The Cornelius Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 20, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 368 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of employees of the Marinette Knitting Mills, in the unit hereinabove
found appropriate as the representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining, and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said
organization is the exclusive bargaining agent of all such employees
for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
THE CORNELIUS COMPANY and DISTRICT LODGE No. 77 OF THE INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER and CORNELIUS
COMPANY EMPLOYEES' A SSOCIATION. Case No. 18-RC--890. Feb-
ruary 20, 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 Erwin A. Peterson, 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 [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 certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that a supplemental
contract executed by them on October 24, 1950, constitutes a bar to this
proceeding.
On February 1, 1950, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a
contract covering employees at the Employer's plant effective from
that date to and including January 31, 1951, and from year to year
thereafter unless and until either of the parties notified the other in
writing of an intent to terminate the contract not less than 60 days be-
fore the close of any contract year. The contract provided for re-
opening of wage negotiations on August 1, 1950. Pursuant to the
reopening clause, the parties entered into further negotiations, and
on October 24, 1950, executed a supplemental contract providing for
wage changes. However, they also extended the term of the contract
to January 31, 1952.
Meanwhile, on October 2, 1950, the Petitioner mailed a letter to the
Employer, requesting recognition as a bargaining representative of
93 NLRB No. 65.
THE CORNELIUS COMPANY 369
the Employer's toolroom employees and, on the same day, filed the
petition herein.
A supplemental contract, prematurely extending the term of the
original contract, does not operate as a bar to a petition which is timely
with respect to the original contract.' As the petition herein was
filed before the effective date of the automatic renewal clause of the
original contract, we find that the supplemental contract of October
24, 1950, does not constitute a bar to this proceeding.2
A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
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 to sever the toolroom employees from the
existing unit of production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Minneapolis, Minnesota, plant. The Employer and the In-
tervenor contend that these employees are directly engaged in pro-
duction work to such an extent that they are an inseparable part of
the-unit that includes other production workers.
At the present time, the Employer is principally engaged in the
manufacture of compressors and other aircraft products.' The plant
occupies 2 buildings, 1 of which is devoted to machining operations,
and the other to assembly and testing work. There are approximately
240 employees in the plant, 21 of whom work in the toolroom located
in the corner of the Employyer"s main building. Since 1938,4 the
Intervenor has represented production and maintenance employees,
including the toolroom employees, in a single unit.
The too]room employees make, maintain, and repair the dies, tools,
jigs, and fixtures used by production workers in the manufacture of
the Employer's products. They do some experimental work. A small
portion of their time, varying from 5 to 10 percent, is spent in the
machining of parts on orders of 2 to 12 units of a compressor known
as No. 32, consisting of overflow work from the production depart-
ment. Approximately half of their time is spent in machining parts
for special orders of model aircraft compressors developed in the
Employer's plant.
Too] room employees work from blueprints and sketches, and possess
the high degree of skill usually associated with tool and die work of
I Phelps -Dodge Corporation , Morenci Branch , 92 NLRB 1564 , and cases cited therein
2 The Employer urges that because a majority of the employees at the plant , including
employees in the tool department , herein sought by the Petitioner , approved the extension
agreement executed on October 24, 1950 , no question exists concerning the representation
of these employees This circumstance does not preclude the application of the premature
extension rule Albion Malleable Iron Company, 90 NLRB 1640
3 The Employer is also engaged in the manufacture of beer dispensing equipment.
4 Except for a period in 1946 and 1947, ii hen the Employer went through bankruptcy
and reorganization, during which tine the Trustee did not recognize any bargaining
representative
943732-51--25
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
high tolerance. Only skilled men are hired directly into the tool-
room. Production workers, after 300 hours of production work, may
be accepted as apprentices in the toolroom. Some toolroom employees
have entered the toolroom in this manner. It takes an untrained man
approximately 99 months to become a first-class tool and die maker.
Toolroom employees are under the supervision of the toolroom
foreman.
Four toolroom employees, working under the toolroom foreman, are
grinders who do the grinding necessary on all the tools, dies, jigs,
and fixtures made in the tolroom, and all necessary grinding on com-
pressors and model work. Grinding work' is graded, and varies from
simple grinding, to work involving great skill and a high degree of
precision. It requires approximately 36 months training to qualify
as a first-class grinder. Grinders possess a higher degree of skill
than is required for regular production work. Two of them have
been promoted into the toolrQom from the production department.
There is no interchange of employees between the toolroom and the
production department.
It seems clear that the toolroom employees constitute an identifiable
homogeneous craft group who may constitute a separate appropriate
unit for purposes of collective bargaining.' The fact ' that' they oc-
casionally work on overflow from the production department, and also
on orders which cannot be economically processed on mass production
machines, does not militate against their separate representation on
a craft basis, for it is clear that when they are engaged in this pro-
duction work, as when they are producing tools and dies, they exercise
the skills of their craft.° We find, therefore, that the toolroom em-
ployees, including the grinders, may constitute a separate unit
appropriate for bargaining.
We shall direct an election to be held among the following employees
at the Employer's Minneapolis, Minnesota, aircraft products plant :
All employees in the toolroom, including grinders, but excluding other
employees, and supervisors, as defined in the Act.7 If a majority
of these employees 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.]
e Victor Metal Products Corporation, 90 NLRB No 144, and cases cited therein.
s See the Baldwin Locomotive Works, Eddystone Divistion, 89 NLRB 403
7 At the hearing the Employer indicated that it contemplated splitting the toolroom
into two divisions ; one for the making of tools , dies , jigs, and fixtures , and the other for
work on special model orders , and the overflow work from the production department.
This plan is in a speculative stage It is not entirely clear what effect such a division
of work would have on the toolroom employees Under these circumstances , we shall
direct an election among the employees in the existing toolroom.