Mesta Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 27, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1624 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these employees continuously since 1945, under a series of contracts
covering all production and maintenance employees of the Employer
and the Stone Straw Corporation, a closely associated company. On
October 28, 1949, the Intervenor and the. Employer executed a con-
tract to expire on September 30, 1950. Pursuant to Section 8 (d)
of the Act as amended, on July 28, 1950, the Intervenor gave formal
notice to the Employer of its "desire and offer to confer for the pur-
pose of negotiating an extension with modifications of the existing
contract." On September 13, 1950, as a result of the negotiations
entered into pursuant to the afore-mentioned notice, the parties en-
tered into a new contract to expire on April 1, 1952. The petition
in the instant case was filed on September 25, 1950. The Intervenor
and the Employer contend that their current contract is a bar to this
petition.
Under the original -Act and, until recently, tinder the amended
Act the Board had held that where, as here, the parties to a. collective
bargaining agreement executed a new contract during the term of
an existing contract the former was a premature extension of the
latter and therefore no bar to a petition timely filed with regard to
the existing contract. Recently, however, the Board has had occasion
to reexamine its premature extension doctrine in the light of the re-
quirement for 60-day notice contained in Section 8 '(d) (1) of the
amended Act.' For the reasons stated in that case we find that the
contract of September 13, 1950, executed. pursuant to the notice re-
quirements of Section 8 (d) (1) in the 60-day period before the ex-
piration of the existing contract and prior to the filing of the instant
petition, is a bar to a present determination of representatives. We
shall accordingly dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein by District
Lodge #67, International Association of Machinists, be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
MESTA MACHINE COMPANY and PATTERN MAKERS LEAGUE OF NORTH
AMERICA, PITTSBURGH ASSOCIATION , AFL, PETITIONER . Case No.
6-RC-755. June 27,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Emil E.
Natick, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
1 De Soto Creamery and Produce Company, 94 NLRB 1627.
94 NLRB No. 221. '
MESTA MACHINE COMPANY 1625
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel? [Chairman Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. Because the Employer had not declined to recognize the Peti-
tioner before the latter filed its petition for certification of repre-
sentatives with the Board, the Employer moves to dismiss the pe-
tition on the grounds that the requirements of'Section 9 (c) (1) of
the Act have not been complied with. The Employer refused to
recognize Petitioner at the hearing. In Advance Pattern Company,
80 NLRB 29, the Board considered the identical arguments now put
forth by the employer in support of its motion, and found them to be
withou) merit. We hereby affirm that decision.2 Therefore, a ques-
tion affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of em-
ployees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) of
the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all wood and metal
patternmakers, patternmaker apprentices, and pattern checkers, ex-
cluding guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act. The Employer contends that a unit of production and
maintenance workers is the only appropriate one because of the inte-
grated nature of its operations and the community of interests of its
employees. In support of this position, the Employer maintains that
it is part of the "basic steel" industry and that the National Tube
doctrine 3 is applicable.
The Board has repeatedly held that patternmakers and checkers
and their apprentices constitute a highly skilled, well-recognized craft
group .4 The record discloses that these employee classifications at
the Employer's plant perform the usual functions of their craft.
These employees are also the highest paid of the Employer's non-
supervisory employees and each of them has served an apprentice-
ship program of 4 years. The majority of their- working. time is
i The Employer requested oral argument. As the record and the Employer's brief in
our opinion adequately present the issues and positions of the parties, this request is denied.
$ Stremel Bros. Manufacturing Company, 89 NLRB 1404; Comwel Company, 88 NLRB
810;, Standard-Thomson Corporation, 88 NLRB 1229.
Member Murdock who dissented in the second Advance Pattern decision, would grant
the Employer's request that the Board reconsider and reverse the decision therein, but
he joins in the decision herein because he deems himself bound.
$ National Tube Company, 76 NLRB 1199.
' Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 75 NLRB 638: Link-Belt Company, Philadelphia
Operations , 91 NLRB 1143.
1626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spent in the pattern shop, which is a separate building at the Em-
ployer's plant devoted almost exclusively to their use. None of the
Employer's employees is represented by the Petitioner or any other
union, nor does any union seek to represent the pattern shop em-
ployees as part of a production and maintenance unit. Under these
circumstances we believe that the unit sought by the Petitioner is
appropriate.
Although acknowledging the skilled nature of the work performed
by the pattern shop employees, the Employer contends that it is part
of the "basic steel" industry and that the National Tube doctrine
therefore precludes the establishment of craft units at its plant. In
the National Tube case, supra, the Board denied craft severance
chiefly on the grounds that a change from plant-wide bargaining in
the "basic steel" industry, with its highly integrated operations,
would adversely affect its productive capacity.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of steel plant equip-
ment, rolls, and heavy-duty machinery of all kinds. It has designed,
constructed, and equipped many of the largest steel plants' in the
United States. The Employer's operations are similar in some re-
spects to those of companies engaged in the "basic steel" industry.
It sells approximately one-third of its products in competition with
the steel industry. Moreover, it is located in the same area as many
large steel plants and follows the labor relations pattern of those
plants. However, there are important characteristics distinguishing
it from the "basic steel" industry. In particular the Employer's
products are manufactured from cold scrap steel, and it does not
purchase or use iron ore nor operate blast furnaces as do the large
steel mills. It competes with the basic steel industry in the manu-
facture of forged rolls of steel, but does not produce rolled steel and
sheet metal products, the principal products of "basic steel." The
greater part of the Employer's work is in competition with foundries.
We hold therefore that the Employer is not primarily engaged in the
basic steel industry and that the National Tube doctrine does not
control the present decision.
Nor do we believe that, apart from the "basic steel" contention, the
Employer's operations are so integrated as to preclude the establish-
ment of craft units. It may not be denied that the Employer's pat-
tern shop is an essential unit of its operations, but the Board has fre-
quently held that pattern shop employees at plants whose operations
are equally integrated as those of the Employer may constitute an
appropriate unit .-5 Moreover, the Employer's pattern shop employees
3 American Steel'
.
Foundries, 85 NLRB 19 ; Union Steel Castings Division of Btaw-nnoa
Company, 88 NLRB 209; Link-Belt Company, Philadelphia Operations, supra; New York
Shipbuilding Corporation , 89 NLRB 915.
DE SOTO CREAMERY AND PRODUCE COMPANY 1627
are not engaged in repetitive, routine, or prescheduled work, but are
required to use a specialized knowledge and training peculiar to their
craft.6 Accordingly, although the pattern shop employees perform
a portion of their duties in conjunction with other employees, or in
portions of the plant other than the pattern shop, it does not follow,
as the Employer contends, that they are either so closely associated
with other employees, or so inextricably connected with the produc-
tion process as to make their separate representation impracticable.?
The fact that the Board has in the past found that a production
and maintenance unit at the Employer's plant was appropriate 8 does
not alter our conclusion herein.
On the basis of the foregoing, we find that all wood and metal
patternmakers, patternmaker apprentices, and pattern checkers, at
the Employer's West Homestead, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding
pattern storage employees, guards, professional employees, and su-
pervisors 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
volume.]
9 Oregon Portland Cement Company , 92 NLRB 695 ; Texas Foundries, Inc., 83 NLRB 679..
'Pratt & Letchworth Co., Inc ., 89 NLRB 124.
8 Mesta Machine Company, 55 NLRB 59. The union failed to win the election directed
therein.
DE SOTO CREAMERY AND PRODUCE COMPANY, OWNED AND OPERATED
BY ARMOUR AND COMPANY ,' and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 18-RC-946. June 27, 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 Clarence A. Meter, hear-
ing 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 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.
I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
94 NLRB No. 229.