Hancock Tool & Die Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 14, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 787 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

HANCOCK TOOL & DIE CORPORATION 787
to firms in these categories does not meet the Board's minimum re-
quirement for the assertion of jurisdiction. Nor does any combina-
tion of inflow and outflow, both direct and indirect, meet the Board's
minimum requirements for the assertion of jurisdiction 3 Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is dismissed.
3 The Rutledge Paper Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 625.
HANCOCK TOOL & DIE CORPORATION and LOCAL 174, INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW CIO), PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-
1165. March 14, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before W. A. Reinke, 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 this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
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 employees
of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to sever employees in the Employer's metal
moulding department from an existing plant-wide unit. The Em-
ployer and the Intervenor, Society of Tool and Die Craftsmen, con-
tend that the proposed unit is inappropriate.'
' The Intervenor also asserts that a determination of representatives at this time is
barred by the existence of a contract between the Society and the Employer dated September
18, 1950, which will not expire until 1956 . The contract relied on is an extension of a
previous contract between the Employer and the Society entered into on August 14, 1947.
By its terms , this earlier contract renewed itself automatically from January 15 of each
year and was to continue to do so unless notice of termination should he given by either
party between December 15 and January 15 . The contract of September 18, 1950, was
therefore a premature extension . As such, it cannot bar a petition timely filed in advance
of January 15. Bethlehem-Sparrows Potnt Shipyard, Ino., 90 NLRB No. 204.
93 NLRB No. 129.
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer designs, manufactures, and repairs tools, dies, jigs,
and kindred products.- It has about 120 employees, of whom 100 work
in its own plant, and the rest on the premises of one of its customers,
about 3 miles away. The latter comprises the metal moulding depart-
ment, whom the Petitioner desires to represent as a separate unit.
The employees at the Employer's own plant manufacture tools, dies,
and fixtures. They do very little die repair work. Employees in the
metal moulding department, on the other hand, spend all their time
in die repair work. The two groups of employees, however, have
related skills, carry the same job titles, and receive the same hourly
rate of pay for the same job classifications.2 There is virtually no
interchange of employees between the metal moulding department and
the plant. Separate seniority lists are kept.
For several years, the Employer and the Intervenor have bargained
for both the plant and metal moulding department employees as part
of a single unit. However, in a supplemental memorandum dated
April 5, 1950, the contracting parties agreed that the metal moulding
department employees were to be a separate unit for bargaining "with
respect to all wage adjustments and departmental grievances only."
In all other respects, the parties agreed that the detailed provisions
of their contract were to cover employees at both locations.
The die repairers in the metal moulding department do not consti-
tute a separate craft group. Their skills are essentially similar to
those of the employees engaged in die fabrication. Customarily,
both classifications of employees are included in the same unit .3 Their
community of interest deriving from a common craft background and
bargaining history outweighs, we believe, circumstances, such as
physical separation, separate seniority lists, and little interchange,
that might otherwise indicate the propriety of a separate unit.' Ac-
cordingly, we find that the proposed unit is inappropriate. We shall
therefore dismiss the petition.
Order
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
2 From an indeterminate time until October 1, 1950, employees at the main plant enjoyed
a 15-cent per hour differential.
3 General Electric Company, 89 NLRB 726 ; International Harvester (Canton Works),
91 NLRB 487; Ny-Lint Tool and Manufacturing Go, 85 NLRB 748; Park Sherman Com-
pany, 89 NLRB 1331; Felt ct Tarrant Manufacturing Company, 90 NLRB No. 236; Radio
Corporation of America (Victor Division), 90 NLRB No. 220.
4 Cf Central Cooperative Wholesale, 93 NLRB 1; Witco Carbon Company, 92 NLRB
No. 178.