United Automobile, Aerospace, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1966

157 N.L.R.B. 1540 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Automobile, Aerospace , Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, Local No. 72 and American
Motors Corporation and International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 34, AFL-CIO, Party to the
Dispute. Case No. 30-CD-4. April 7,1966
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by American
Motors Corporation, herein called the Employer or American Motors,
alleging a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act by United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace, Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW-AFL-CIO, Local No. 72, hereinafter sometimes called the
UAW. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Carl B. Frankel
during the period October 18 through 25, 1965, at which all parties
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The
rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, briefs were filed by
the Employer, by UAW, and by International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 34, AFL-CIO,' hereinafter some-
times called the IAM, all of which the Board has duly considered 2
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer is a Maryland corporation engaged in the man-
ufacture, sale, and distribution of automobiles, with plant and facilities
located in Kenosha and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Detroit, Mich-
igan.3 The Employer annually ships goods valued in excess of $50,000
from its Wisconsin plants to points outside the State of Wisconsin.
We find, accordingly, that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated and we find that United Automobile, Aero-
space, Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-
2 The name of this organization appears in the caption and the body of this Decision as
that name was amended at the hearing.
2 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 McCulloch and
Members Jenkins and Zagorla].
8 The Employer's Kenosha , Wisconsin , plant is the only one involved in this proceeding.
157 NLRB No. 119. -
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, ETC. 1541
CIO, Local No. 72, and International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, Lodge 34, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The work in dispute
Specified by the notice of hearing as being in issue are work assign-
ments involving the maintenance, repair, installation, removal, and
replacement of the following equipment :
1. Lubrication systems (both grease fittings and pump operated) for
items other than bridge cranes, roller turns, paint ovens, conveyors,
and the powerhouse :
(a) Nondimensional machinery (ordered or authorized by
American Motors plant engineering department).
(b) Dimensional machinery (ordered or authorized by Ameri-
can Motors master mechanics department).
(c) Work on threaded pipe and related couplings for such
systems.
2. Pedestal-type floor welders.
3. Seat cushion presses.
4. Electropneumatic systems forming a part of the installation of
certain dimensional equipment such as Barnes hones, Landis grinders,
and pick feeds.
5. Turnover and rollover equipment:
(a) When they form part of nondimensional machinery in the
material handling system, not a part of dimensional equipment,
and when no parts machining is required (i.e., pressing on of
bushings and bearings, machining of shafts, etc.).
(b) When machining of parts is required as defined above.
(c) When they form an integral part of dimensional machinery.
6. Tocco machines (axle shaft hardening equipment) involving the
following work :
(a) Onsite work on air cylinders.
(b) Offsite work on air cylinders.
(c) Guide rod bushings.
7. Air compressors involving the following items :
(a) Change valves, including controls.
(b)Key-up crossheads; position pistons in cylinders.
(c) Lube systems.
(d) Cooling systems.
( e) Rigging and all electrical work.
(f) Disassembly, repair, and reassembly.
1542 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Background
For many years at the employer's Kenosha plant, here involved, the
UAW has represented one group of maintenance employees, and the
IAM has represented another group which also performs maintenance
work. In 1962 a dispute arose between these two groups primarily
over the division of work responsibility for the maintenance of lubri-
cating systems for certain machinery. The dispute developed in the
following manner.
Traditionally, lubrication of the type of machinery in issue had been
handled, as one witness described it, by "a man with an oil can"-
frequently the machine operator himself-and there was no dispute
over this assignment.
However, beginning in the late 1950's the Employer, as part of a
modernization program, began installing pressurized lubrication sys-
tems on some of its equipment and, more recently, has purchased
new equipment with the pressurized systems already attached. The
maintenance of these systems is the principal work in issue in this
proceeding.
Sometime about June 1962 both unions began holding meetings with
the Employer during which each claimed that employees represented
by it had the right to perform lubrication system work as well as
other work over which issues had arisen. After a grievance was filed
by the IAM, a proposed settlement was obtained from the Employer
in the summer of 1963 whereby much of the disputed work would be
assigned to IAM-represented employees. When the UAW was
apprised of the terms of this settlement, it protested. In view of the
protest, the Employer decided not to put the settlement into effect, but
instead began a series of negotiations with both unions on a tripartite
basis in a further effort to resolve the matter.
In early 1964, after these negotiations had continued for several
months, the Employer issued a "Work Assignment Guide" embodying
the terms under which it proposed to assign all of the disputed work.
The Unions, however, were dissatisfied with the Guide, so the Em-
ployer did not implement it. Instead, it agreed to permit the unions
to settle the matter themselves. This they tried to do until the spring
of 1965. But their efforts failed.
The Employer thereupon, on July 16, 1965, updated the 1964 Guide
and reissued it, advising both unions that, in the absence of agreement
between them, it was the Employer's intention to make all future
assignments in accordance with the new Guide. This 1965 Guide like-
wise went'unimplemented, however, because the UAW threatened to
strike in protest over work assignments reflected therein.
Following this strike threat, the Employer filed the charge which
gave rise to this proceeding.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AEROSPACE , ETC. 1543
C. Applicability of the statute
In a 10 ( k) proceeding it is necessary to determine whether there is
reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D)
has occurred.
The parties stipulated , and we find, that during the summer of 1965
authorized representatives of the UAW threatened the Employer that
it would be struck by the UAW unless the Employer assigned its mem-
bers the work specified in the notice of hearing.
We find, accordingly , that there is reasonable cause to believe that
Section 8 ( b) (4) (D) has been violated and that the dispute is properly
before us for determination pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act.
D. Contentions of the parties
At the hearing, the Employer stated that it was generally neutral as
to all the work assignments in controversy. It conceded that employ-
ees in both the IAM maintenance group and the UAW maintenance
group had the requisite skills to undertake most of these assignments
and had, in fact, carried them out satisfactorily at different times in
the past. However, the Employer, despite its otherwise neutral posi-
tion, suggested a proposal whereby most of the maintenance work on
lubrication systems, the principal work assignments in issue, could be
divided between the two competing groups in a manner which would
be consistent with the administrative organization of its plant .4 It has
repeated this proposal in its brief.
The Employer did not take a formal position at the hearing or in its
brief with respect to the remaining disputed work assignments. How-
ever, its preferences on these matters were reflected in the aforemen-
tioned 1965 Work Assignment Guide, which it has not disavowed.
The IAM would accept the Employer's proposed division of most of
the maintenance work on the lubricating systems. As to the other dis-
puted work assignments, it argues primarily that an award of this work
to employees it represents would be in keeping with their general
responsibility for machine repair.
The UAW would not accept the Employer's proposal in respect to
the lubrication systems. It contends that the lube maintenance assign-
ments and all of the remaining work in dispute should be awarded to
the maintenance employees it represents, and bases its contention upon
the nature of the work involved, custom in the industry, and the
claim that the Employer has in the past assigned the work more fre-
quently to UAW maintenance employees than to the IAM maintenance
group.
'The Employer was not , however, neutral in regard to the assignment of lube system
work involving the use of threaded pipe. The Employer urges that it should assign all
such work to pipefitters represented by the UAW because of their special skills and training.
1544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
E. Merits of the dispute
At the hearing the parties reached agreement with respect to the dis-
position of those disputed work assignments which appear in the para-
graph entitled "Work in Dispute," supra, as Nos. 4, 5, 6c, and 7, and
stipulated that the Board should determine these disputes in accord-
ance with this settlement. We have considered the parties' agreement
and shall award the performance of these operations in accordance
with such agreement. Thus, the remainder of our Decision will deal
only with those*numbered items as to which the parties did not agree.5
The remaining items concern the assignment of the work of main-
taining, repairing, installing, removing, and replacing the equipment
described below.
1(a). In issue here is the work of maintaining automatic or power-
operated lubrication systems on nondimensional machinery. The work
includes the replacement, cleaning, and installation of those pipes, oil
lines, valves, and pumps which make up the lubrication system. The
term "nondimensional" machinery is used by the parties to refer to
that machinery of various types in the plant which performs functions
other than the fabrication, to specific dimensions, of component parts
of the Employer's end product. Nondimensional machinery includes
conveyors, wash machines, paint sprayers, etc. It is purchased by the
plant engineer, whose department is also responsible for its mainten-
ance and operation. This same official is the ultimate supervisor of
employees represented by the UAW.
As noted, a part of the Employer's proposal to divide up the lubri-
cating system work is to assign lube maintenance and nondimensional
machinery to the UAW-represented employees. The IAM concurs in
this disposition. For its' part, the UAW continues to assert the right
of its maintenance group to do this work. We conclude, therefore,
that the parties are in agreement that this assignment should be given
to the UAW-represented maintenance employees, and we shall award
it to them.
1(b) . In issue here is the same type of lubrication system mainte-
nance work as is involved in 1(a), above, but here the lubrication sys-
tems are attached to so-called dimensional machinery. This type of
machinery, which manufactures parts to fine tolerances, includes
grinders, drill presses, lathes, etc. It is purchased, operated, and
maintained by the Employer's master mechanics department under
the direction of the master mechanic. Immediate responsibility for
carrying out this department's maintenance function rests with the
toolroom, employees of which are represented by the IAM.
It is clear that IAM machine and hydraulics repairmen are qualified
to perform the lube system maintenance work on this machinery and
5 I.e., Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6a, and 6b.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, ETC. 1545
have, in fact, done so in the past. It is equally clear that UAW-
represented pipefitters are qualified for, and have performed, this same
lube maintenance work.6 Hence, since the claims of both groups are
equally supported in terms of employee skills and the Employer's past
practice, neither of these criteria provides any key to the resolution of
the dispute.
In its proposal for the division of the lubricating system work, the
Employer would assign the maintenance of lube systems on the dimen-
sional machinery to the IAM maintenance group. The Employer
argues that this assignment would contribute to the efficiency of plant
management because it would complement the existing responsibility
of the master mechanic and his IAM-represented subordinates to main-
tain the machinery to which the lube system is attached. Stated
another way, adoption of the Employer's proposal would appear to
clothe the IAM group with complete authority for the maintenance of
an entire dimensional machine; i.e., the machine and its lubricating
system. The record, however, indicates that general maintenance
responsibility, realistically speaking, has little significance in the actual
carrying out of maintenance operations at this plant. For regardless
of the fact that IAM personnel have the responsibility to insure proper
maintenance of all dimensional equipment, they do not perform all of
the maintenance operations on such equipment. That is, where a par-
ticular IAM maintenance job calls for the skills of a craftsman not
represented by IAM, that craftsman must be called in from the other
maintenance group to perform the work, e.g., maintenance involving
the electrical repair of a dimensional machine has to be assigned to
electricians, who, at this plant, are represented by the UAtiV.7 In these
circumstances , the administrative advantage of adding one mainte-
nance assignment on dimensional machinery to the list of assignments
of IAM machine repairmen, while other maintenance assignments on
this same machinery must still be carried out by UAW craftsmen, seems
to us to be a minimal one.
On the other hand, the UAW claim to the disputed work is supported
on a number of bases. Thus, the record demonstrates that throughout
a large portion of this industry-at a number of Ford, Chrysler, and
General Motors plants-maintenance work on lubricating systems on
all types of machinery is customarily assigned to pipefitters, who are
The checkered history of work assignments here is due largely to implementation by
the Employer of an "area maintenance" concept . Under this concept there are five main-
tenance areas located throughout the plant in which employees in various skilled trades
are stationed . The area supervisor makes maintenance assignments for machinery located
in his area . As a result , different practices have emerged depending on the preference of
the area supervisor . One will assign the disputed work to IAM repairmen , another to
UAW pipefitters . In some instances an JAM repairman and a UAW pipefitter have been
sent on the same assignment.
7 The same procedure obtains when a particular job requires the services of a millivright
or pipefitter , which are crafts also represented at this plant by the UAW.
1546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
represented by the UAW. No comparable industry practice of assign-
ing this or similar work to IAM machine repairmen appears on this
record. Further, while the Employer has at various times assigned
this work to both maintenance groups-machine repairmen or pipe-
fitters-at its Kenosha plant here involved, it has a different practice
at its body plant in Milwaukee. There, lobe system work is included
within the job function of steamfitters, and not of any other classifica-
tion. The steamfitters at Milwaukee are the equivalent of the pipe-
fitters at Kenosha. Ina similar vein, when the Employer has employed
outside contractors to install lubrication systems on its equipment at
Kenosha, it has followed the practice of hiring pipefitting contractors
to do this work.
We conclude that the claim of the UAW pipefitters to this work has
significantly greater support than that of the IAM machine repair-
men, and we shall award it to the pipefitters represented by the UAW.
The only factor militating in favor of an award to IAM-represented
employees is whatever administrative advantage is to be gained by add-
ing one maintenance assignment to this group in circumstances where
other maintenance assignments on the same equipment must continue
to be performed by craftsmen from the UAW group. We believe that
this advantage, if any, is outweighed as a consideration by substantial
industry practice, the Employer's subcontracting practice, and the
Employer's delineation of job functions at its Milwaukee plant-all of
which favor the claim of the UAW pipefitters.8
1(c). This work primarily involves the threading of pipe and the
use of threaded pipe in the lubrication systems. The pipefitters, rep-
resented by the UAW, have the requisite skills, experience, and train-
ing to perform it. The Employer prefers that such work be assigned
to them and apparently has assigned all such work to them in the past.
On the other hand, there is nothing to support the IAM's claim to the
disputed work, except that IAM-represented hydraulics and machine
repairmen have some related experience in the use of nonthreaded pipe.
The latter repairmen, however, have not been trained nor have they
had experience in the use of threaded pipe. In fact, two of the IAM's
own witnesses at the hearing testified, respectively, that UAW pipe-
fitters were customarily called to handle threaded pipe work at the
Kenosha plant and that threaded pipe work was considered as being
within the UAW pipefitters' jurisdiction at this plant.
s In awarding the foregoing lubrication systems work on dimensional and nondimen-
sional machinery to pipefitters represented by the UAW, we do not intend to award to
such employees ( a) any offsite repair work involving the machining of the lubricating
system pump ( i e., repairs away from the site of the machinery) or (b) the maintenance
of any lubrication system which is an internal part of any machine tool. At the hearing
the UAW renounced any claim to these latter assignments which require the skills of
machine repairmc n and must be performed in the toolroom.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, ETC. 1547
In view of the foregoing, we shall award this work to pipefitters
represented by the UAW.
2. Although the dispute here was designated as concerning only
pedestal-type floor welders, the evidence discloses that it involves the
repair of the air cylinder attached to each of such welders and the
replacing of the packing on air cylinder pistons. Indeed the dispute
is further limited to air cylinder repairs performed at the site of the
welding machine or which can be performed at that site.9
Here again it appears that employees of both maintenance groups
have the requisite skills and experience to perform the work in dispute.
Those factors which favor an award of the work to the UAW, main-
tenance employees are as follows. Unlike the IAM group, mainte-
nance employees from the UAW group are stationed in the immediate
vicinity where the floor welders are located and are readily available
for assignment, as needed. The Employer therefore prefers them for'
such work 10 and has, historically, given them the greater number of
assignments to this work. The Employer has also given them all of
the assignments to repair the air cylinders attached to the hanging
welders, which is the same type of maintenance work that is disputed
here. Further, since the floor welders are considered nondimensional
equipment, the official responsible for their operation-the plant engi-
neer-is the same official who has overall supervision of the UAW
maintenance employees.
Other factors favor an award to the IAM group. Thus, these
employees have had some experience performing the disputed work on
past occasions. They also perform related work, such as the complete
overhaul of the cylinder and the mechanical repairs on the welder to
which the cylinder is attached.
In our opinion, however, the factors which support an assignment
of the disputed work to the UAW maintenance group outweigh the
factors supporting the claim of the IAM. The UAW maintenance
employees have greater direct onsite maintenance experience, based
upon a majority of past assignments on the air cylinder in question and
all the assignments on the air cylinder attached to the hanging welder.
O The uncontroverted testimony of the Employer 's manufacturing engineer , C. A. Jor-
genson, was'that the dispute does not concern the maintenance of the piping to and from
the air cylinder or the removal or reinstallation of the air cylinder , all of which is UAW
pipefitters ' work. He further testified that there is no dispute where air cylinder main-
tenance involves complete repair including the machining of parts. He testified that such
work is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the IAM machine repairmen , who perform
it in the toolroom . Our determination here then does not deal with any work in respect
to the air cylinder other than repairs on it which are , or can be, performed at the site
of the equipment to which it is attached . Inasmuch as Nos . 3 and 6 (a) of the notice of
hearing also concern disputes respecting the same type of maintenance work on air cylin-
ders, our determinations of those disputes , which follow, are also limited to onsite work
as described in this footnote.
iu Under its 1965 Guide , previously referred to, the Employer would have assigned this
work to the UAW group. Manufacturing Engineer Jurgenson , who has overall super-
vision of both the UAW and IAM maintenance groups, reaffirmed this position at the
hearing.
1548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Their ready availability in the area, their position in the plant admin-
istrative structure, and the Employer's preference are also factors
which militate strongly in their favor. We shall, accordingly, award
the disputed work to them."
3. This dispute is designated as concerning seat cushion presses, but
the record discloses that the dispute in fact concerns the onsite repair
of air cylinders and the replacement of packing in them. A further
limitation of this dispute is that it concerns only air cylinders attached
to seat cushion presses situated away from the production line. Main-
tenance of air cylinders attached to the online presses is performed by
the UAW group, and is not in dispute.
The factors favoring each union's claim to this assignment are vir-
tually the same as those enumerated in No. 2, above. The principal
difference is that the offline seat cushion presses to which the air cyl-
inders are attached fall under the administrative control of the
Employer's master mechanic. In our view, however, this factor is
insufficient to shift the balance which, as we 'found above, weighs in
favor of the UAW's claim to this type of work. Even if this factor
were deemed to have significance, it would be more than counter-
balanced by an additional factor supporting UAW's claim here, viz,
the performance by the UAW group of the maintenance of air cyl-
inders attached to online presses.
We shall, accordingly, award the onsite repair and packing of air
cylinders attached to off line seat cushion presses to maintenance
employees represented by the UAW.
6 (a). As with No. 2 and No. 3, we are again concerned with the onsite
repair of air cylinders and the replacement of packing in them. The
air cylinders in issue here are attached to Tocco machines. The parties
stipulated at the hearing that the factors supporting each union' s claim
to this work are generally. the same as the factors described in respect
to maintenance of the air cylinders involved in No. 2 and No. 3, above.
The principal difference is that the availability of manpower would
not be a factor favoring either union 's claim.
However, based upon our examination of the factors which are the
same as in No. 2 and No. 3, above (i.e., weight of past practice for
assignment of the work and the Employer's preference), we believe that
the balance here also tips in favor of an award of this work to the UAW
We are not impressed by the IAM's argument, presented in its brief , that an award
to UAW maintenance employees of the disputed work-which is onsite work-will neces-
sarily lead to further controversy because, it is alleged , there will frequently be disputes
as to whether the work can be done at the site of the welder ( which would make it UAW
maintenance work) or whether it must be done away from that site (which would place
it in the jurisdiction of the IAM maintenance employees ). There is no indication that
any such disputes have occurred in the past . Further , the determination that the work
must be done away from the site ( by IAM maintenance employees ) rests on the objective
factors of necessity for: (a ) complete overhaul of the cylinder , or (b) machining of parts
for it.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AEROSPACE, ETC. 4.. 1549
maintenance employees . Hence, consistent with our determination as
to Nos. 2 and 3, above, we will award the onsite maintenance of the
air cylinders attached to Tocco machines to maintenance employees
represented by the UAW.
6 (b). This item deals with off site work on air cylinders attached to
Tocco machines . Except for the fact that UAW maintenance employ-
ees have related experience in performing onsite repairs, all other
factors overwhelmingly favor an award of the offsite work on Tocco
machine air cylinders to the IAM maintenance group. Traditionally,
the latter employees have performed all the offsite repair of air cyl-
inders; such work is performed in the toolroom where their union is the
recognized collective -bargaining representative , and the Employer pre-
fers that such work be assigned to them. We shall, accordingly, award
this work to the maintenance employees represented by the IAM.
In making this determination and the determination in respect to all
the preceding items in dispute , we are assigning the work in issue
variously to employees represented by the' IAM or to employees rep-
resented by the UAW, but not to the IAM or its members nor to the
UAW or its members. Further , our determinations here are limited to
the particular controversies which gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
this case , the Board makes the following determination of dispute,
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
A. Pipefitters and other maintenance employees of 'the American
Motors Corporation plant at Kenosha, Wisconsin , who are represented
by United Automobile, Aeorospace, Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, Local No. 72, are entitled to perform
the maintenance , repair, installation , and removal of the following
equipment :
1. Lubricating systems ( both grease fittings and pump operated),
but excluding offsite repair work of the lubrication system pump and
machining of its parts and excluding the maintenance of any lubrica-
tion system which is an internal part of any machine tool, for items
other than bridge cranes, roller turns, paint ovens, conveyors , and the
powerhouse :
(a) Nondimensional machinery (ordered or authorized by
American Motors plant engineering department).
(b) Dimensional machinery ( ordered or authorized by Ameri-
can Motors master mechanics department).
(c) Work on threaded pipe and related coupling for such
systems.
1550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Maintenance and repair of air cylinders attached to pedestal-type
floor welders, where such work is done or can be done at the site of
such welder.
3. Maintenance and repair of air cylinders attached to seat cushion
presses, located away from the production line, where such work is done
or can be done at the site of such a press.
4. Electropneumatic systems forming a part of the installation of
certain dimensional equipment such as Barnes hones, Landis grinders,
and pick feeds :
(a) Sheet metal guards (other than removal and reinstallation
in the course of repair).
(b) Electrical work.
(c) Air supply lines to and including main air valve, replace-
ment of all air hose and air lines, including installation of pressure
reducing valve and pneumatic air controls, with the exception of
the disconnection and reconnection of lines couplings incidental to
repair jobs performed by toolroom employees.
(d) Control valves.
(e) Regulators.
(f) Drilling, tapping, clamping, and welding where in non-
critical areas, as such areas are determined by the Employer.
(g) Manifolds built up out of piping.
5. Turnover and rollover equipment :
(a) When they form part of nondimensional machinery in the
material handling system, not a part of dimensional equipment,
and when no parts machining (i.e., pressing on of bushings and
bearings, machining of shafts, etc.) is required.
6. Tocco machines (axle shaft hardening equipment) involving the
following work :
(a) Onsite work on air cylinders.
(b) Guide rod bushings.
7. Air compressors involving the following items :
(a) Change valves, including controls.
(b) Key-up crossheads, position pistons in cylinders (opera-
tional adjustments).
(c) Lube systems.
(d) Cooling systems. _
(e) Rigging and all electric work.
B. Hydraulic men, machine repairmen, and other maintenance
employees • of the American Motors Corporation plant at Kenosha,
Wisconsin, who are represented by International Association of
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, ETC. 1551
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 34, AFL-CIO, are entitled
to perform the maintenance, repair, installation, and removal of the
following equipment:
1. Electropneumatic systems :
(a) Sheet metal guards (only the removal and reinstallation in
the course of repair).
(b) Hydraulic work.
(c) Disconnection and reconnection of lines and couplings inci-
dental to repairs done by the toolroom.
(d) Drilling, tapping, clamping, and welding performed in
critical areas, as such areas are determined by the Employer.
(e) Machined manifolds.
(f) Air-piloted hydraulic valves and all other components such
as main machined distribution chamber and attached valves-
maintenance installation and repair.
(g) The function of the machine itself (including adjustment
and/or control of the flow of air to the machine).
2. Turnover and rollover equipment :
(a) As part of nondimensional equipment when pressing on of
bushings and bearings, machining of shafts, guide bars, etc., are
required as referred to toolroom personnel on orders issued by area
supervisor or maintenance supervisor of departments 861 and
2861.
(b) When they form an integral portion of dimensional
equipment.
3. Tocco machines (axle shaft hardening equipment) involving the
following work : Offsite work on air cylinders.
4. Air compressors : Toolroom employees to assist on orders issued
by area supervisor or maintenance supervisor of departments 861 and
2861 in disassembly, repair, and reassembly and machining of any
part.
C. United Automobile, Aerospace, Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, Local No. 72, is not entitled, by means
proscribed by Section 8(a) (4) (D) of the National Labor Relations
Act, to force or require American Motors Corporation to assign the
work described in paragraph B, supra, to pipefitters or other employees
whom it represents.
D. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, United Automobile, Aerospace, Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, Local 72, shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, whether it will refrain
from forcing or requiring American Motors Corporation, by means
1552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), to assign the work described in
paragraph B, supra, in a manner inconsistent with the determination
set forth in that paragraph.
The Visador Co. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 23-CA-1878,23-CA-
1938, 23-CA-1981, and 23-CA-2019. April 8,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 30, 1965, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 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 attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended
dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, subject to the modification set
forth below.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
i At the hearing the General Counsel orally amended the complaint to allege that Fore-
man Monk Wallace had interrogated employees regarding their union activities and
presented evidence to support the allegation through employee Alton Kelley. At the
conclusion of Kelley 's testimony , the Respondent reserved its right to cross-examine until
it had an opportunity to investigate this allegation of the complaint . Subsequently, when
Respondent expressed a desire to cross-examine Kelley, it was discovered that he was
no longer available . We therefore do not adopt the Trial Examiner ' s finding that Fore-
man Monk Wallace interrogated employee Alton Kelley in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act. However , as there were numerous other instances of illegal interrogation of
employees by Respondent 's officials and supervisors , we find it unnecessary to modify
our Order.
157 NLRB No. 114.