Reynolds Metals Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 10, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 821 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY 821
had previously been agreed that no temporary employees
could vote. . . ." Later he phrased it as, "it was agreed that
none other than permanent people would be eligible." More
significant, and strongly indicative of an intent at that time to
include Goosetree, is the fact that, on the eligibility list,
received in evidence, a date was set opposite the name of each
of the 6 struck "extra" employees. This data showed that 1
had been employed only 6 days earlier, and that none of the
others had been employed longer than 23 days. Add to these
facts the listing of Goosetree ' s name on that same list free
of special designation, his uninterrupted employment of 7
months before February, the Employer's failure to come forth
at that conference with any assertion that Goosetree should
be ineligible, and the fact that, under Board precedent, the
Petitioner had every right to believe that Goosetree would be
eligible, and it is difficult to perceive how this record could
support a finding that the parties had agreed that he was not
eligible to vote.
I would normally respect and follow a stipulation of the
parties adopting the Employer's definition of "temporary"
employees and exclude them from voting on that basis, if it
were established that such were their intentions . In this case,
however, as I read the record, the most that was stipulated was
that temporary employees as a class should be ineligible. There
is absolutely no showing that the parties agreed to accept the
Employer's somewhat unique definition of "temporary" or even
that the Union was aware of this definition. Under these cir-
cumstances , I think it more reasonable to assume that the
parties intended to adopt the Board's established definition
of the term "temporary." This definition, everyone must agree,
makes Goosetree eligible to vote.
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Certification of Results of Election.
REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY and I NTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, Peti-
tioner
REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY and UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 32-RC-
712 and 32-RC-714. May 10, 1954
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held
in the above-entitled cases before Joseph W. Bailey, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
108 NLRB No. 120.
8 22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 organizations involved claim to representcer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. Petitioner , IBEW, in Case No. 32-RC-712 seeks a unit of
all maintenance and repair electricians and their helpers,
excluding all other employees at the instant plant of the
Employer near Gum Springs , Arkansas . The Petitioner in Case
No. 32-RC-714, United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein
called the Steelworkers , seeks an overall production and main-
tenance unit including the electricians . The Intervenor , Alumi-
num Workers International Union , AFL, and the Employer agree
with the Steelworkers that only an overall production and main-
tenance unit is appropriate.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Employer is engaged in the production and fabrication of
basic aluminum in some 50 plants throughoutthe United States.
The instant plant is new and was scheduled to begin operations
about January 1 , 1954 . The pattern of bargaining in all other
plants of the Employer is on a plantwide basis . However, there
is no history of collective bargaining in the instant plant.
The Steelworkers moved to dismiss the petition of the IBEW
on the ground that , under the Board ' s National Tube l doctrine,
no petitions for craft units have been entertained in certain
industries . The IBEW apparently contests the application of the
National Tube doctrine to the facts noted above.
Apart from any application of the National Tube doctrine in
this proceeding , the establishment of craft units depends
primarily upon the existence of craft employees. In the
American Potash case,1 recently decided, we made it clear
that any unit sought to be severed in the future from an estab-
lished bargaining unit must meet the requirement that the group
constitute a true craft , and that this requirement would be
rigidly enforced where severance is sought on that basis. We
further stated that we propose to exercise great care in making
certain that , in the administration of this rule , only groups
exercising genuine craft skills will be embraced within the
ambit of the rule . We noted that a true craft consists of a
distinct and homogeneous group of skilled journeyman crafts-
men, working as such, together with their apprentices and/or
helpers ; and that to be a "journeyman craftsman " an individual
must have a kind of degree of skill which is normally acquired
only by undergoing a substantial period of apprenticeship or
comparable training . We find that the same standards and
requirements as to craft skills should apply to craft units
sought to be established without prior bargaining history.
1 National Tube Company, 76 NLRB 1199.
2 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, ETC. 823
Upon application of the, foregoing standards to the instant
case, we do not find in this record sufficient evidence of the
duties and skills of the electricians at this plant to warrant a
conclusion that the requirements for craft status have been
met.3 Because the Petitioner, IBEW, has failed to sustain the
burden of proof with respect to the requirements for craft
status, we shall dismiss the petition of the IBEW in Case No.
32-RC-712.
In view of our determination that a craft unit of electricians
is not warranted under the circumstances set forth above, we
shall find a plantwide unit appropriate. Accordingly, we find
that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All maintenance and production employees employed at the
Employer's plant near Gum Springs, Arkansas, including all
maintenance and repair electricians , apprentices and helpers,
scale clerks and storeroom clerks,4 but excluding chemists,
senior and junior analysts , 5 professional employees , office
clerical employees , guards, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 32-RC-712.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 See Chicago Pheumatic Tube Co. et als., 108 NLRB 174.
4The Employer would exclude and the Petitioner and Intervenor include the scale clerks
and the storeroom clerks. As it is clear from the evidence that these clerks work in the pro-
duction areas and are not office clericals, they are included as plant clericals.
5 The Employer would exclude and the Petitioner and Intervenor include the senior and
junior analysts who, when hired, will be working in the laboratory and will be engaged in
testing various kinds of materials. As it appears from the evidence that these employees
are technical employees and objection is raised as to their inclusion in the production and
maintenance unit, we exclude them in accordance with Board policy.
LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, A.F.L.,
AND ITS BUSINESS AGENT, W. B. SANDERS and BECHTEL
CORPORATION. Case No. 14-CD-39. May 11, 1954
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which
provides that "whenever it is charged that any person has
engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, the Board is empowered and directed to
hear and determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor
practice shall have arisen . . . ."
108 NLRB No. 113.