York Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 12, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 191 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

YORK CORPORATION 191
4. The parties agree, and we find that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at the
Employer's East St. Louis, Illinois, plant, excluding office clericals,
electricians and electricians' helpers, machinists and their appren-
tices, professional employees, licensed engineers, firemen, utility men
in the power department, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
York Corporation and International Molders and Foundry Work-
ers Union of North America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No.
4-RC-3017. July 1 2, 1956
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 Ramey Donovan, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. A, question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (l)and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of foundry employees from
a unit of production and maintenance employees which has been rep-
resented by the Intervenor for a number of years. The Employer
and the Intervenor contend that the unit is inappropriate and that
only a unit of production and maintenance employees is appropriate.
The Employer is engaged at York and Grantley, Pennsylvania, in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of refrigeration and air-con-
ditioning equipment and supplies. It carries on its operations in
two plants known as the West York and Grantley plants-both being
' Ice Machinery Independent Employees Association was permitted to intervene on the
basis of its contractual interests.
116 NLRB No. 22.
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within the boundaries of York County and about a mile of each other.
The Employer's foundry operations are carried on in a separate build -,
ing which is part of the Grantley plant. The foundry is one of 28
departments into which the Employer's operations are divided.
Manufacturing operations are integrated in the sense that a majority
of the castings made in the foundry are subsequently further processed
in its ,own plants. However, the record shows that about 40 percent
of all the foundry's castings are made for outside concerns. Although
under West York production control, foundry operations are sepa-
rately supervised. At the time of the hearing the foundry had a com-
plement of 234 employees distributed among a variety of job classifica-
tions, from the skilled molders and coremakers to the common laborers,
and it is evident from the Employer's description of the foundry proc-
esses and work tasks that these employees are' exclusively engaged in
the making of customary grey iron foundry castings.
Upon the basis of the evidence in the record, particularly in view
of the separate supervision, location, and identification of this depart-
ment as the only place where work of the usual foundry type is per-
formed, it is clear that the foundry is a functionally distinct and sepa-
rate department whose employees are identified with a traditional
trade and occupation distinct from that of other employees.2 For
that reason, the foundry employees as a group have a special interest
in collective bargaining.' The Employer and Intervenor contend,
however, that a unit of foundry employees is inappropriate because
of the extent of interchange of employees between the foundry and'-
other departments, and for the reason that employees who are part
of'the plants'-general maintenance department perform a substantial
amount of maintenance work in the foundry. In this connection,
evidence submitted by the Employer shows that over a period of 7
years there has been a total of 648 employees transferred into and 740
employees transferred out of the foundry. These figures represent no
more than the transfer, on the average, into and out of the foundry,
of fewer than 4 employees each week among an average complement
of 207 employees employed in the foundry. We do not regard this
as a significant amount of interchange as such, but even were it to be
so considered, it is clear from the record that these transfers are not
usually made except in layoff situations and, when made, are usually
of a permanent nature. In such circumstances, we do not consider
them to be the type of interchange which, because of the frequency and
temporary character thereof, destroys the functional identity of the
unit.4 Nor do we find that the maintenance work performed in the
2 Compare J. I. Case Company, 112 NLRB 796; Solar Aircraft Company, 107 NLRB 150.
8 The Schaible Company, 108 NLRB 2.
4International Harvester Company, 91 NLRB 487, 495. See also North American
Aviation , Inc., 115 NLRB 1090. Compare General Electric Company, 112 NLRB 839,
839-840.
YORK CORPORATION 193
foundry by the general plant maintenance employees amounts to in-
terchange. It is clear that, even though the general plant mainte-
nance employees may perform a substantial amount of maintenance
work in the foundry, they are not on regular assignment in the foundry
and remain under their own separate supervision.5
In the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the employees
sought by the Petitioner constitute a functionally distinct and separate
group of foundry employees of the type to which the Board customarily
accords separate representation. As the Petitioner is an international
union which traditionally has represented separate units of foundry
employees,' the requirements laid down in the American Potash case 7
for the severance of such units have been met .8
Accordingly, we find that all foundry department employees
regularly employed at the Employer's Grantley, Pennsylvania, plant,
excluding all other production and maintenance employees, office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act may constitute, if they so desire, a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
We shall, however, make no final determination at this time but shall
first ascertain the desire of these employees as expressed in the election
directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, 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 representatives to the Petitioner
for the voting group described above, which the Board, under the cir-
cumstances, finds to be an appropriate unit for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. In the event a majority do not vote for the Peti-
tioner, these employees shall remain a part of the existing unit and the
Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such
effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
5 See International Harvester Company, 85 NLRB 1310, 1313; Copper-Clad Malleable
Range Company , 77 NLRB 250, 252; North American Aviation, Inc., supra ; Hawley &
Hoops, Inc, 115 NLRB 1276.
6 The Schaible company, supra.
7 American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418.
8In view of our determination herein we find it unnecessary to pass on the merits of
the Petitioner's alternative unit requests, or upon the Employer's and Intervenor's con-
tentions in opposition thereto
e The Employer concedes that a unit of foundry employees would include all those
listed on its exhibit as employed in the foundry
405448-57-vol 116-14