National Distillers Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1775 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

NATIONAL DISTILLERS PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1775
venors to be ratified by their memberships. When all concerned have
reached agreement the representatives of all the parties meet and at
the same time and place sign a written contract. Representatives of
American, Valley, Parsons, and Franklin and the Intervenors attach
their signatures to the same document. Although separate documents
are signed by the representatives of Chemical and Crocker-McElwain,
the general contract terms which uniformly result from the joint nego-
tiations are identical in all three documents. Special riders, however,
pertaining to employees employed by only one of the Employers, as in
the case of truck drivers employed by Chemical only, are added to the
general agreement. As indicated above, since 1937 all bargaining
concerning the employees here involved has been on a joint basis.
There have been no separate negotiations by any of the Employers.
The record also discloses that job classifications are uniform through-
out the plants of all the Employers and that similar working condi-
tions prevail among the employees of the six Employers.
In view of the substantial- bargaining history on a joint basis, as
set forth above, we find that the units sought by the Petitioner are
inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.4 Inasmuch
as the Petitioner has not evinced a desire to represent a multiple-
employer unit embracing the employees of all of the Employers and
has not made an adequate showing of interest among such employees,-5
we shall dismiss the petitions filed herein.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed in this case be, and they
hereby are, dismissed.
4 Arena -Norton, Inc., et at ., 93 NLRB 375 ; Johnson Optical Company, at at., 85
NLRB 895 ; Associated Shoe Industries of Southeastern Massachusetts, Inc., at al.,
81 NLRB 224 . The Petitioner asserts that the Employers involved and the Intervenors
have previously consented to the appropriateness of the units it seeks to establish because
they agreed to separate union -security authorization elections in 1948. However , neither
the parties ' previous agreement nor the Board ' s consent election procedures necessarily
control the appropriateness of such units where the issue is controverted in the repre-
sentation proceedings and is before the Board for determination . United States Lime
Products Corporation, 91 NLRB 1415.
5 The Madison Company, 91 NLRB 135; American District Telegraph Company,
89 NLRB 1228.
NATIONAL DISTILLERS PRODUCTS CORPORATION and LODGE No. 1646,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , PETITIONER . Case No.
9-RC-1.117. June 29, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Seymour Goldstein, hearing
94 NLRB No. 249.
1776 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 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 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 a unit composed of all employees in the Em-
ployer's mechanical., maintenance, and repair departments who are
engaged in operating machine tools or -repairing and maintaining
machinery and equipment throughout the Employer's Old Grand Dad,
Old Crow, and Old Taylor plants in Frankfort, Kentucky, and all
employees in the Employer's bottling departments who repair and
maintain the bottling machinery at these three plants, excluding all
other employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as,
defined in the Act.
Alternatively, the Petitioner seeks to represent either (1) a unit
of employees limited to those engaged generally in making, install-
ing, and maintaining machinery and equipment, substantially the
same unit requested above, or (2) a unit consisting of all utility men
and utility helpers in the maintenance and bottling departments at
the Employer's three Frankfort plants.
The Employer and Local Union No. 24, Distillery, Rectifying &
Wine Worker's International Union of America, AFL, the Inter-
venor herein, contend that none of the units sought by the Petitioner
is appropriate, on the ground that the employees requested do not
constitute a true craft, departmental, or otherwise homogeneous unit
such as would warrant their severance from the existing production
and maintenance unit which the Intervenor has represented for more
than 10 years.
The three plants here involved constitute the Employer's Frank-
fort division which is directed by a resident manager and a general
superintendent. The Old Grand Dad plant is supervised by a plant
superintendent and an assistant superintendent. One superintendent
1In view of our findings which follow, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether or
not existing contracts constitute a bar-to this proceeding.
NATIONAL DISTILLERS PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1777
supervises both the Old Crow and Old Taylor plants with the assist-
ance of an assistant superintendent in each of the latter two plants.
Each of the three plants operates as a unit and each has its own
maintenance and bottling departments.
There are approximately 60 maintenance employees employed in the
maintenance and bottling departments of the three plants who are
classified by the Employer as "utility men" and "utility helpers." The
utility men possess a general knowledge of maintenance work, but each
spends a majority of his time performing some particular maintenance
task such as carpentry, painting, electrical work, operating machine
tools, or repairing and maintaining machinery and equipment. As
indicated above, the Petitioner's primary and first alternative unit
requests would include only those utility men who operate machine
tools and who repair and -maintain machinery and equipment. The
Petitioner's second alternative unit would encompass all of the utility
men.
The record reveals that each of the plants has a shop where the
utility men report and store their tools and equipment.. Generally,
the utility men employed at one plant remain at that plant, although
some individuals move from plant to plant as they are needed., In the
event of a major breakdown or overhaul at one plant employees of the
other plants are utilized. The utility men perform other maintenance
work in addition to that in the particular field in which they are em-
ployed. Approximately 25 percent of their time is spent in such other
maintenance work.
All of the utility men in the maintenance departments work under
the supervision of the maintenance foremen at the several plants, with
the exception of the utility men doing carpentry work at Old Crow,
who have their own shop and are supervised by a carpentry foreman.
They all receive the same rate of pay which is the highest rate paid by
the Employer. They share the same working conditions, hours, pen-
sion, holiday, and vacation benefits with all the other employees of
the Employer.
Approximately nine of the utility men are employed in the Em-
ployer's bottling departments, to maintain, repair, adjust, and grease
the bottling machinery and to do the necessary work to convert that
machinery when bottling operations require a change from. one bottle
size to another. These employees report to, and work under the direc-
tion of, the bottling department foremen. They receive substantially
the same pay and work the same hours as do the other utility men and
they likewise share the same pension, vacation, holiday, and other
benefits with the other employees.
The utility men are not required to be journeyman craftsmen and
the Employer does not conduct any apprenticeship programs. When
953841-52-vol. 94-113
1778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a utility man vacancy occurs in a plant, that vacancy is posted through-
out the three plants and any employee may bid for the job. In
filling the position of utility man operating machine tools or repairing
and maintaining machinery and equipment, employees with mechanical
aptitude and experience are desired, but employees are trained- to per-
form the various jobs in the particular plants by a process of on-the-
job training. The applicant's ability to do the job and his seniority,
rather than his previous classification or experience, are the determi-
native factors for filling such a position. Thus, on frequent occasions,
a utility helper performing carpentry or painting duties may bid for
and be assigned to the position of utility man doing maintenance and
repair work on machinery and equipment. In the maintenance de-
partments from two to four utility men are engaged in operating such
machine tools as lathes, milling machines, and drill presses. Some of
these employees have had prior machinist experience while others
have attained their-ability by the on-the-job training process previously
described. Approximately 18 utility men are engaged in repairing,
maintaining, and adjusting machinery in production areas throughout
the plant.
For a period of more than 10 years the Intervenor has represented
the employees here involved as part of a three-plant production and
maintenance unit, including the usual categories of such employees,
with the exception of boiler room employees-and pipe fitters, who are
separately represented. Further, the record indicates that collective
bargaining on an industrial unit basis is the prevailing practice in the
distilling industry.
From the foregoing it is clear that the utility men requested by the
Petitioner, whether considered as a group constituting a particular
segment or the whole of the maintenance and bottling departments, do
not comprise a true craft or craft nucleus group of employees. They
have no specific craft designations; there are no prerequisites of ap-
prenticeship or journeyman status required of them; and their duties
are not confined to those normally associated with a particular craft.2
Moreover, it does not appear from the record that these employees
function as a distinct, departmental, or otherwise homogeneous group
separate and apart from the employees in other departments so as to
warrant their severance from the existing division-wide unit .3 The
job of utility man is filled by selection from among the ranks of pro-
duction and other employees. The utility men in the maintenance
and bottling departments work throughout the plants under the same
conditions of employment and sharing the same employee benefits
2 General Mills, Inc., Sperry Division, 91 NLRB 984; National Distillers Products
Corporation, 84 NLRB 818. .
' The Nestle Company, Inc., 92 NLRB 1250; General Mills, Inc., Sperry Division, supra;
Heyden Chemical Corporation, 85 NLRB 1181; Drewry's Limited U. S. A. Inc., 85 NLRB 1.
ROCHESTER METAL PRODUCTS 1779
as the other employees in the existing production and maintenance
unit. They perform the normal duties of maintenance employees.
In view of these facts, including the long history of collective bar-
gaining on an industrial unit basis, we find that none of the Peti-
tioner's proposed units is appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining. Therefore, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in this case be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
ROCHESTER METAL PRODUCTS, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP OPERATED BY
ROBERT S. MERSEY 1 and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMO-
BILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
UAW-CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-1304. June 29, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, hearings were held before Ivan C. McLeod,
hearing ofl'icer.2 The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearings
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The Employer urges in his brief that certain defects in the petition
and alleged irregularities before and at the hearing prevent the
Board from asserting jurisdiction in the instant case.
The original petition named the Employer as "Rochester Metal
Products Company." It appears that the correct name of the Em-
ployer is "Rochester Metal Products." Copies of the petition and
notice of hearing were served upon the Employer at his address in
Rochester, Indiana. Subsequent to this, the superintendent of the
Employer's Rochester, Indiana, plant, and a secretary attended the
informal conferences held by the Board's Regional Office prior to the
formal hearing and cooperated with the Board by furnishing informa-
tion in regard to the operations of the Employer. Immediately be-
fore the formal hearing, however, the Employer advised the Board's
Regional Office that the company named in the petition and notice of
hearing was nonexistent, and that because the Employer had no con-
nection with the named company, it would not attend the formal
hearing.
I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the reopened hearing.
2 A hearing was held before Hearing Officer McLeod on March 20, 1951. Subsequently
the Board on its own motion reopened the hearing. The reopened hearing was held before
the same hearing officer on April 27, 1951.
94 NLRB No. 62.
953841-52-vol. 94-114