Waukesha Foundry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1120 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
River, Waterfront Employers of Washington. Pacific Maritime Association, and
their member-companies. listed in Appendix A hereto, are employers within the
meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.
2 International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, and Interna-
tional Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 10, 010, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (.--)) of the Act. -
3. I3y causing the Employers to discriminate against employees and prospective
employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, Respondents 11W-e engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8
(b) (2) of the Act.
4. By restraining and coercing employees and prospective employees of the
Employers in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respond-
ents have engaged in and are engaging in tinfaii labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act -
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted front publication in this volume l
WAUKESIIA FOUNDRY COMPANY and ,Lol) ca, No. 1377 , INTERNATIONAL
AssocIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER and WAU1I^SI-fA SANITARY
PUMP DIVISION EMPLOYEES UNION, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 13-RC-
1694 and 13-RC-1G48. June 6, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated bearing was held before
John P. von Rohr, 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 these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and
Murdock].
Upon the entire record in these cases, 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. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer withnu the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1 Permission to inteivene was granted to Local 84, International Brotherhood of Foundry
and Metal Employees, herein called the Intervenor, upon its showing of a sufficient interest
in the proceedings
94 NLRB No 160.
WAUKESHA FOUNDRY COMPANY 1121
The Employer 's Waukesha, Wisconsin, plant consists of two opera-
tional sections , the foundry and the pump division .' Both divisions
have been represented as a single unit by the Intervenor since 1935.
The Petitioners seek to sever from the existing unit, and to establish
as a separate unit, all the employees of the pump chvlsion3 excluding
certain categories . The Intervenor opposes severance because of the
bargaining history on a more comprehensive basis.
The foundry and the pump divisions are located in separate build-
ings which are adjacent to each other . The foundry is principally
engaged in the manufacture of nonferrous castings and stainless steel
castings , while the pump division manufactures sanitary pumps. The
Employer, acting as its own salesnian, sells foundry castings directly
to its customers who use them in their own manufacturing process,,
while sanitary pumps are complete, finished products which are sold
through distributors and jobbers.
Separate payrolls are maintained for each division and payroll
checks of each division are cleared by separate banks . Each division
also has its separate cost department , inventory control, and time-
keeping department. All financial records of the two divisions are,
kept separately and each division has its own "order " department.
Although the superintendent of the machine shop and of the foundry
exercises supervisory authority over both the foundry and the pump,
divisions, the line of supervisory authority under the superintendent
is separate and independenfIfor each division . Transfer of employees,
between the foundry and pump division has been nonexistent in
the last 9 -years.
Although the foregoing facts indicate that the Employer 's produc-
tion and maintenance operation is divided into 2 cohesive and rela-
tively independent divisions or plants , we find no basis for permitting
the severance of a single plant or division from an employer-wide unit.
The,record does not establish that any of the employees in the pump
division are skilled craftsmen.4 However, even if some of these em-
ployees are, in fact , skilled craftsmen , many clearly are not.5 As the,
employees iii the pump division are not shown to be skilled craftsmen,'
and, because no other reason appears to justify the severance of the
Y Theie are approximately 320 production and maintenance workmen employed by the
Employer at its Waukesha, Wisconsin, plant.
3 The, pump division employs 1 sweeper, 3 stockioom men, 3 shipping clerks, 1 test rack
man, 7 inspectors, 15 assemblers and repairmen, 10 engine lathe operators, 8 turret lathe
operators, 3 drill press operators, 3 milling machine operators, 2 precision grinders, 1 tool
grinder. 1 71g and fixture repanman. 1 rough grinder, 1 setup and lead man 1 gear horn
and br each operator, and 2 experimental men
"There is no indication in the record that the 'arions types of machinists serve any
apprenticeship or are required to have any craft experience, nor is there any indication
that these employees operate more than the one machine to which they are assigned We
are therefore unable to find that these emploNces are skilled ciattsrnen. Cf Knudsen,
Bros Shipbuildiuq rC Di gdock Co, 80 NLRB 320
See footnote 3, supra
953841-52-vol 94-72
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of the pump division from the production and maintenance
unit in which they are presently included, we shall dismiss the
petitions
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions in these proceedings be, and
they hereby are, dismissed.
E As the petition is dismissed , It is unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised in
this proceeding.
RCA SERVICE COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION Oh' E i c-
TRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PP:TI'ITONER. Case No.
4-RC-992. June C, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before E. Don Wilson, hearing offi-
cer. 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 Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Ward 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 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 Employer and the Intervenor contend that an existing contract
is a bar to the petition herein; the Petitioner, that this contract is
ineffective as a bar because a schism has occurred in the membership
of the Intervenor, thus confusing the identity of the bargaining agent.'
I The Petitioner , In addition to its assertion that there is doubt as to the identity of the
labor organization which the employees desire to represent them, contends that the
contract is not a bar because it provides for maintenance of nienibership "In good standing
in accordance with the Union's Constitution and lty-Laws as it condition of employment,"
thus conditioning membership in the Union and the right to continued employment on
matters beyond . the fulfillment of financial obligations to the Union. For the reasons
stated in our recent decision of Firestone Tire cf Rubber Company, 93 NLRB 1(11, we find
this clause to be lawful within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. We note the
Inclusion in the contract of a clause effectively postponing the operation of the union-
94 NLRB No. 154.