Aerovox Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1101 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

AEROVOX CORPORATION 1101
formance of their duties, there is no interchange between the groups
of employees.
We find without merit the Intervenors' contention that the single
craft, multieiiiployer unit represented by the Petitioner is inappropri-
ate for purposes of collective bargaining." Accordingly, we find that
all phutlbers, steaiil fitters, and their apprentices employed by the mem-
bers of the I'liuilbiug and Heating Contractors Association of Olean,
New York, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act.
5. Stability of employment:
During the period front January 1, 1950, through November 30,
1950, nearly three-quarters of the employees in the appropriate unit
worked in that unit during more than 50 percent of the number of
weeks in the said period. During the same period, indeed, more than
three-fifths of the employees in the unit worked in the unit during
more than 80 percent of the number of weeks in the period. In addi-
tion, of the employees who, in May 1948, constituted the Petiitoner's
showing of interest, nearly three-quarters were still employed in the
unit in November 1950. On these facts, we find that employment in
the unit is siiflictently stable to permit an election to be held therein.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
The Plumbinq CantiaeIoiti As oeiation of Batt,niuie, Maryland, Inc , et at, supra.
AEROVOX CORI'oll l'1'ION Mill INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRI-
cAL Wouitia S, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-1809. March 80,
1951
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 Sidney A. Coven, hearing
officer. The bearing ollicr'r's rulings made at the hearing are free
front prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pnrstitutt to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its provers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman IieIzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1
I During the peaden< r of the proceedings in this case, Intervenor, International Union
of Electi teal, Radio and Machine Workers of America, CIO, filed a petition in Case
No 1 -R('-2079 in wi hu h it i equested the unit it contends is appropriate in this case it
subsequenth filed a motion to con5uhd.ito the petition in Case No 1-RC-2079 with the
93 NLRP, No 102
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees 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) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all maintenance employees of the
Employer at its New Bedford, Massachusetts, plant, including ma-
chinists and helpers, carpenters and helpers, electricians and helpers,
pipe fitters and helpers, porters, janitors, laborers, welders, mill-
wrights, tool crib attendants, tinsmiths and helpers, maintenance de-
partment general helpers, firemen and oilers, pump room men,
generator men, rack repairmen, and painters, but excluding produc-
tion employees, shipping room employees, receiving department
employees, office and clerical employees, guards, watchmen, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Em-
ployer and the Intervenor, International Union of Electrical, Radio-
and Machine Workers of America, CIO, herein referred to as the IUE,
oppose the unit requested, 'contending that only a plant-wide unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employees, including
the shipping and receiving employees, is appropriate. The IUE is at
present engaged in a campaign to organize the employees in the unit
it asserts is appropriate. The Intervenor, United Electrical, Radio,
and Machine Workers of America, herein referred to as the UE, takes
no position as to the appropriate unit.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of capacitors, a type
of condenser used in the manufacture of radio and electronic equip-
ment. There are approximately 87 employees in the unit requested by
the Petitioner and approximately 2,900 employees in the unit which
the Employer and the IUE urge as appropriate.
The Employer's physical operations consist of 1 three-story build-
ing divided into a number of departments, including, among others,
a maintenance department. Approximately 59 of the 87 maintenance
employees in the unit the Petitioner seeks are regularly stationed in
the maintenance department, and the remaining 28 are stationed at
workbenches located at strategic points throughout the plant to be
readily available in case of breakdowns. The maintenance employees
stationed in the maintenance department go to and work in the pro-
duction departments when their services are needed, but in general
they receive their orders from maintenance foremen. Some of the
petition in this case and to reopen the record in this case . However , in view of the-
fact that the issues in this case have been fully presented and considered , and because
none of the parties will be adversely affected by a separate consideration of the two
petitions , we find it unnecessary to consider the petitions jointly. We therefore den3r
the motion.
AEROVOX CORPORATION 1103,
maintenance foremen report, in turn, to the plant engineer, a general
maintenance supervisor, who is responsible to the master mechanic.
Other maintenance foremen report directly to the inaster mechanic.
.who, in addition to bearing certain production responsibilities, is ulti-
mately responsible for all plant maintenance. When the maintenance-.
employees who are stationed in the maintenance department are sent.
into the production departments they, at times, work together with-
production employees and receive orders from the production super-
visors. The maintenance employees who are stationed in the produc-
tion departments receive general supervision from the production
supervisors, although they too are ultimately responsible to the master-
inechanic.
Although all employees of the Employer are paid on an hourly basis,.
the more skilled craft maintenance employees receive a higher hourly-
wage than the other employees whose rates, in general, are the same.,
The Employer maintains a system of modified plant-wide seniority,
based on the employees' abilities to do various jobs. However, be--
cause of the difference in skills, maintenance employees are not usually-
recalled to production jobs.2 There is little interchange between pro--
duction and maintenance workers, although on occasion, production-
employees possessing the requisite skills have been transferred to main-
tenance work. In other respects the Employer has followed the same-
employment practices with respect to both production and mainte-
nance workers. All employees receive the same benefits such as in-
surance, vacations, and paid holidays. All employees receive a
production bonus. The maintenance employees stationed in the pro-
duction departments receive the same bonus as the production
employees in their respective departments, and the maintenance em--
ployees stationed in the maintenance department receive a bonus based-
on the average of that received by all the production departments.,
All employees use the same toilet and locker facilities.
In view of the foregoing facts it appears that the Employer's opera -
tions are not so integrated as to destroy the separate identity of the
maintenance employees, essentially a multicraft group with interests
distinguishable from those of the production employees. Therefore,
in accordance with the Board's established policy of granting separate
representation to such a maintenance department, in the absence of
any bargaining history on a broader basis,' we find that the mainte--
2 Although some of the production workers are engaged in work which is apparently ,
of a type related to that performed by some of the maintenance workers , for example,
there are production welders as well as maintenance welders, it does not appear that
any of the production workers are exercising the traditional skills of any of the,
maintenance crafts in the Petitioner 's proposed unit.
3 The Employer 's history of discussing the working conditions of its employees with,
a plant committee composed of representatives of both production and maintenance-
employees is not the type of bargaining history which the Board will consider controlling.
The committee apparently did not bargain with the Employer but acted merely in an.
advisory capacity . No contract was ever executed between the parties.
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nance employees constitute an appropriate unit, apart from other
-employees.4
Accordingly, we find that all maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's New Bedford, Massachusetts, plant, including machinists and
helpers, carpenters and helpers, electricians and helpers, pipe fitters
and helpers, welders, millwrights, tinsmiths and helpers, firemen and
oilers, pump room men, generator men, rack repairmen, painters,
porters, janitors, laborers, tool crib attendants, and maintenance de-
partment general helpers, but excluding production employees,
-shipping room employees, receiving department employees, office hnd
-clerical employees, guards, watchmen, 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.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
-Vol-Lime.]
4 Cf. Armstrong Cork Company, 80 NLRB 1328; Jefferson Chemical Company, 81 NLRB
1393, W F Schrafft & Sons Corporation, 86 NLRB 77, E I. DuPont de Nemoure
& Company, 88 NLRB 941
WILLIAM PENN BROADCASTING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL. Case No. /.-CA354. Api'il
-211951
Decision and Order
On August 21, 1950, Trial Examiner Hamilton Gardner issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
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 In-
terinediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed
sexceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
-that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby af-
firmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Re-
.spondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
adopts the findings of fact of the Trial Examiner as modified below:
We do not, however, adopt his conclusions.
I American Communications Association, herein called the ACA, as a party to a contract
with the Respondent, was duly served with a copy of the complaint which specifically
raised such contract in issue However, the ACA failed to enter an appearance at the
-hearing After the issuance of the Intermediate Report, the ACA filed with the Board
"Motion to Intervene and For Other Relief" together with a proposed bill of exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. In view of our disposition of the
case herein,-we find it unnecessary to pass upon this motion.
93 NLRB No. 201.