General Refractories Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 8, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 665 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY 1 665
9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative'
of all such employees for the' purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment.
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that United Steelworkers of America, CIO,
has been designated and selected by a majority of all machine shop
helpers employed in the machine shop at the Employer's Chatta-
nooga, Tennessee, plant, excluding all other employees and all super-
visors as defined in the Act, as their representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act,
the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such em-
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment.
MEMBERS MuRDOCK and STYLES took no part in the consideration of
the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER
HARBISON-WALItER REFRACTORIES and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 9-RC-4162,9-RC-1179 ,
9-RC-1190, and 9-RC-1191. October 8, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing in these consolidated cases was
held before Alan A. Bruckner, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reyn-
olds].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employers.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
96 NLRB No. 98.
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons :
The Petitioner seeks to establish four separate units, each composed
of the machinists, pattern and mould makers, mechanical repairmen,
tunnel kiln car repairmen, and brick press changers employed at sepa=
rate plants of the Employers. In the alternative, it requests general
maintenance units at each of these plants, joining all other maintenance
employees, such as electricians, blacksmiths, carpenters, firemen, and
oilers, with the alleged craft employees sought in its primary unit re-
quests. United Brick and Clay Workers of America, AFL, herein
called the Intervenor, and the Employers, oppose establishment of any
such unit, asserting that none of the employees involved are craftsmen,
and that a history of bargaining on an industrial basis in these four
factories, as well as in others of the Employers' plants, precludes sev-
erance of any maintenance units.
The Employers are engaged in the mining of fire clays and the manu-
facture of firebricks and other refractory products throughout the
United States." These four cases involve the separate plants of the
two Employers at Olive Hill, Kentucky, and General Refractories'
plants at Hitchins and Haldeman, Kentucky. The Employers' local
mines, operated in conjunction with these plants, are considered to be
part of the single operations.
At each of the plants here involved, as apparently throughout the
refractories industry, the classifications of employees sought by the
Petitioner do substantially the same kind of work. The machinists
perform a variety of maintenance functions throughout the plants.
They use shapers, grinders, and drill presses, to repair parts and to
make simple parts for production machines. Their machine shop
work is limited in scope; General Refractories purchases complicated
machine parts, and Harbison-Walker has them made at a company
machine shop located in Pennsylvania. Machinists also remetal bear-
ings, do welding work, -and replace worn and broken parts in pro-
duction machinery. Mould and pattern makers are engaged in the
preparation of metal dies and wooden forms used in shaping brick.
Mould makers grind down ready-made cast iron boxes, fitting them
with sheet metal linings according to brick specifications. Pattern-
makers make the forms required to shape complicated, nonstandard
bricks, which are generally produced by hand, in small quantities.
They use saws, planes, and other woodworking tools. Pattern and
mould makers, as well as machinists, use gauges, calipers, and rules
furnished by the Employer, but it does not appear that they are re-
quired to work to very close tolerances. Machine repairmen work
'General Refractories Company has 27 operations located in 12 States ; Harbison-
walker Refractories operates 40 installations in 14 States.
GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY 667
throughout the production departments doing miscellaneous mainten-
ance work on the equipment. The twnnel kiln car repairman in each
plant is responsible for the maintenance of cars used to convey green
bricks through the kilns. Their work involves the welding of parts, re-
placement of wheels, removal of burned grease from bearings, and
other rough mechanical maintenance work on the cars. The brick press
changers work closely with brick press machine operators, replacing
and changing dies and pads used in extruding and stamping wet clay
into green, unburned brick. All employees in the foregoing cate-
gories also spend some time at repair work on pumps, trucks, and other
auxiliary equipment located at the Employers' plants and mines. They
also do miscellaneous building maintenance on the plant buildings
and company houses owned by their Employers.
It does not appear that any high degree of skill or specialized
training is required for the work performed by any of these alleged
craft employees. No formal apprenticeship system has ever existed
in any of the four plants here involved.2 Most of the employees were
formerly production workers; due to the plant-wide seniority systems
long in effect at all the plants, they became maintenance employees by
"bidding in" vacancies. Regardless of qualification or experience,
the senior bidder is given a "fair trial" up to 10 days. No showing
was made that any employees ever failed to make good as a machinist,
patternmaker, or maintenance employee 3
In addition to these employees, the general maintenance group at
each of the four plants also includes blacksmiths, electricians, car-
penters, firemen, and oilers. These employees do miscellaneous main-
tenance work about the Employers' properties. They do rough car-
pentry and electrical work, and, to an undisclosed degree, participate
in all types of general machine repair and maintenance work. There
is no showing in the record that they possess any craft skills, although
their work and that of the other maintenance employees overlap to
a considerable degree.
For about 10 years, all the employees here involved have been repre-
sented in collective bargaining in industrial units, together with all
other production and maintenance employees at the four plants. At
various dates single-plant units were established, some by Board order
and others by voluntary recognition. The Intervenor is presently the
bargaining agent for all production and maintenance employees in
2 An informal apprenticeship system, once in effect at General Refractories , was discon-
tinued in 1925 . One employee , a patternmaker "apprentice" at Harbison-Walker under
the G I Bill, in fact received no formal training , and dropped the program after a short
,time Apprentice payroll classifications merely denote lack of experience , not a true
"learner" status.
2 Of the 60 employees whom the Petitioner would sever in these 4 plants, 43 bid into
their present jobs from production jobs, and 15 of the 16 machinists were transferred
from production jobs.
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these four plants. The record also shows that these Employers, to-
gether with certain others in the industry, have engaged in joint
negotiations with the Intervenor. Such bargaining affected a large
number of plants in the industry, including the four here involved, in
each of which the Intervenor was the majority representative. At the
same time, the Employers, with respect to others of their plants in
which bargaining rights have been won by other labor organizations,
carried on multiemployer and multiplant negotiations jointly with
other segments of the industry. The resultant pattern of multiplant
bargaining which emerged throughout the industry was not coexten-
sive with all the organized plants of particular employers, but rather
followed the checkered course of the successful organizational activi-
ties of the various competing unions.4
The record does not support the Petitioner's principal assertion that
the machinists, repairmen, and other employees whom the Petitioner
seeks to represent in its primary unit request are skilled craftsmen
such as are ordinarily entitled to separate representation apart from
all other employees. They are placed in their jobs without regard
to skill or experience, seniority in production and laboring jobs being
the dominant factor involved. They undergo no formal apprentice-
ship or other training, nor does it appear that such training is neces-
sary for their work. Most of them do miscellaneous repair work
throughout the plant, and on most repair jobs they are under the super-
vision of production foremen. At best, the record shows that these
employees acquire only such skills as are necessary to their Employers'
production. They do not possess the- comprehensive range of skills
usually associated with their asserted crafts. Although the record
'does not show that these employees do production work, the press
changers, at least , are for the most part engaged in a repetitive opera-
tion closely integrated with the production process. Upon these facts,
and on the record as a whole, we find that the machinists, pattern and
mould makers, mechanical repairmen, tunnel kiln car repairmen,
and brick press changers are not skilled craftsmen, and that therefore
any unit limited to these employees is inappropriate for collective
bargaining purposes.6
With respect to the Petitioner's alternative unit request for units
embracing all maintenance employees at each of the four plants, the
record does show that these employees form identifiable groups in
their respective plants. Together, they maintain all production and
4 As set forth above, in further opposition to the Petitioner's various unit requests, the
Intervenor argues that single-plant units may not be established in this proceeding be-
cause these plants have heretofore been included in multiplant bargaining . The Em-
ployers made no contentions in this regard. In view of our finding below that the pro-
posed units are inappropriate for reasons apart from this question , we deem it unneces-
sary to pass upon this contention.
5 Johns -Manville Prodaccts Corporation, 80 NLRB 602.
BRODHEAD-GARRETT CO. 669
auxiliary machines and equipment, as well as factory buildings and
dwelling houses at each of the Employers' four locations. It is not
necessary for us to decide, however,. Whether under other circum-
stances the maintenance departments at each plant could constitute
appropriate bargaining units. The Board has held that where main-
tenance employees, including, as here, diversified classifications of
workmen, have previously been represented in collective bargaining
in plant-wide units, they may not be severed into separate bargaining
units.6 Consistent with that policy, we also reject the Petitioner's
alternative unit request.
As none of the units requested by the Petitioner is appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining, we shall dismiss the petitions.'
Order
Upon the entire record in these cases, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the petitions filed herein be, and they hereby
are, dismissed.
6 The Nestle Con2pany, Inc., 92 NLRB 1250.
R Because of our finding respecting the bargaining unit, we do not pass upon the con-
tract bar issue raised by the parties.
BRODHEAD-GARRETT Co: and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA, LUMBER AND SAW MILL WORKERS, LOCAL 509,
AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 8-RC-1294. October 8, 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 Philip Fusco, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
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?
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Local 52, International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, AFL, hereinafter referred
to as the Intervenor, was granted permission to intervene at the hearing upon showing
of a contractual interest in the representation of these employees.
96 NLRB No. 90.