Campbell Soup Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 475 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY 475
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY and DISTRICT #1, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 4-RC-22393,
2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 0038, 2239, 2240, and 2241. July 27,
1954
Decision , Order, and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held
in the above cases before Julius Topol, a hearing officer. The hear-
ing 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 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 to sever from the established bargaining
unit of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Camden, New Jersey, operation, 10 separate units of (1) machinists
and millwrights, (2) painters, (3) sheet-metal workers, (4) welders,
(5) scale repairmen, (6) pipefitters, (7) concrete finishers, (8) elec-
tricians, (9) carpenters, and (10) oilers, including in each group
helpers and apprentices. The Employer and Local 80-A, United
Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, Intervenor herein, contend
that the requested units are inappropriate and that the present plant-
wide production and maintenance unit is appropriate.
The Employer is engaged in the processing and canning of various
food products at its Camden operation. This operation is comprised
of two separate plants, a few blocks apart. Employees at both plants
are currently represented, for the most part, in a single production
and maintenance unit. The employees here sought are assigned to
the maintenance department and perform maintenance work at both
plants.
Machinists and Millwrights
The Petitioner requests a single unit of all machinists and mill-
wrights and their helpers, including the linemen. In the alternative,
the Petitioner would represent the machinists and the millwrights
' The Employer contends that the ruling of the hearing officer excluding testimony con-
cerning the effect of craft severance on the operation , production , and effective representa-
tion, at its Chicago, Illinois , plant, was erroneous and prejudicial . We agree with the
hearing officer 's ruling and we also deny the Employer' s request to reopen the bearing to
permit the introduction of such testimony . See American Potash & Chemical Corpora-
tion, 107 NLRB 1418.
109 NLRB No. 81.
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in two separate units, and would also represent adjusters in the ma-
chinists unit if the Board determined that adjusters were part of such
unit. The Employer does not maintain an apprenticeship program
for machinists or millwrights at its plant. It does, however, hire
experienced and skilled machinists and millwrights, as well as other
"craftsmen," and requires each one so hired to pass certain tests. In
addition, production employees, and others, are hired as helpers to
machinists or millwrights and do, after training and experience, be-
come machinists or millwrights.
The approximately 157 machinists and millwrights perform the
customary duties of their respective crafts in various machine shops
and other locations throughout the two plants.2 The machinists re-
pair, install, dismantle, and overhaul the numerous machines and
equipment in the plant, make necessary parts for such equipment,
make dies, work from blue prints, and operate such equipment as
lathes, drill presses, grinders, shapers, power Back saws, and milling
machines. It also appears that machinists are transferred from work
location to work location or are, on occasion, given other machinist
job assignments to increase their knowledge of all plant equipment.
The millwrights, in part, install new machinery and equipment, erect
and maintain conveyors and chutes, install pumps, transmission, and
conveyor belts, and move and maintain other types of machinery and
equipment in the plant. The millwrights are not as skilled in the use
of the lathe as the machinists, and depend upon the machinists to
make most of the necessary parts needed in the repair work. The
machinists and millwrights are supervised by the same general fore-
man in each respective work area, and are included together, by the
Employer, on one separate seniority list.
The Petitioner contends, and we agree, that the machinists and the
millwrights are craftsmen who regularly exercise their craft skills,
and comprise a traditional craft grouping.3 Moreover, the Petitioner
is a labor organization which historically and traditionally repre-
sents these craftsmen. Under these circumstances, we find that the
machinists and millwrights may constitute a separate appropriate
unit if they so desire.4
Approximately three linemen, who also appear on the same senior-
ity lists as the machinists and the millwrights, work under the fore-
man supervising machinists and millwrights. The duties of the
2 Although the Intervenor appears to contend that certain "power maintenance men"
perform work similar to that of the machinists and millwrights, it appears that they are
engaged primarily in repairing the pumps and high pressure boilers under regular power-
house supervision , and they do not perform such work normally done by the machinists
or millwrights.
8International Harvester Company, Foundry Division (Louisville Works), 95 NLRB
730; A. C. Spark Plug Division, General . Motors Corporation (Milwaukee Plant), 88
NLRB 1214.
4 American Potash & Chemical Corporation , supra.
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY 477
linemen are to fabricate and erect chutes in and around the can de-
partment and to install and repair various cables. This work is less
complicated than that performed by the skilled millwrights but some
linemen have advanced to the millwright classification. As linemen
appear to be in the direct line of progression in the millwright craft,
we shall include them in the unit of machinists and millwrights.
The adjusters, who are classified as production employees and who
are supervised by regular production supervisors, make minor adjust-
ments on certain production equipment to keep it functioning prop-
erly, and, on occasion, will make minor repairs. However, the record
does not show that the adjusters exercise any of the craft skills of
machinists, and adjusters are not in the direct line of progression in
the machinists craft. Accordingly, we will not include adjusters in
the unit of machinists and millwrights.
Scale Repairmen, Oilers, and Concrete Finishers
The Petitioner requests three separate units for scale repairmen,
oilers, and concrete finishers. The four scale repairmen, under the
supervision of the general carpenter foreman, grind and shape pivots
and bearings used in the Employer's scales, and otherwise repair and
keep in good order all such scales. The approximately 19 oilers, un-
der the supervision, for the most part, of the machinist and mill-
wright general foreman, oil and grease production machinery and
equipment. In addition, certain production employees also devote
part of their time to oiling production machines. The four concrete
finishers under the supervision of the general carpenter foreman re-
pair, refinish, and waterproof concrete floors, walls, columns, and
other concrete surfaces, construct concrete forms, pour concrete, lay
and point brick, and repair asphalt and corrugated roofs. In view of
the foregoing, and upon the entire record, we find that the scale re-
pairmen, oilers, and concrete finishers are not true craftsmen, and
do not constitute appropriate separate units by any of the Board's
standards. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petitions in Cases
Nos. 4-RC-2236, 4-RC-2238, and 4-RC-2241.
The Petitioner also requests six separate units for all painters,
sheet-metal workers, welders, pipefitters, electricians, and carpenters.
In the recent case of American Potash di Chemical Corporation;,
the Board stated that for severance purposes not only must a true
craft be sought, but, in addition, the union seeking to represent such
craft must be one which traditionally represents that craft. In es-
tablishing the requirement that a labor organization seeking to rep-
resent a specified craft must be one which has traditionally done so,
the Board noted in the Potash case-that "we are taking cognizance of
5 Supra.
478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the fact that there are unions which have devoted themselves to the
special problems of the various craft employees, thereby demonstrat-
ing that the interests of these craft employees are distinctive and
traditionally recognized." The foregoing observation, to which our
dissenting colleague subscribed, was not lightly made. Experience
garnered from dealing with requests for craft severance during the
many years of the Act's administration clearly revealed to us that
certain labor organizations historically and traditionally sought to
represent, and were certified as the bargaining representatives of,
certain types of craft groups. In the Potash case, the Board, joined
by our dissenting colleague, translated this experience into the pres-
ent rule which precludes a union from obtaining the severance of a
craft unit where such labor organization has not historically and tra-
ditionally represented such craft. Based upon this experience, we
are satisfied that the Petitioner in the instant case does not meet this
requirement of the Potash rule. Assuming, therefore, without decid-
ing, that the painters, sheet-metal workers, welders, pipfitters, elec-
tricians, and carpenters are craftsmen, we are convinced that the
Petitioner does not historically and traditionally represent these
crafts.6 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petitions in Cases Nos.
4-RC-2233, 4-RC-2234, 4-RC-2235, 4-RC-2237, 4-RC-2239, and
4-RC-2240.
Accordingly, we will direct that an election be held in the following
group of employees of the Employer at its Camden, New Jersey, op-
erations : All machinists, millwrights, linemen, and their helpers,
excluding all other employees, adjusters, guards, and supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit, which the Board
finds, under the circumstances, to be appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue
a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit. If
a majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indi-
cated their desire to remain a part of the existing appropriate plant-
wide unit and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certifi-
cation of results of election to that effect.
[The Board dismissed the petitions in Cases Nos. 4-RC-2236,
4-RC-2238, 4-RC-2241, 4-RC-2233, 4-RC-2234, 4-RC-2235, 4-RC-
2237,4-RC-2239, and 4-RC-2240.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 Accordingly , we hereby deny the Petitioner's request of March 24 , 1954, to reopen the
record to receive additional information tehding to show that the units here sought are
true craft groups which exercise genuine craft skills, the standards of departmental sever-
ance exist , and that it is a union which traditionally represents the crafts here sought.
GENERAL FURNITURE CORPORATION 479
MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting :
I cannot agree with my colleagues' denial of the Petitioner's mo-
tion to submit additional evidence to the Board which would, among
other things, tend to show that the Petitioner is a union which tradi-
tionally represents the crafts here sought.
The petitions in this proceeding were filed on December 4, 1953.
A hearing was held on January 12, 13, and 14, 1954. Briefs were
filed on February 4, 1954. Subsequent to the hearing and the filing of,
briefs, the Board, on March 1, 1954, issued its decision in American
Potash d Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418, in which it an-
nounced for the first time the traditional union test as a prerequisite
in craft severance cases. The motion in question was filed on March
24,1954.
It is crystal clear from the above chronological statement that when,
the hearing was held in January 1954, the Petitioner had no possible
way of knowing that the Board would at some future time promul-,
gate a new rule in cases of this kind. Under these circumstances, it
goes without saying that when the hearing was held the Petitioner
presented only such evidence as it deemed necessary in the light of
the Board policy that prevailed at that time. To now deny the Peti-
tioner the opportunity to adduce testimony for the purpose of meeting
the Board's new test-a test which did not come into existence until
some time later-is to penalize the Petitioner because it did not possess
the powers of divination at the earlier date. I regard this as most
unjust and inequitable.
My colleagues apparently are satisfied that they can decide that
the Petitioner failed to meet the newly established traditional union
test, without any evidence before them on therecord-a failure in no
wise occasioned by the Petitioner but rather by the Board's own
change of its policy while the present case was pending. I am unable
to do so. I find that I must have the pertinent evidence with respect
to this issue before me before I can reach a determination.
For the foregoing reasons, I must necessarily dissent from that
portion of the majority decision which dismisses the Petitioner's
petitions for failure to show that the Petitioner is the traditional
union within the meaning of the American Potash decision.
GENERAL FURNITURE CORPORATION 1 and UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS
OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 9-RC-2183 .! July 27,
1954
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 George LoVerde, hearing offi-
As amended at the hearing.
109 NLRB No. 60.