Utility Appliance Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 398 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of representatives to the appropriate labor organization for
each such unit. If a majority of the employees in all or any of
the voting groups vote for the Smelter Workers, the Board finds
that such employees in the group or groups so voting to be ap-
propriately represented in the existing residual productionand
maintenance unit, in that event, and the Regional Director shall
issue a certification of results of elections to that effect.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication]
UTILITY APPLIANCE CORP. and UNITED STEELWORKERS
OF AMERICA, C.I.O., Petitioner
UTILITY APPLIANCE CORP. and INTERNATIONAL ASSO-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT 94, Petitioner. Cases
Nos. 21-RC-3089 and 21 -RC-3141. July 24, 1953
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held
before Max Steinfeld and Fred W. Davis, hearing officers. The
hearing officers' rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board t finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations named herein claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.2
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of heating,
ventilating, air conditioning, and similar appliances at its
Los Angeles, California, plant. Since 1940 it has bargained
jointly with the Sheet Metal Workers, the Machinists, and the
Teamsters for the production and maintenance employees at
the plant. Its most recent contract which expired June 30,
1953, provides:'
I 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Peterson].
2 The Petitioner in Case No. 21-RC-3089 is referred to herein as the Steelworkers. The
Petitioner in Case No. 21-RC- 3141 is referred to herein as the Machinists The Intervenors,
Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 371, AFL, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 598, AFL, and International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, are referred to herein respectively as
the Sheet Metal Workers, the Teamsters, and the IUE. The motions of the Teamsters and the
IUE to withdraw from the proceeding are hereby granted.
3This was the only contract introduced in evidence at the hearing.
106 NLRB No. 68.
UTILITY APPLIANCE CORP. 399
ARTICLE I. COVERAGE
THIS AGREEMENT establishes by mutual consent of all
parties specific rules and regulations to govern employ-
ment wage scales and working conditions of company em-
ployees engaged in the production of heating, ventilating,
and air conditioning equipment and similar appliances,
whose jobs are listed in the schedule of rates attached
hereto only. Each of the Unions severally agree that it
has and claims jurisdiction only over such of the Em-
ployer's employees as hold and may hold those job classi-
fications respectively set forth in Schedule A attached
hereto, and that the Employer shall at no time become
involved in any jurisdictional dispute either between or
among the Unions which are parties hereto or between
any of them and any other Union or Unions, and no em-
ployee of the Employer shall be required to terminate his
employment by reason of any such jurisdictional dispute.
Each Union respectively is hereby recognized as the sole
collective bargaining agency for the employees holding job
classifications as set forth upon such Schedule A attached
hereto.
Schedule A of the contract divides the jurisdiction of the three
contracting Unions as follows:
Sheet Metal
Workers Machinists Teamsters
Assembler Carpenter Combination Fork
Combination Drill Press Op- Lift Operator
Welder erator Crater
Dynamic Balancer Elevator Operator Ford Truck Op-
Model Maker Jig and Fixture erator
Painte r Builder Janitor
Painter's Helper Journeyman Ma- Laborer
Power Brake Op- chinis t Lift Truck Operator
e rator Maintenance Elec- Material Handler
Power Shear Op- trician Receiving Clerk
e rator Maintenance Shipping Clerk
Punch Press Op- Mechanic Stock Clerk
erator Milling Machine Tool Crib Attendant
Salvage Mechanic Operator Truckdriver
Spot Welder Oiler Warehousemen
Production Ma-
chinist
Tool and Die Maker
Turret Lathe Op-
erator
The Steelworkers and the Sheet Metal Workers contend that
the Board should direct self-determination elections for the
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
three groups of employees designated in the contract. The
Machinists and the Employer, however, contend that only a
plantwide production and maintenance unit is appropriate. We
agree with the latter contention.
Although the contract provides that each union is recognized
as the sole bargaining agent for the employees holding jobs
within its jurisdiction, the substantive terms of the contract,
except for wage rates, are identical for all employees. Further,
it appears from the record that the division of jurisdiction
between the contracting unions does not follow any recognized
craft or departmental line. Thus, in some instances employees
in job classifications allocated to each of the 3 Unions work in
1 department under common supervision. Indeed, on the present
record none of the 3 groups can be distinguished or readily
identified by reason of any special skills, duties, functional
independence, separate supervision, separate work locations,
separate manner of pay, or general working conditions. In
these circumstances past bargaining history, which is based
in large measure upon a jurisdictional agreement between the
contracting parties, cannot justify a Board determination that
the existing bargaining units are appropriate for collective
bargaining.4 We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition of the
Steelworkers in Case No. 21-RC-3089.5
On the other hand, the integrated nature of the Employer's
operation and the close community of interest of the employees
involved compel us to find that all of the production and
maintenance employees employed in the Employer's Los
Angeles plant, excluding all office clerical employees, watch-
men, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Falstaff Brewing Corporation, Griesedieck Brothers Brewery
Company, Griesedieck-Western Brewing Company (Hyde Park Plant), 103 NLRB 1205. We do
not, of course, hereby determine that no unit less than plantwide can be appropriate. We are
not here called upon the determine whether a craft or appropriate departmental grouping
may constitute a separate unit.
5 As the Steelworkers has intervened in Case No. 21-RC- 3141 we shall accord it a place on
the ballot in the election herein directed for the overall production and maintenance unit.