrument
makers may have certain interests not shared by the
other employees in the unit because, as a general rule,
they possess special skills, work together on a day-to-
day basis in the same area, and are for the most part
separately supervised from the other production and
maintenance employees. However, we find that in
several other important aspects of the employment
relationship, the machinists and instrument makers
share a natural community of interest with the other
employees in the unit.
The machinists and instrument makers constitute
only a small part of the Employer's maintenance de-
partment. Several other maintenance classifications
work in the same building, utilize many of the same
type of tools, share the same timeclocks and wash and
lunch facilities, and occasionally assist each other in
work. Indeed, as noted above, five maintenance me-
chanics are regularly assigned to assist the machinists
in the machine shops, and the maintenance classifica-
tions in shop services regularly come into the machine
shops to perform repairs on the machinery located
there. Also significant as evidence of the interests
shared by the unit employees as a whole is the fact
that all the employees in the unit have similar working
conditions and enjoy the same benefits.
Petitioner points to, inter alia, the fact that the ma-
chinists and instrument makers are in a separate con-
tractual classification group for purposes of layoffs
and transfers as establishing their separate identity.
We note, however, that most of the other craft-type
employees in the unit are similarly placed in separate
groups in the contract. Moreover, though this sepa-
rate grouping of classifications for seniority protects
the craftsmen from bumping by senior employees in
lower rated classifications, higher classification
groups can nevertheless bump down into lower
groups for which they are qualified and have greater
Z 162 NLRB 387
seniority. As noted above, several of the machinists
have recently used this contractual provision to trans-
fer to other maintenance classification to avoid being
laid off. Finally, we note that for purposes other than
determining transfers and layoffs, Employer uses a
plantwide seniority system to determine who is eligi-
ble for certain benefits.
We find in Employer's training program further
evidence of the interests shared by the unit as a whole.
This in-house training program provides a means for
lower rated maintenance classifications to progress to
the higher maintenance classifications, including that
of machinist. As noted above, several of the
Employer's first-class machinists have reached that
level solely through completing this program. Thus,
both in terms of bumping seniority and advancement
through training, the career ladder of machinists can-
not practically be separated from that of the other
maintenance classifications.
Another consideration we rely on for denying sev-
erance in this case is the long and relatively peaceful
history of bargaining with Employer in a production
and maintenance unit. As noted above, the sought-
after employees here have been represented in the
larger unit for more than 26 years. Moreover, repre-
sentation in a production and maintenance unit is
consistent with representation at Employer's other
plants and the two only other gaseous diffusion plants
in the country.
Finally, we do not find, as Petitioner contends, that
machinists and instrument makers have in the past
been inadequately represented in the larger unit. As
evidence of inadequate representation, Petitioner
claims, inter alia, that the machinists working for Em-
ployer are paid substantially less than machinists
working for other employers in the area. We find the
evidence in the record inconclusive on that point.
However, even assuming, arguendo, that to be true,
that fact, standing alone, does not establish inade-
quate representation. As previously described, the
machinists have their own elected stewards; they have
in the past participated, and continue to participate,
in various of Intervenor's committees; they have
made frequent use of the grievance procedures, and
have seen their grievances processed; they have had
opportunity to voice their concerns to the officers of
the Local and International; and, finally, Intervenor
has repeatedly represented their interests at the bar-
gaining table. Thus, both in form and in substance,
Intervenor has not been shown to have inadequately
represented the machinists and instrument makers.
Consequently, for all of the above reasons, we be-
lieve it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to
permit Petitioner to carve out the machinists and in-
strument makers from the historically established pat-
UNION CARBIDE CORP.
tern of bargaining in an overall unit and the stable
bargaining relationship which has developed thereun-
der over a period of more than 26 years. We conclude,
therefore, that the unit sought by Petitioner is not
appropriate under the Mallinckrodt tests and, accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBER FANNING , dissenting:
Our colleagues have taken what appears to us to be
a near-perfect example for craft severance and dis-
missed the petition under the Mallinckrodt criteria. In
our view the long-established bargaining history at
this plant is alone being relied on to deny a severance
election. Thus in our opinion this result runs directly
contrary to the statutory provision concerning craft
units.'
The majority opinion admits that the 91 first-class
machinists and 2 instrument makers sought to be se-
vered are skilled craftsmen who daily exercise their
craft skills in the same area, that is, the two machine
shops at the Employer's K-25 facility at Oak Ridge,
and that they do so on a nonrepetitive basis under the
overall supervision of a machine shop superintendent.
These machinists work from blueprints, perform no
production work at all, rarely leave their work area,
and, in fact, require permission from their immediate
foremen to do so. The two instrument makers in the
course of their duties perform the work of a machinist,
but as instrument makers their work is considered by
the Employer to require an even higher skill. Basically
an instrument maker is an excellent machinist. The
parties so stipulated. Thus as to these basic facts,
which are actually a prerequisite for severance under
Mallinckrodt, it is conceded that the group sought
consists of skilled journeymen craftsmen performing
the functions of their craft on a nonrepetitive basis.
Our colleagues, however, proceed to note a "natu-
ral" community of interest of machinsts and instru-
ment makers with other employees in the plantwide
unit and observe that these skilled employees are only
a small part of the maintenance department as a
whole, and the building in which they work houses
some other maintenance classifications who utilize
3 Sec 9(b) provides The Board shall decide in each case whether, in order
to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed
by this Act , the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
shall be the employer unit, craft unit , plant unit , or subdivision thereof
Provided, That the Board shall not (2 ) decide that any craft unit is
inappropriate for such purposes on the ground that a different unit has been
established by a prior Board determination , unless a majority of the employ-
ees in the proposed craft unit vote against separte representation
797
some of the same "type" tools. To us it seems too
obvious for meaningful comment to say that all em-
ployees in an existing plantwide unit have a natural
community of interest, or that different types of main-
tenance employees use some similar tools, or "occa-
sionally" assist each other, or that other maintenance
classifications necessarily enter the two machine
shops in order to repair the machinery located there.
Also, in our opinion, the majority places undue reli-
ance upon the regular assignment of five maintenance
mechanics to assist the machinists in the machine
shops, ignoring both the fact that layoffs have deplet-
ed the classification of "second class machinist" and
the "helper"-characteristics of the work of these main-
tenance mechanics: to assist the machinists in lifting
and in running errands. Even the Employer's 3-year
training programs for various crafts, including ma-
chinists, is urged as evidence of the "interests shared
by the unit as a whole." The Board has long viewed
employer-supplied craft training as indicative of craft
status and thereby of craft identity. We see no reason
to view in-house craft training differently in this case.
Because it is available for more than one craft and
because it exists in the context of contract clauses
protecting craft groups with respect to layoff and
transfer are hardly persuasive reasons for denying
self-determination. Upward mobility opportunity is
not synonomous with obliteration of craft distinc-
tions. Nor do we think that bumping by craftsmen in
lieu of layoff should be so interpreted.
We proceed to other severance criteria and note
that the dismissal here is not based on this production
process being so integrated as to preclude separate
representation for the employees sought, or upon lack
of qualification by this Petitioner to represent the em-
ployees. As to the former we note that the Employer
for a good many years used machinists for the work
of outside employees and that it currently subcon-
tracts a part of its machinist work to establishments
where it appears that some of its own machinists
"moonlight." Petitioner's status as a traditional repre-
sentative was recognized by this Board in 1969 in
another case involving an AEC employer having bar-
gaining relationships with AFL-CIO affiliated
unions.4 Even though this Employer, unlike Mason &
Hanger-Silas Mason Co., opposes an election, we con-
sider irrelevant the fact that Petitioner, as an indepen-
dent union, is not a party to AFL-CIO methods for
solving unit disputes.
With the craft character of the group undisputed,
we come to the maintenance of identity by proposed
group under a broader bargaining unit, its participa-
tion in that bargaining, and its prior opportunities for
separate representation. In this area of inquiry our
° See Mason & Hanger - Silas Mason Co, Inc, 180 NLRB 467, 468.
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
colleagues conclude that it has not been shown that
the machinists here have been "inadequately" repre-
sented by the Intervenor over the years.' That analysis
is unpersuasive on a record such as this. We agree that
the machinists have participated in the bargaining on
an overall unit basis and that they have made use of
the available grievance procedures with the
Intervenor's assistance to an extent greater than their
proportionate size with respect to the approximately
1,040 plantwide complement.6 But all along these ma-
chinists have exerted an unusually sustained effort to
maintain their identity as a craft.
The 1946 certification of the Intervenor was the
result of a consent agreement in which several craft
unions had filed craft petitions, including one seeking
to represent machinists, but were apparently persuad-
ed to band together as the Atomic Trades & Labor
Council and seek a production and maintenance unit
which the Board deemed appropriate after a special
investigation. At this plant, K-25, the Intervenor won
the election; at the other two Oak Ridge facilities of
this Employer-X-l2-the Council won. In 1949 sev-
erance was sought for the instrument makers, ma-
chine tool mechanics, and machinists, and the Board
dismissed partly because many machinists were then
directly engaged in production.'
In 1950 the machinists unanimously threatened to
quit when wage differentials among the machinists
doing the same work were not corrected in a new
contract. The Employer ultimately adjusted this mat-
ter. In 1955, after contract negotiations, the machin-
ists petitioned the Employer directly for a pay
increase to bring them in line with area rates, a request
turned down in negotiations, and many machinists
withdrew from Intervenor for its failure to "hold out"
for assignment of work on craft lines. Those who
withdrew signed cards for the National Independent
Machinists Union.
The next year a work assignment grievance went to
arbitration, resulting in an adverse ruling, and the
independent group petitioned the Board for severance
but this was barred by the outstanding contract of
5 In connection with its discussion of adequate representation , the majority
considers the record inconclusive as to whether or not these machinists are
paid substantially less than other machinists working for other area employ-
ers We note that there was rebuttal testimony by machinist Pierce to the
effect that during the last contract negotiation Machine Shop Superintendent
Martin told Pierce he had sought a "13-cents an hour inequity raise for the
machinists ," that the Employer was agreeable , but that the Intervenor was
not. Superintendent Martin did not testify and the Employer made no effort
to call him to refute Pierce's rebuttal testimony, though Intervenor called its
local president to deny that Pierce asked him if it was true
6In May 1945, K-25 employed 11,700, in 1950 the total had dropped to
4,400 but its production had increased See Carbide & Carbon Chemicals
Corp, 88 NLRB 437, 440
7 See Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corporation, supra, 447, cited in In 6
There the Board specifically found that the issues raised did not require it
to determine that only a production and maintenance unit was appropriate
Intervenor. Also in 1956 the Employer assigned a
maintenance mechanic to work in the machine shop
on a radial drill. After a concerted work stoppage by
the machinists, Employer removed the maintenance
mechanic from that work. A 1957 effort by the ma-
chinists to have the IAM represent them was declined
by that Union because of a no-raiding agreement.
In September 1969 a petition signed by approxi-
mately 70 machinists was sent to management and the
president of Intervenor's local requesting reclassifica-
tion as instrument makers. "Vast change in the quality
and type of work during the past 10 years" was urged
as having resulted in "over fifty percent" of the work
of machinists falling in the category of tool-and-die
maker. Also urged was the contention that only one
such man had been put in this "bracket" at K-25 in
the past 20 years, though in the past 10 years 80 per-
cent of the machinists had been so favored at
Employer's X-10 facility at Oak Ridge.8 This was fol-
lowed in October by a reminder letter to the same
parties, with individual signatures, and in November
by a letter to Intervenor's International president re-
questing that he intercede for the machinists, or that
Intervenor "turn them loose." Approximately 35 ma-
chinists signed this. The next month it appears that
the machinists explored with a Deputy Assistant Gen-
eral Counsel of the Board the possibility of filing un-
fair labor practice charges.
Then, in January 1970, Intervenor took note of the
efforts by the machinists "to splinter their group out
of the bargaining unit and petition the NLRB for a
separate union," which resulted in a special meeting
of the executive board, with the machinists present, to
discuss the problems of those in the machinist classifi-
cation. An area official of Intervenor was assigned to
write a report. The machinists were dissatisfied with
this development as they considered the official con-
cerned biased, and in March 1970 the machinists
again wrote the Intervenor International saying in
part: "We are one hundred and thirty-five determined
machinists whom [sic] have asked for your help and
it seems that we are not going to get it." The current
Petitioner apparently came into the picture in 1969,
and in 1970 filed a petition which was dismissed be-
cause the existing contract had been prematurely ex-
tended and Petitioner had not selected the proper
open period for filing. The instant petition was timely
filed in 1972.
In no sense can the machinists be said to have
acquiesced in the existing representation pattern, as
Intervenor would have the Board conclude. While the
Intervenor has made many efforts to represent ma-
chinist interests-perhaps all that it could as a union
8 The production and maintenance unit at X-10 has been represented by
the Trades Council since 1946
UNION CARBIDE CORP. 799
charged with representing a plantwide unit-we con-
clude that the machinists have in no sense lost their
identity as a separate craft group. These machinists,
in spite of their many efforts, have never had a prior
opportunity to vote on the question of separate repre-
sentation . We are convinced that it is time that they
did.
We now consider the remaining Mallinckrodt criter-
ia, which involve the pattern of bargaining with this
employer and the pattern in the industry as a whole.
The concern of the Employer's Nuclear Division, of
which this K-25 gaseous diffusion plant is a part, is
now primarily nuclear power for industry, performed
under contract with the Atomic Energy Commission.
Essentially this is a chemical function and we consider
this plant to be a part of the chemical industry.
Though in 1949 only 86 percent of the bargaining
units in the chemical industry had plantwide units, in
1964 the percentage had risen to 93 percent. There can
be no doubt on this record that the industry pattern
of bargaining is predominantly on a plantwide unit
basis. If atomic energy is considered a separate indus-
try, the same pattern is predominant.9 Nevertheless,
instances of craft units exist in these industries, some
established pursuant to Board elections.10 In Mal-
linckrodt the Board specifically disavowed the policy
9 See Dow Chemical Company, Rocky Flats Division, 202 NLRB No 6
10 Two 1966 cases involved West Virginia plants of this Employer Both
were initial organization and pre -Mallinckrodt, 162 NLRB 387 See Union
Carbide Corporation Chemicals Division , 156 NLRB 634, Union Carbide Cor-
poration Olefins Division , 166 NLRB 441 (a consolidated CA and RC case)
In Monsanto Research Corporation, 185 NLRB 137, the machinists, who were
salaried and unrepresented , were given a machine shop unit Modelmakers
were included Four years before the petition machine shop employees had
elected a committee to process grievances , which committee was apparently
responsible for the creation of the modelmaker classification See also Mason
& Hanger-Silas Mason, In 4, above, a severance case
of arbitrarily denying severance in certain favored
industries, and the avowed purpose of the Board is no
longer to exempt any industry as such from craft un-
its. That purpose, of course, can be thwarted if the
Board slavishly follows the predominant bargaining
pattern in an industry regardless of the record facts
supporting severance in individual applications. We
think such facts are present here.
With respect to this Employer, as distinguished
from industry patterns, the predominant bargaining is
again plantwide and it may be said that at K-25 this
has meant a "relatively peaceful history of bargain-
ing." It appears that this has involved intervention by
Federal mediators on several occasions, including two
strikes. However, supervisory personnel kept the plant
operating, including repairs, during those strikes. The
X- 10 and Y- 12 facilities at Oak Ridge have had five
strikes, occurring at each at the same time, and the
most recent, in 1970, lasting 68 days. At one of the two
other gaseous diffusion plants in the country-at Pa-
ducah, Kentucky, also operated by this Employer-
three strikes have occurred with one lasting 37 days
and the plant continuing to operate. We conclude that
strike action has not interfered unduly with contin-
uous production at this Employer's gaseous diffusion
plants and that its current practice at K-25 of con-
tracting out some of its machinist work would tend to
alleviate possible maintenance problems during a
strike.
We would, on this record, direct an election. While
26 years of bargaining history is a factor to be consid-
ered, it should not outweigh the persistent effort of
this craft group to maintain its separate identity and
at long last achieve an opportunity to vote on separate
representation. Applied objectively, Mallinckrodt sup-
ports that result.