Saco-Lowell Shops

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 17, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 647 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

SACO-LOWELL SHOPS 647
automotive accessories,,and makes minor mechanical adjustments, and
installation of appliances. He frequently runs road tests to determine
whether or not the defects reported by the customers were corrected by
the mechanics and reports the results of his investigation directly to the
service manager. As a rule automobiles brought in for repairs are
assigned to mechanics in rotation. On various occasions the service
salesman has taken mechanics off the repair of one automobile and
assigned them to emergency repair work at the instance of the service
manager or on his own accord.
The service salesman, however, has no authority to hire, discharge,
reward, or discipline any of the mechanics or other employees, nor
the authority effectively to recommend such action. Further the evi-
dence does not indicate that he in any way responsibly directs the
work of any mechanic: Upon these facts,and-the record as a whole, we
find that the service salesman is not a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act; in view of the interrelation and integration of his work with
that performed by mechanics, we shall include him in the unit.'
We find, therefore, that-the appropriate unit consists of all me-
chanics, body-men, painters and their helpers, including the service
salesman, employed at the Employer's Tulsa, Oklahoma, automotive
agency, but excluding office clerical employees, salesmen, watchmen,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act.
Case No. 16-RC-688
We find all porters, greasers, washers, parts-men, polishers, and
chauffeurs, employed at the Employer's Tulsa, Oklahoma, automotive
agency but excluding mechanics, guards, clerical employees, profes-
sional employees and supervisors as defined by the Act, constitute a.
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act 4
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
6 See The Fuller Automobile Company d/b/a The Fuller Automobile Company and
Fuller Manufacturing & Supply Company, 88 NLRB 1452 , 1457, 1458; Massachusetts
Motor Car Company, Inc, supra ; Public Motors Co., 90 NLRB No. 273.
* This unit was agreed to by the parties.
SAGO-LOWELL SHOPS and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN-
ISTS, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-2005. May 17, 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 Sidney A. Coven,
94 NLRB No. 94.
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 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 Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees 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.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all employees in the
machine tool repair department, the tool department, and the research
machinists department at the Employer's plant at Biddeford and
Saco, Maine, excluding the parts control clerk in the research machin-
ists department, executives, office clerical and professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act .2 In the alternative,
the Petitioner is willing to accept any craft unit of machinists and
tool and die makers which the Board may find to be appropriate.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the unit sought by
the Petitioner is inappropriate because of a history of bargaining
on a broader basis since 1941 and because the requested unit does
not include all employees exercising similar skills.
The Employer, at its Biddeford, Maine, plant, is engaged in the
manufacture of textile machinery. The machine tool repair depart-
ment, which is one of the departments which the Petitioner seeks to
'The Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, was allowed to intervene in this
proceeding upon a proper showing of interest . The hearing officer referred to the Board
the Intervenor ' s motion to dismiss the petition upon the ground that the unit sought
is inappropriate and based solely upon the extent of the Petitioner ' s organization of the
employees The motion is denied for the reasons stated in paragraph numbered 4, herein.
The Intervener also moved to dismiss the petition upon the ground that the Petitioner
has not made an adequate showing of interest to support a petition for a unit consisting
of all employees who would belong in an appropriate unit. The Board has frequently
held that the adequacy of a Petitioner ' s showing of interest is a matter for administrative
determination and is not subject to collateral attack. 0 . D. Jennings & Co, 68 NLRB 516.
Moreover , we are satisfied that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest
in the unit herein found appropriate Accordingly, the Intervenor ' s motion to dismiss
is denied tin toto
2 At the hearing the Petitioner stated in clarification of its position that it considered
the following employees to be included in the categories of employees which it seeks to
represent ( a) Repair machinists , departmental helpers, coolant and lubricant men,
scrape gibs men, the machine tool layout man, the acetylene and are weld -production and
maintenance men, and the sweeper in the machine tool repair department ; ( b) tool
makers ( class 1 and 2), tool and cutter grinders ( class 1 and 2 ), key man-tool maker
(class 1 and 2), tool , die, and gauge makers, the sa'dman , and the sweeper in the tool
department ; and (c ) research machinists and development machinists in the research
machinists department.
SACO-LOWELL SHOPS 649
represent, is located in a building separate from the production build-
ings. However, 30' of the'71 employees in the department have been
assigned to stations on 3 floors of the Employer's principal production
building, where they are engaged in preventive maintenance work
on production machinery. The machine tool repair department men
so assigned to the production areas punch time clocks located in the
production building and have their locker spaces there. However,
they remain under the supervision of the machine tool repair depart-
ment foreman. The balance of the machine tool repair department
employees, although assigned to the main departmental area, spend
about 35 percent of their time away from the department while
engaged in repair work. Of the 71 employees in the machine tool
repair department, it appears that 42 repair machinists utilize all
of the tools and skills of the machinists' trade in the course of their
work.3
The tool department is located in the same building as the machine
tool repair department. It has the responsibility for making, repair-
ing, and calibrating tools, dies, jigs, and fixtures used in the Em-
ployer's production processes. Of the 69 employees in the depart-
ment, 35 tool makers, 4 tool, die, and gauge makers, and 1 key man-
toolmaker appear to utilize all of the tools of the machinists' trade
and to exercise the various skills of craftsmen during the course of
their employment'
The research machinists department is located in another building
separate from the machine tool repair department and the tool de-
partment. All the employees in the department, with the exception
of the parts control clerk, are skilled machinists. They work in con-
junction with the Employer's engineers and designers, making parts
for the Employer's experimental machines.
The primary function of the employees in both the machine tool
repair department and the tool department is the fabrication and re-
pair of tools, jigs, fixtures, and machines. The foremen of these two
departments report to the same general foreman. The employees in
these departments, together with the skilled employees in the research
machinists department, are an identifiable, homogeneofis group with
a craft nucleus and would normally constitute an appropriate unit.5
3 Also employed in the machine tool repair department are 8 departmental helpers,
16 coolant and lubricant men, 2 scrape gibs men, a machine tool layout man, an acetylene
and are welder, and a sweeper Although the machine tool layout man analyzes the
difficulties and defects in the operation of machinery , and prescribes the work to be done
by the repair machinists , it does not appear that he utilizes all of the tools of the
machinists ' trade.
4 A sweeper , a sawman, and 27 tool and cutter grinders are also employed in the tool
department A tool and cutter grinder must refurnish the cutting tools by grinding the
cutting edges of taps, drills. reamers , form cutters , and milling cutters , and must be
familiar with the different techniques of grinding.
5 Cf. Great Lakes Spring Division of Standard Steel Spring Company, 91 NLRB 97;
Victor Metal Products Corporation, 90 NLRB No . 144; B. F . Avery it Sons Company,
R6 NLRB 24 ; International Harvester Company (Indianapolis Works ), 82 NLRB 740.
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
However, the Employer employs other machinists and tool and die
makers who possess and exercise equally high skills and who differ
from the machinists and tool and die makers in the proposed unit only
in their departmental assignments . Thus, in addition to the employ-
ees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent, the Employer has 14 re-
pair machinists in the foundry maintenance department, 9 production
machinists and 1 tool maker in the past model repair department, 1
production machinist in the light machining department, and 1 tool
maker in the automatics department. Neither the fact that these
employees are assigned to different departments 6 nor the fact that
some of them are engaged in production work 7 justifies their exclusion
from a craft unit.
We are therefore of the opinion that the employees sought by the
Petitioner, together with the foregoing machinists and tool and die
makers in other departments who possess and exercise skills compara-
ble to those of the craft employees in the unit requested, constitute
an identifiable, homogeneous craft group with interests separate from
those of the other employees in the plant." The Employer and the
Intervenor suggest that any enlarged unit should include a large num-
ber of specialists in the Employer's production departments who are
skilled in the operation of the various machines to which they are
assigned . Such machines include engine lathes, turret lathes, cylin-
drical grinders, light milling machines, and light drilling machines.
However, the record clearly establishes that such employees are spe-
cialists, and do not possess or utilize the rounded skills of the ma-
chinists and tool and die makers discussed above. Apparently they
perform repetitive machining operations. On the basis of these facts,
we conclude that the interests of these employees are more closely
allied to those of the production and maintenance employees repre-
sented by the Intervenor and that they should not be included in the
voting group found appropriate herein .9 Moreover, the Board has
previously considered and rejected the argument of the Employer and
the Intervenor that the history of bargaining and the integration of
operation at the Employer's plant prevent the severance of a craft
group from the existing production and maintenance unit.10
Accordingly, we find that all employees in the machine tool repair
department, the tool department, and the research machinists de-
' Radio Corporation of America (Victor Division), 90 NLRB No. 220
7 John Deere Dubuque Tractor Works, 77 NLRB 1424.
87nternational Harvester Company, 87 NLRB 1101; International Harvester Company,
82 NLRB 190; John Deere Dubuque Tractor Works, footnote 7, supra; of . B. F. Avery
Sons Convpany, footnote 5, supra.
9 Sunbeam Corporation, 89 NLRB 132; West Virginia Pulp ct Paper Company, 89 NLRB
815 (roller grinders excluded ) ; General Electric Company, 86 NLRB 327 ( tube department
specialists excluded from toolroom unit).
10 Saco Lowell Shops , 89 NLRB 598 ( severance of patternmakers permitted).
ARTHUR WINER, INC. 651
partment,1' repair machinists in the foundry maintenance department,
and production machinists and tool and die makers in the past model
repair department, light machining department, and the automatics
department, excluding all guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act, may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit.
However, they may also continue as a part of the over-all production
and maintenance unit represented by the Intervenor. We shall make
no final unit determination at this time, but shall be guided in part
by the desires of these employees as expressed in the election directed
herein. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to
have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
"Including the parts control clerk. Great Lakes Spring Division of Standard Steel
Spring Company, footnote 5, supra (tool crib attendants included).
ARTHUR WINER , INC. and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF
AMERICA . Case No. 13-CA-36'x. May 18, 1951
Decision and Order
On December 19, 1950, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Re-
spondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief.
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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case,' and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the additions and mod-
ifications set forth below.
i The request by the Company for oral argument is denied because the record, the
exceptions, and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the position
of the parties.
94 NLRB No. 97.