W. S. Tyler Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 523 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

W. S. TYLER COMPANY 523
We find that all production and maintenance employees,10 employed
at the Employer's Whittaker Division plant at Citrus Avenue, Holly-
wood, California, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, pro-
fessional employees,)) and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
10 The Employer 's representative introduced considerable evidence , apparently designed
to prove that certain groups of employees should be excluded from the production and
maintenance unit on the ground that they are composed of skilled craftsmen . He con-
ceded, however, that this contention was probably premature and stated that the Employer
would not press for the exclusion of such employees at this time . As no - union is seeking
to represent these alleged crafts separately, we shall not determine their craft status at
this time and shall include them in the unit. Boeing Airplane Company, 86 NLRB 368 ;
Western Picture Frame Co. , 93 NLRB No. 52.
11 The Union stated at the hearing that the engineering department should be excluded
from the unit apparently upon the ground that the employees therein constitute a pro-
fessional group. The Employer indicated that the engineers should be included. The
record is not clear concerning the professional status of the engineers . However, if the
engineers are, in fact , professional employees , they shall be deemed excluded under this
category.
W. S. TYLER COMPANY and LOCAL 218, INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS AND
FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. L., PETITIONER.
Case No. 8-RC-1032. February 28,1951
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 Bernard Ness, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 question concerning representation :
The Petitioner, which has represented for 50 years the Employer's
core makers, molders, and their apprentices, all of whom work in the
foundry, now seeks a unit composed of all production and mainte-
nance employees in the foundry, excluding core makers, molders, and
their apprentices, and all other employees.) The Employees Council
1 The Petitioner does not indicate whether or not it wishes eventually to add these
employees to the unit which it already represents and which is covered by a contract
expiring in July 1952.
93 NLRB No. 70.
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of W. S. Tyler Company, hereinafter called the Council, claims that
it represents the employees sought by the Petitioner, and that it has
covered them in its current contract with the Employer. The claim
of the Council and the Employer that this contract, which expires on
April 24, 1951, is a bar is opposed by the Petitioner on the ground
that the unit description in the contract is not sufficiently specific.
There was uncontradicted testimony that for 5 years the Council and
the Employer have included in their contracts the phrase "sand
blasters and chippers in the foundry and service employees" and that
they have construed this phrase to cover the employees sought by the
Petitioner. Grievances of these employees were processed by the
grievance committee of the Council, on which these employees were
represented. Under these circumstances, we agree with the claim that
the employees sought by the Petitioner are covered by the Council's
current contract with the Employer. However, as this contract is
about to expire, we find that it does not constitute a bar to a current
determination of representatives.
4. The appropriate unit :
There are 44 employees in the group already represented by the
Petitioner, and 32 in the group it now seeks. The latter group is
engaged in preparing the molds and cores for use by the molders and
core makers, and in keeping the foundry clean, It appears from the
record that the employees already represented by the Petitioner con-
stitute a traditional skilled craft group, whereas the group which the
Petitioner now seeks constitutes a less skilled group performing
helpers' duties in the foundry. Employees in the latter group infre-
quently help for an hour or so in the shipping department, and occa-
sionally one of that group permanently transfers to other duties in
the plant. One general foreman supervises both groups. In view
of the close integration of the work of the less skilled production and
maintenance workers in the foundry with that of the skilled foundry
employees, and the common supervision of both groups, we find that a
W. S. TYLER COMPANY 525
unit consisting solely of production and maintenance employees in the
foundry would not be appropriate.
On the other hand, the Board has frequently held that a unit cover-
ing an entire foundry operation, consisting of skilled and unskilled
foundry employees, is appropriate.2 As the Petitioner represents a
substantial proportion of the employees in the entire foundry, we
shall direct an election in that unit .3
Accordingly, we find that all foundry employees at the Employer's
Cleveland, Ohio, plant, including core makers, molders, and their ap-
prentices, and production and maintenance employees employed at the
foundry, but excluding all other employees of the Employer and all
supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG, and MEMBER REYNOLDS, dissenting in part :
We are compelled to dissent from the decision of our colleagues
in this case because we cannot subscribe to their disposition of the
appropriate unit issue.
The Petitioner seeks only a unit of unskilled employees working in
the foundry who have been represented by the Council as part of a
much larger group for at least 5 years. The majority does not give
the Petitioner the unit it requests nor does the majority comply with
the apparent desire of the Council that the employees involved be
found to be an inseverable part of the broader established unit, but
merely directs an election for all foundry employees. We are unable
to ascertain the basis for the majority's action in simply removing
the unskilled foundry workers from the historical bargaining group
in which they have been represented and placing them in a unit with
2 National Farm Machinery Cooperative , Inc. (Ohio Cultivator Division ), 88 NLRB
125 , W A. Jones Foundry & Machinery Co., 83 NLRB 211; C. A. Dunham Company, 74
NLRB 211.
3 Bronx County News Corporation, 89 NLRB 1567.
11
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the core makers and molders. This cavalier treatment of the un-
skilled foundry workers presents the Petitioner with a gratuity which
it does not seek and which runs counter to the Board's practice with
respect to self-determination elections. It should be borne in mind
that neither the Petitioner nor the Council is seeking an election for
all foundry employees.4
The Board recently decided, in a series of cases commencing with
the Great Lakes case,' that previously unrepresented groups of em-
ployees should be given a self-determination election when no union
is seeking an election in the broader unit in which the employees
involved are sought to be included.- Nor is the fact that a unit con-
sisting solely of the unskilled foundry workers would not be appro-
priate a valid reason for failing to direct a "Globe" election here.
For in the Great Lakes case the Board specifically said that it found
nothing in the Act which required as a preliminary to an election
in any group, that the Board determine that such group may constitute
an appropriate unit. Except for the fact that the group involved
herein has a history of prior representation, there is no basis for
distinguishing the instant case from the Great Lakes line of, decisions.
However; this fact offers a much more persuasive reason than existed
in those decisions for directing a Globe election in the present case.
Thus, the Board has held that where two historical bargaining groups
with common employment interests are sought to be merged into a
single unit by the bargaining representative of one of the groups,
the Board will provide fora separate election for the employees sought
to be added to ascertain their desires on the question, even though one
of the unions involved seeks an election in the over-all unit.' In
conclusion, we believe that consistency with the afore-mentioned
decisions requires that a Globe election be directed for the unskilled
foundry workers.
4 Actually, the Petitioner already represents the skilled foundry workers under the
terms of a contract which does not expire until 1952.
E Great Lakes Pipe Lone Company, 92 NLRB 583; Gulf Oil Corporation , 92 NLRB No.
119; Boeing Airplane Company, 92 NLRB 716.
6It should be noted here that the instant case is clearly distinguishable from the
Bronx County case cited as authority by the majority in footnote 3, supra. For in the
Bronx County case the employees sought by the Petitioner were previously unrepresented
and there was a union which desired an election in the over -all unit.
'r New Jersey Breweries Association, 92 NLRB 1400 ; J. R Reeves and A. Teichert cE
Sons, Inc., 89 NLRB 54 ; Illinois Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 100.