Worthington Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 1661 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

WORTHINGTON CORPORATION 1661
WORTHINGTON CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL Asso-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL LODGE No. 603, OF OIL CITY, PA., OF
DISTRICT LODGE 83, AFL.' Cases Nos. 6-RC-1196, 6-BC-1198, and
6-RC-1199. April 7, 1953
Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
W. G. Stuart Sherman, hearing officer. 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
Styles and Peterson].
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 labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor and the Employer contend that their contract of
November 9, 1952, covering all production and maintenance employees
at the Employer's plant in Oil City, Pennsylvania, including those
sought by the Petitioner, is a bar to the petition.2 The Petitioner con-
tends that this contract is a premature extension of a prior contract
between the parties and hence is not a bar.
On February 12, 1951, the Eijlployer and the Intervenor executed a
contract, to terminate on February 15, 1953, which contained a 60-day
automatic renewal clause and a provision for wage reopening during
the contract term. Before December 15, 1951, the Intervenor notified
the Employer that it wished to negotiate new wage provisions. Nego-
tiations lasted until November 9, 1952, when the present contract was
' The International Moulders and Foundry Workers Union, Local No . 148, AFL, ap-
peared at the hearing for the purpose of protecting its interest as bargaining representa-
tive of the foundry employees at the Employer 's plant , not involved in the instant pro-
ceeding. However, it did not intervene.
' The Employer , in addition , contends that the petitions should be dismissed because the
employees in the proposed units helped negotiate and ratified the existing contract, and
are therefore estopped to challenge the effectiveness of this contract as a bar. We find no
merit in this contention. The premature extension rule, involved in the instant proceed-
ing, rests on the proposition that the parties to a collective-bargaining agreement cannot
forestall a change of representatives beyond a reasonable term. Gimbel Brothers, Inc., 87
NLRB 449. The hearing officer overruled an offer of proof that the employees helped nego-
tiate and ratified the contract . In view of the foregoing, we find the hearing officer's rul-
ing was correct.
103 NLRB No. 148.
1662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
executed, providing for new wage rates and extending the prior con-
tract until June 1, 1954. The three instant petitions were filed on
December 10, 1952.
It is clear that the new contract is a premature extension of the prior
contract. As the instant petitions were filed before the automatic re-
newal date of the old contract, neither contract may operate as a bar
to the petitions.3 We find, therefore, that a question affecting com-
merce exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the
Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks three separate craft units at the Employ-
er's plant. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that only a
production and maintenance unit is appropriate because the em-
ployees sought lack the requisite craft skills to be granted severance
and also because of the integration of the alleged craft functions with
the production processes at the Employer's plant .4 We shall now
consider the appropriateness of the units proposed by the Petitioner.
Maintenance Electricians (Case No. 6-RC-1196)
The Petitioner requests a unit composed of all electricians and
electrician learners and helpers at the Oil City plant, where the Em-
ployer manufactures pumps and compressors. The electricians are
in the plant engineering and plant maintenance division, 1 of the 4
divisions at the plant. They are separately supervised by the elec-
trical foreman, who has an office in the electrical shop where they
report to work in the morning. Over 90 percent of the electricians'
time is spent on electrical maintenance or repair work; production
work accounts for the remainder of their times Their duties require
them to work at different places through the plant.
Although there is no apprenticeship program for electricians at
the plant, an informal training program exists. The more skilled
electricians teach those less skilled than themselves, class A elec-
tricians being considered the most skilled. As the electricians be-
come more proficient in their craft, they are promoted from learner
to class C and so on up. The Employer requires a minimum of 2
years' electrical experience before it classifies an employee as a class
3 Sprague Electric Co., 98 NLRB 533.
4 The Employer further contends that only a production and maintenance unit is appro-
priate because of the long history of collective bargaining on this basis. It Is the Board's
policy to grant self-determination elections to craft groups wherever appropriate, even
though there has been a history of collective bargaining on a broader basis. Ford Motor
Co., 96 NLRB 1075.
5 The Employer contends that the electricians spend about 45 percent of their time work-
ing in close conjunction with the millwrights on crane repairing The record fails to
substantiate this contention . Furthermore , this factor alone is not sufficient to deny a
self-determination election for the electricians.
WORTHINGTON. CORPORATION 1663
C electrician, and 3 years' minimum experience to be classified as a
class B or class A electrician. Several of the electricians have had
at least 5 years' experience in their craft. The electricians use the
usual tools of their craft, most of which they furnish themselves.
They have their own seniority provisions; they also receive straight-
time hourly wages, while the production employees receive an in-
centive rate of pay.
In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, we find that
the electricians constitute a distinct craft group and may appropri-
ately be in a separate unit if they so desire.6
Electrical Crane Repairmen (Case No. 6-RC-1198)
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all electrical crane repairmen. The
Employer and the Intervenor contend that the employees sought by
the Petitioner are in reality millwrights and are so classified by the
Employer, and that as there are other millwrights in the plant, these
employees are but a segment of a craft group. The three electrical
crane repairmen are, in fact, classified as millwrights, class A and
class B, and the third is classified as a millwright learner. We find
that the three electrical crane repairmen spend most of their time in
repairing cranes and small hoists. They also repair elevators and
other equipment. Most of their repair work on cranes is electrical in
nature.? The crane repairmen are supervised by the foreman of the
maintenance department, who also supervises other millwrights as
well as other employees. However, they generally do not receive
instructions from the foreman, but one of their number, the class A
millwright, who acts as group leader, determines, on his own initia-
tive, the work to be done by himself and the other two crane repair-
men. The crane repairmen have the same terms and conditions of
employment as the other millwrights, including wages, hours, vaca-
tion benefits, and separate seniority. They are aided at times by the
latter in the mechanical, but not electrical, repair of cranes, as the
other millwrights are not qualified to do this type of electrical repair.
When there is no repair work to be done on the cranes, the repairmen
are assigned to general millwright work by the maintenance foreman.
The group leader of the crane repairmen has been so employed for
about 2 years and is capable of handling the routine electrical repair
duties on cranes. The second repairman, classified as a class B mill-
wright, was first transferred to his present position 4 weeks before the
instant hearing. The third crane repairman, who is classified as a
Schwein Engineering Company, 101 , NLRB 662.
'+ The evidence was contradictory as to how much of their work was electrical in nature,
the estimates running from 50 to 90 percent.
1664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
millwright learner, had been employed at his present job for only
about 5 months at the time of the hearing.
In view of the foregoing, and on the basis of the entire record, we
find that the proposed unit of electrical crane repairmen is inappro-
priate as it comprises only a segment of a craft group .8 Accordingly,
we shall dismiss the petition.
Powerhouse Employees (Case No. 6-RC-1199)
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all powerhouse engineers and firemen
in the powerhouse at the Oil City plant. The powerhouse is located
in a separate section of the plant, apart from other departments. The
employees in the powerhouse are supervised by the plant engineer,
who supervises all plant maintenance and repair employees. A
knowledge of electricity, boilers, and such engines as rotary converters,
air compressors, and gas and steam engines is necessary in order to
be qualified as a powerhouse engineer. Firemen working in the
powerhouse often require 2 to 3 years' training before they are ca-
pable of assuming the duties of engineers. Employees in the power-
house have little contact with other plant employees. As it appears
that these employees form a distinct homogeneous group of a type
traditionally granted separate representation, we find that these em-
ployees may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit .9
Accordingly, we shall direct that separate elections be held among
the following voting groups at the Employer's Oil City, Pennsylvania,
plant, excluding from each group all other employees and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
1. All electricians, classes A, B, and C, and electrician learners and
helpers.
2. All powerhouse engineers, the chief engineer,10 firemen, and relief
firemen.
If a majority of the employees in either of the voting groups vote
for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
be represented in a separate unit, and the Regional Director conduct-
ing the elections directed herein is instructed, in that event, to issue a
certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which
the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining. If, however, a majority of the em-
ployees in either of t^e voting groups vote for the Intervenor, they
8 See Permanente Metals Corporation , 82 NLRB 692.
See Worthington Pump and Machinery Corporation , 93 NLRB 527 , where the Board
granted a self-determination election to a unit of powerhouse employees at another plant
of the Employer.
10 The parties stipulated that the chief engineer employed in the powerhouse is not a
supervisor. As the record shows that this employee does not have any of the attributes
of a supervisor within the meaning of the Act , we shall include him in the voting group.
KITTY CLOVER, INC. 1665
will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain part of the
existing production and maintenance unit, and the Regional Director
is instructed to issue a certificate of results of election to such effect.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 6-RC-1198
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
KITTY CLOVER, INC. and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO. Cases Nos. 17-CA-4 1,17-CA-4 °, 17-CA-447, and 17-CA-
455. April 8,1953
Decision and Order
On September 30, 1952, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, a supporting brief, and request
for oral argument. Inasmuch as the record, in our opinion, ade-
quately reflects the issues and the position of the parties, the request
is hereby denied.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and
modifications.
3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended , the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
2In finding that the discriminatory enforcement of plant rules after June 1, 1951,
Superintendent McFadden's surveillance of the union meeting about June 14 1951( and
Nykiel's statements to Bell, Marasco, and Koesters ( see footnote 12 of the Intermediate
Report) were unlawful, the Trial Examiner inadvertently omitted to find that by such
conduct the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. We so find.
The Trial Examiner also omitted to find that the Respondent's discriminatory suspen-
sion of Bell on June 19, 1951, and its discriminatory discharges of Moore and Gamerl on
June 4, 1951, and of Gains on July 17, 1951, violated Section 8' (a) (3), and (1) of the
Act. We so find.
103 NLRB No. 127.