Scotten Dillon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 2, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1112 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Conclusion
Under the present state of facts the Midwest Piping doctrine clearly applies,
since no circumstances are present which take the case out of that rule. It is
not an extension of that doctrine but a clear application. It is therefore con-
cluded that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (2) and Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above,
occurring in connection with its operations in Section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purpose of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent rendered "other support" to the
American Communications Association , CIO. The undersigned will recom-
mend that the Respondent shall withdraw all recognition from the Association
as the bargaining agent for the technician employees ; shall completely dis-
associate itself from the Association as such representative ; and shall not deal
with it on any matters pertaining to grievances , labor disputes , wages, hours,
or other conditions of employment as to said technicians.
In view of all the circumstances in this case a broad general cease and desist
order seems uncalled for and is not recommended.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case , I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, and American Com-
munications Association, CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By rendering "other support" to the American Communications Associa-
tion, CIO, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) and Sections 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
3. Said unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended order omitted from publication in this volume.l
SCOTTEN DILLON COMPANY , PETITIONER and TOBACCO WORKERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 13, AFL and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS , LODGE No. 82 . Case No. 7-RM-63. April 2, 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
93 NLRB No. 194.
SCOTTEN DILLON COMPANY 1113
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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, 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 represen-
tation 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:
On May 29, 1950, Lodge No. 82, International Association of Ma-
chinists, herein called the IAM,' by letter to the Employer requested
a meeting for the purpose of discussing a wage increase for the ma-
chine fixers or adjusters 2 employed at the Employer's Detroit,
Michigan, tobacco plants. The record indicates that a verbal agree-
ment was reached granting a wage increase, but that the Employer
requested that negotiations be suspended until after a collective bar-
ganing agreement was executed with the Tobacco Workers Interna-
tional Union, Local 13, AFL, herein called the Tobacco Workers .-3
This agreement was executed on July 17, 1950, and thereafter the
IAM attempted to resume negotiations but the employer refused on
the ground that the IAM had not been certified by this Board as
the bargaining representative for the fixers. On November 30, 1950,
the Employer filed the instant petition for a representation election
in a unit of machine fixers, alleging, in effect, that the IAM has
presented a claim to the Employer to be recognized as the representa-
tive of the fixers as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
The machine fixers have been and are currently part of the pro-
duction and maintenance unit which has been represented by the
Tobacco Workers for about 40 years. The Tobacco Workers op-.
poses a separate unit for the fixers principally upon two grounds:
(a) That the Tobacco Workers' existing agreement with the Em-
i The Employer and the IAM entered into a collective bargaining agreement on
September 9, 1949, covering the one machinist who is employed , which was to be auto-
matically renewed from year to year , absent timely notice to modify or terminate. The
record indicates this agreement is still in effect.
2 The terms "adjuster" and "fixer" are used interchangeably . Hereafter , they will
be referred to as "fixers."
' This agreement of July 17, 1950, amends a prior agreement of July 15 , 1949, with
the Employer containing an automatic renewal clause , and covers a unit of production
and maintenance employees , including the machine fixers.
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer bars the present proceeding; 4 and (b) that the inclusion of
the machine fixers in the same unit with the machinist is inappropriate
because the interests of the fixers are more closely related to those
of the production workers with whom they have been joined in a
single unit for about 40 years. Although the petition in this case was
filed by the Employer, the Employer contends that its current
contract with the Tobacco Workers constitutes a bar to this
proceeding.
The fixers work with two other categories of plant employees :
(1) production machine operators, and (2) the machinist, included,
respectively, in the existing production and maintenance unit, and in
the existing machinist unit.
The fixers are responsible for adjusting, cleaning, and repairing a
group of machines which are run by machine operators, and are used
in the manufacture of tobacco products. Fixers are on duty through-
out the day subject to call by the machine operators whose machines
are not functioning properly. While the record indicates that one
fixer spends all his time making small parts for certain machines for
which catalogue parts are not available, the other fixers are engaged
only, in making minor repairs and adjustments to the machines, and
do not have the skills necessary to make parts for the machines.
The general working conditions of machine operators and fixers
are alike. Fixers have traditionally in the past been drawn from
the ranks of the machine operators, and in the event of a reduction
in fixer personnel, the fixer, under present conditions, enjoys plant-
wide seniority, and may return to his job of machine operator. There
is, however, no indication that any interchange exists between fixers
and the machinist. Fixers are not required to serve any formal
apprenticeship, such as is usually required of machinists.
The machinist, who is the only employee the Employer considers
covered by the current contract with the IAM, has charge of all
mechanical operations in the plant. He decides when new machine
parts are needed, and is considered capable of making them by the
Employer. When anything other than minor repairs are needed, the
fixer must call the machinist to approve whatever action is needed,
and to supervise the job. The machinist also must approve the
shutting down of any machine for repairs.
Under the foregoing circumstances, we find insufficient basis for
severing the fixers from the existing contract unit of production and
maintenance workers, to which they have belonged for 40 years .5
Accordingly, we find the proposed unit inappropriate.
4 This agreement contains a union-security clause, alleged by the IAM to be illegal In
view of our dismissal of the petition on the ground that the unit sought to be served
by the IAM is inappropriate, we find it unnecessary to resolve the contract- bar issue.
5 Phillip Morris & Co., Ltd., Inc , 79 NLRB 56; 70 NLRB 274, 279.
SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY 1115
Order
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, it is ordered that
the petition filed in the instant matter be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
5INOLAIR REFINING COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-1121. April 2, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held, before Harold L. Hudson,
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 organization involved claims 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 represent a unit of truckers operating under
a "commission marketer" agreement with the Employer in the metro-
politan Detroit, Michigan, area. The Employer contends that the
truckers are independent contractors and are therefore outside the
coverage of the Act.
The Employer operates a bulk oil plant at Detroit and a pipeline
terminal at Dearborn, a suburb of Detroit. The petitioner is pres-
ently the bargaining representative for a unit of salaried employees
at both the bulk plant and the terminal. The truckers involved in
this proceeding deliver both gasoline and fuel oil from the Dear-
born terminal in their own trucks to the Employer's customers, and
are paid a fixed amount per gallon delivered. The salaried truck
drivers are occupied mainly in delivering gasoline and petroleum
products other than fuel oil. They drive only equipment owned by
the Employer.
In 1947 Sinclair discontinued its former practice of having salaried
employees deliver fuel oil, and entered into agreements with truckers
93 NLRB No. 199.