Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 804 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION (LITi-LE ROCK PLANT) i and
LODGE 1775, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 32-RC-316. May 23, 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 Anthony J. Sabella, 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 Reynolds and Murdock].
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(s) involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A 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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of machine shop employees in the Eni-
ployer's Little Rock, Arkansas, plant. The Petitioner would include
in the unit maintenance machinists and repairmen, an electrician, the
building maintenance man, and the stockroom clerk. In the alterna-
tive, the Petitioner would accept a departmental unit which, in addi-
tion to the above employees, would include a number of unskilled
workers also under the supervision of the machine shop foreman.
The Intervenor, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL, and the Employer contend that neither of the units sought is
appropriate.
The Employer is engaged at its Little Rock plant in the manu-
facture of lamps of various types, including incandescent lamps, and
other kinds of electrical products. The machine shop is located near
the front of the plant in a space separated by a wire fence from the
production areas. There are in the plant about 800 employees, about
25 of who are assigned to the machine shop. Since 1949, the Inter-
venor has represented a plant-wide production and maintenance unit,
including all the employees here involved; its contract with the Em-
ployer expired on April 30, 1951.
All the employees in the alternative units requested by the Petitioner
are assigned to the machine shop and are under the supervision of the
1 The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing
94 NLRB No 126.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 805
Machine shop foreman. The maintenance machinists and repairmen,
12 in number, are the- highest paid employees in the plant. Their
primary task is to maintain and repair the production machines. They
own their own tools, which are the traditional tools of the machinists'
craft, and they are required to work to close tolerances. Although the
Employer does not have an apprenticeship program of its own, it only
hires machinsts in this classification who have previously had appren-
tice training or the equivalent thereof.
Also under the supervision of the machine shop foreman are an
electrician, a building maintenance man, a stockroom clerk, a janitor,
a matron, cullet collectors,2 and sweepers. The electrician makes minor
electrical repairs around the plant; the building maintenance man is
responsible for other repair work and miscellaneous odd jobs; and the
stockroom clerk, a factory clerical employee, takes care of the tool crib.
All the other employees in the machine shop are unskilled general
maintenance workers.
Although it is evident from the record before us that the mainte-
nance machinists and repairmen are a skilled craft group of the type
the Board has held entitled to separate representation despite a history
of bargaining on a broader basis,3 the petitioner does not limit its
proposed unit to the skilled machinists but would also include the elec-
trician, the building maintenance man, and the stockroom clerk. As
this unit is not limited to a single craft and includes noncraft em-
ployees, it would not, in our opinion, be appropriate. The Petitioner's
alternative request for a departmental unit would include, for the
most part, unskilled general maintenance employees in classifications
unrelated to the work of the machinists.' This unit, although de-
scribed as a machine shop unit, is in fact a general maintenance unit
of the type to which the -Board has not customarily granted severance
in the face of a broader bargaining history.' Accordingly, we find
the departmental unit likewise inappropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
However, as the maintenance machinists and repairmen do con-
stitute a skilled craft group, we find that these employees may appro-
priately constitute a separate unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining. We shall make no final unit determination at this time,
but shall be guided in part by the desires of the maintenance machin-
2 These employees are general laborers who pick up scrap materials around the plant
'Oregon Portland Cement Company , 92 NLRB 095 , Great Lakes Spring Division of
Standard Steel Spring Company, 91 NLRB 97
4 For instance in which the Board has severed a departmental unit of machine shop
employees , which included a substantial nucleus of craftsmen and other employees in
related work classifications , see the cases cited in footnote 3, supra Cf . The Diamond
Match Company, Match Division , 90 NLRB No 207, Griffin Wheel Company, 90 NLRB No
100; International Harvester Company (Indianapolis Works), 82 NLRB 740, and Knud-
sen Bros. Shipbuilding & Drydock Co , 80 NLRB 320
5 Kimberly - Clark Corporation , 78 NLRB 478.
806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ists and repairmen as expressed in the election hereinafter directed.
If a majority of such employees vote for the Petitioner, they will be
taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit.
In accordance with the foregoing, we shall direct that an election be
held among the following employees :
All maintenance machinists and repairmen in the machine shop of
the Employer at its Little Rock, Arkansas, plant, Woodrow and
Roosevelt Road, Little Rock, Arkansas, excluding office clerical, tech-
nical, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
ALUMINUM FOILS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL AS80CIA'1'lON OF MACHIN-
ISTS, LODGE No. 72,1 PETITIONER. ( ase No. "))2-RC-')'00. May 23,
1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Anthony J. Sabella, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in coitnuerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer 8
1 The petition herein was originally filed by the Iuteruntional Association of Machinists
alone. In its brief, the TAM moved to amend the petition to show the Petitioner as Inter-
national Association of Machinists , Lodge No. 72, on the grounds that the employees con-
cerned will be represented by, and are now members of, this Lodge. As Lodge No. 72
presently appears to be the real party in interest, the motion is granted . Spand8co.
Oil and Royalty Company, 88 NLRB 1406 ; The Colson Corporation , 70 NLRB 1235.
2 At the hearing , the Employer and the Intervenor , International Council of Aluminum
Workers, AFL , moved to dismiss the instant petition on the ground that the unit sought
is inappropriate . Ruling on this motion was reserved for the Board. For the reasons
stated in Section 4 , infra , the motion is hereby denied.
3 The hearing officer permitted the Intervenor to intervene on the basis of the existing
contractual relationship between that organization , its Local 24780 , and the Employer.
The Petitioner objected on the ground that the Intervenor 's interest was based on an
"illegal" contract; and, in its brief , the Petitioner asserts that the Intervenor should
therefore be denied a place on the ballot . We find no merit in these contentions. The
Intervenor 's contract , concerning which no unfair labor practice charges have been filed,
entitles it to participate in this proceeding for all purposes and, subject to the condition
set forth in footnote 16, Its name may appear on the ballot. Cf. Shepherd Manufacturing
Company, Inc., 90 NLRB 2196; Aluminum Company of A merica, et al., 85 NLRB 915.
94 NLRB No. 125.