United States Pipe and Foundry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 17, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 202 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The Employers and the Petitioner were in agreement as
to the appropriate units, while the Intervenortookno position."
Accordingly, we find that the following groups of employees
constitute units appropriate for collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(1) All employees of Hilo Iron Works at its Hilo, Hawaii, plant,
excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, working foremen, and all other supervisors as defined
in the Act.
(2) All employees of American Factors, Ltd. (Hilo Branch)
employed in its warehouse, lumberyard, carpenter shop, and
lumber mill at Hilo, Hawaii, including truckdrivers and Ross
carrier operators, but excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(3) All employees of American Factors, Ltd. (Kona Branch)
employed in its warehouse, lumberyard, carpenter shop, and
coffee mill at Kona, Kailua District, Hawaii, excluding office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(4) All employees in the trucking department of Hilo Trans-
portation & Terminal Co., Ltd., at Hilo, Hawaii, excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
11 At the hearing , the Petitioner was permitted to amend its unit request in Case No. 37-RC-
166 to exclude two working foremen as supervisors . As these individuals appear to have the
power to discharge and discipline employees , we shall exclude them.
It appears that the proposed units are the same as those covered in the Intervenor's con-
tracts with the Employers.
UNITED STATES PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY and IN-
TERNATIONAL MOLDERS & FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION
bF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC-
682. April 17, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
On March 13, 1946, United Steelworkers of America, CIO,
hereinafter referred to as the Steelworkers, was certified' as
representative for a unit of all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Chattanooga, Tennessee, plant,
including pattern-shop helpers, pattern storage men, laborers,
and carpenters who work under the supervision of the pattern-
shop foreman. International Molders and Foundry Workers,
hereinafter referred to as the Molders, was certified as repre-
1 After an election held pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election in Case
No. 10-RC-1593. 65 NLRB 979. It was again certified as representative for the same unit
after a consent election in 1947, in Case No. 10-RC-2530.
104 NLRB No. 13.
UNITED STATES PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY 203
sentative of all molders, molders' apprentices, coremakers,
and coremaker apprentices at the Employer's Chattanooga,
Tennessee, plant on December 9, 1949, following an election
held pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election
in Case No. 10-RC-682.2 On January 14, 1953, the Board
received an undated document entitled "Motion to Interpret
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives in
Case No. 10-RC-682," filed by the Molders, requesting that the
Board include employees performing plastic molding at the
Employer's Chattanooga plant in the Molders' unit. On January
16, 1953, the Employer filed its "Motion to Interpret Supple-
mental Decision and Certification of Representatives in Case
No. 10-RC-682," requesting the Board to include such em-
ployees in the production and maintenance unit, represented by
the Steelworkers. The Board having considered the issues
raised by the respective motions, and finding that a conflict as
to material facts existed, on February 3, 1953, ordered the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region to hold a hearing.
On February 25, 1953, pursuant to said order, a hearing was
held in this matter before Gilbert Cohen, hearing officer. The
Employer and the Molders appeared and participated. The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the basis of the evidence adduced at said hearing and
on the entire record in the case, the Board3 makes the follow-
ing supplemental findings:
In February 1952, the Employer set up two new job classifi-
cations known as plastic-mold operator numbers 1 and 2. Only
the position of plastic-mold operator No. 1 has been filled and
that only for a total of 5 weeks during the period from February
1952 to July 1952.4 The operator's duties consist of mixing
materials according to a given formula, pouring the resultant
mix into a permanent pattern, inserting the pattern into a press
and operating the press to force the air from the mix, with-
drawing the pattern and placing it into an electric oven,
cooling the pattern in water, and chipping the fins from the
finished product. The resulting product is then used by the
coremakers. It takes approximately 2 days to train an em-
ployee to become an efficient plastic-mold operator. He works
under the supervision of the pattern-shop foreman, who also
supervises employees in the production and maintenance unit.
The plastic-mold operator performs his work in cleaning
shed No. 5, to which the construction maintenance men also
report for assignment. The employees inthe molders unit work
in another building.
287 NLRB 115.
3Pursuant 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 [Members Houston, Murdock , and Styles].
4As it appears on the record that the Employer intends to utilize the services of the plastic-
mold operator whenever market conditions require , we will make a determination as to its
proper unit placement . Charlotte Barth Howell & Van Schaack& Co., 95 NLRB 1028. footnote 3.
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing and the record as a whole it is apparent
that the plastic-mold operator does not possess the skills
usually associated with a craft employee. Nor does he have
such a community of interest with molders and coremakers as to
warrant his inclusion in the molders unit. On the contrary his
interests are more closely allied with those of the production
and maintenance employees. Therefore we find that the plastic-
mold operator is appropriately included in the production and
maintenance unit represented by the United Steelworkers of
America, CIO.5
sAlthough the Steelworkers did not appear at the reopened hearing, it did intervene in the
original hearing in this case . Furthermore the Employer testified that it had signed a contract
with the Steelworkers on October 31, 1952, covering plastic-mold operators, thus it is apparent
that the Steelworkers is willing to represent this classification as part of its unit.
STAINLESS WELDED PRODUCTS, INC. and LOCAL 274,
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPREN-
TICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY,
AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-5019. April 17, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by
the Board in the above-entitled proceeding on November 3,
1952, an election by secret ballot was conducted on November
24, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Second Region, among the employees of the
Employer in the unit found to be appropriate. At the close of
the election a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The
tally shows that 67 ballots were cast, of which 27 were for the
Petitioner, 24 were against the Petitioner, and 16 were
challenged. No objections to the conduct of the election were
filed by either of the parties.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect
the results of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to
the Board's Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation
and, on February 26, 1953, issued and Ferved upon the parties
his report on challenges. In his report, the Regional Director
recommended that challenges to the ballots of Genino (Jerry)
Agresti, Robert Masalski, Aroy Williams, Albert Johnson,
Frank Greb, Ennio Dellavia, and Louis Ricco be sustained,
and that the challenges to the ballots of Frank Cavalier, Frank
Morgan, Louis Zawada, Bernard Bentsen, Xavier Boguslawski,
John Impomeni, John Kelly, Valgene Lloyd, and Elwood Rennie
be overruled and that these ballots be opened and counted. The
Petitioner duly filed exceptions to the Regional Director's
recommendations with respect to the ballots cast by the individ-
uals considered below.'
1 As no exceptions have been filed to the Regional Director 's recommendations with respect
to the ballots cast by Aroy Williams, Albert Johnson, Frank Greb , Ennio Dellavia , and Louis
Ricco, we shall adopt these recommendations and sustain the challenges.
104 NLRB No. 18.