California Research & Development Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 8, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1385 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

CALIFORNIA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 1385-
However, we do not believe that that ruling is apposite here. There
the Board was concerned with the production line manufacture of
standard ready-made garments, with each employee performing one
particular function in the manufacturing process. Here there are
highly skilled craftsmen who receive individually cut material from
the fitters, and thereafter themselves complete every step in the tailor-
ing of a finished ladies' suit.
The record establishes that in the New York custom-made garment
industry the Petitioner has represented tailors separately for many
years, even in establishments where it also represents dressmakers.
Recently, for the sake of convenience in bargaining, the Petitioner has
executed a single contract covering both groups with some employers,
while retaining separate contracts with others. In the circumstances
of this case, we do not believe that the Petitioner's consolidation
of some of its bargaining units militates against a finding that the
tailors, who have traditionally been regarded as a true craft, can
appropriately constitute a separate bargaining unit.
In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, we find that
all tailors employed in the Employer's several New York City work-
rooms, excluding operators, drapers, finishers, and supervisors, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the 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.)
CALIFORNIA RESEARCH R' DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 1 and OPERATING
ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION No. 3, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERAT-
ING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER
CALIFORNIA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE No. 115, AFL,
PETITIONER
CALIFORNIA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases
Nos. 20-RC-1836, 20-RC-1848, and 20-fC-1850. October 8, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Robert V. Magor, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
' The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
100 NLRB No. 221.
1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
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 Houston 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. Questions affecting commerce exist 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. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, International Union
of Operating Engineers, AFL, herein called the Operating Engineers,
seeks to represent a unit of all operating and maintenance employees,
with the usual exclusions, at the Employer's Livermore research labo-
ratory. International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No.
115, AFL, herein called the Machinists, seeks to represent a unit of
journeymen mechanics (machinist), journeymen mechanics (field),
journeymen mechanics (crane), and helpers .s Alternatively, it asks
for separate units of journeymen mechanics (machinist) and journey-
men mechanics (field). It also seeks to represent a separate unit
of journeyman mechanics (welder), and a separate unit of garage-
men and servicemen. International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL, herein called the Electrical Workers, seeks to represent a
unit of journeymen mechanics (electrician), lead mechanic electrician,
and head electrician. The Employer contends that only an operating
.and maintenance unit is appropriate.
The Livermore research laboratory, which is involved in this pro-
ceeding, is engaged in research to develop atomic energy processes.
Its work is entirely experimental. Operations are not fixed, but change
from time to time in accordance with experiments underway. There
is no history of collective bargaining.
The operations of the Livermore research laboratory are subdivided
into four principal departments : plant services, operations, mainte-
nance and engineering, and purchases and stores. The maintenance
2 After the close of the hearing, Building Service Employees ' International Union, Local
'18, AFL, moved to intervene on the basis of an interest among janitors . It submitted
evidence of representation dated before the hearing in this case. The motion to intervene
is therefore granted. Unated Boat Service Corporation , 55 NLRB 671 In the closing part
of its motion to intervene , the Building Service Employees ' Union states : "Our organization
is agreeable to participating in any election that may be scheduled at this plant ." We shall
place its name on the ballot in voting group ( 4), infra.
S The Machinists described its unit as one consisting of all journeymen machinists. The
description above includes the Employer 's job classifications embraced within the Machin-
ists' definition of journeymen machinist.
CALIFORNIA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 1387
and engineering department has two subdepartments : electronics and
electrical, and mechanical maintenance. With the exception of the
garagemen and servicemen, all the employees whom the Machinists
and Electricians seek to represent in separate units work in these two.
subdepartments.
Electricians' Unit
The electronics and electrical subdepartment is in charge of a fore-
man under whom are two assistant foremen, one of whom is in charge
of department employees working in the plant and the other of those
working in the shops. There are two groups of mechanics working
in this subdepartment : electricians and electronic technicians. The
former have to do with the transmission of power through lines; the
latter with such things as radio, radar, and vacuum tubes generally.
Electricians and electronic technicians may do both types of work
depending on their individual capabilities. They work under the same
supervision and sometimes together. There is a group of helpers who
are assigned interchangeably to electricians or electronic technicians.
Whether they work in the plant or in the shops, they are always in
charge of their own departmental supervisor. The electricians are all
qualified journeymen; electronic technicians are even more skilled
than the electricians.
Machinists' Units
The supervisor in charge of the mechanical maintenance subdepart-
ment is a foreman. Under him are two assistant foremen, one of
whom supervises department employees working in the plant and the
other directs those working in the shops. Department employees work
interchangeably in the plant and in the shops.
Nonsupervisory employees in the department include several head
mechanics, a -lead mechanic, journeymen mechanics (machinists),.
journeymen mechanics (pipefitter), journeymen mechanics (welder),
journeymen mechanics (sheet metal), journeymen mechanics (car-
penter), journeymen mechanics (field), a journeyman mechanic
(crane), a group of helpers, and another group of laborers. The
descriptive work in parentheses after journeyman mechanic indicates
craft experience or major craft experience. Each group of mechanics
with the same craft experience have their own shop. Helpers are not
assigned to particular crafts but may assist any employee in the
department.
When a job is to be performed, the assistant foreman takes one of
the head mechanics to the job and explains the nature of the work to
be done. The head mechanic then determines the crafts needed to
perform the work. He may ignore job classifications if he feels that
a particular individual, regardless of his primary skill, can do the
1388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work. During a shutdown, between changes in procedure, all journey-
men mechanics work together in the accelerator building. They do
the mechanical work. During operations, journeymen mechanics per-
form necessary repair work in the accelerator building or in the shops.
The journeyman mechanic (machinist) is unquestionably a highly
skilled machinist. The journeyman mechanic (field) appears to be an
all-around mechanic. He may use the skills of a maintenance machin-
ist, a pipefitter, or a plumber, depending on the particular job. He
has no special shop, but may use any of those in the mechanical main-
tenance department. The journeyman mechanic (crane) operates a
crane in the accelerator building; lifting anything that needs to be
lifted. The journeyman mechanic (welder) appears to be a skilled
welder.
The plant upkeep, utilities, and transportation subdepartment is
part of the plant services department. Along with janitors, laborers,
and boiler operators, there is one garageman and six servicemen. The
garageman is in charge of the drivers and servicemen in the garage.
The servicemen fill cars with gasoline and oil, make minor repairs to
motor vehicles, and act as drivers for equipment around the plant.
Servicemen do not make major automobile repairs. Such major repair
work is contracted out.
Conclusion
The Employer opposes the establishment of craft units. It argues
that, because of the experimental nature of and the constant change
in operations, employees have to be flexible and cannot be separated
into the traditional crafts. The weakness in this argument is that the
Employer actually classifies employees according to craft skills and
has been hiring on the same basis. There is insufficient evidence to
show that these hired craftsmen have been turned into a group of all-
round mechanics. Nor do we perceive any reason why the Em-
ployer's operations should in any way be impeded by craft bargaining.
The Board has established craft units at plants of other employers
engaged in atomic energy research without asserted objection from
the Atomic Energy Commission, which has the primary responsibility
for such research efforts.4
There remains, however, the question of composition of the pro-
posed craft units. The Electricians desires to include in its unit only
electricians; it would exclude electronic technicians. We believe that
both classifications should be in the same unit 5 The two groups have,
4 NEPA Division of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation , 88 NLRB 99 ; General
Electric Company, 97 NLRB 1265.
5 Milprint Incorporated, 97 NLRB 241.
The Electricians has made a showing of interest sufficient to justify holding an election
in the enlarged voting group . If it does not desire such an election , it may withdraw its
petition.
CALIFORNIA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - 1389
related skills and backgrounds, are part of the same department, have
the same supervision, share the same helpers, and ofttimes work
together.
The Machinists desires to include journeymen mechanics (field)
and the one journeyman mechanic (crane) in the same unit with
journeymen mechanics (machinist). There is a lack of evidence to
show that the first two classifications have any special affinity with the
third.' We shall therefore exclude them from the unit. We shall
also exclude the helpers, none of whom is regularly assigned to work
with journeymen mechanics (machinist). Alternatively, the Machin-
ists, as pointed out above, requests a separate unit of journeymen
mechanics (field). These employees have various types of specialized
skills. They are not members of a craft. Accordingly, we find that a
unit limited to the field mechanics is inappropriate'
. The, seco fd-unit requested by the Machinists , consists, exclusively of
journeymen mechanics (welder). These welders appear to be the
kind of skilled welders who, the Board has held, may constitute a
separate unit .s
The third unit sought by the Machinists consists of the single
garageman and several servicemen. None of these employees can be
said to be craftsmen. They properly belong in the over-all operating
and maintenance unit. They may not constitute a separate unit.
We find that the following employees at the Employer's Livermore
research laboratory, Livermore, California, excluding office clerical
employees, firemen, guards, engineers, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, may constitute separate units' appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section49 (b) of the Act:
(1) All journeymen mechanics (electrician), electronic technicians,
electronic assistants, lead mechanic electrician, lead electronic tech-
nicians, head electrician, head electronic technicians, and helpers,
excluding foremen and assistant foremen.9
(2) All journeymen mechanics (machinist), excluding helpers,
journeymen mechanics (field), journeyman mechanic (crane), fore-
men, and assistant foremen.
(3) All journeymen mechanics (welder), excluding foremen and
assistant foremen.
6 The journeymen mechanics ( field ) have a multiplicity of skills. Although the crane
operator has a machinist background , there is no evidence that such training is necessary
for the work of a crane operator or that he works more closely with machinists than with
other employees.
7 Celanese Corporation of America, 78 NLRB 1047 . A crane operator 's unit could in
no event be appropriate because there is only one employee in this classification. Inde-
pendent Notion Picture Producers Association, 88 NLRB 1285.
1 Shell Chemical Corporation ( Shell Point Plant), 81 NLRB 965.
9 The parties stipulated that of the employees named above only the foremen and
assistant foremen are supervisors 'Within the meaning of the Act.
1390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(4) All other operating and maintenance employees, including
garagemen and servicemen, but excluding foremen, assistant foremen,.
and employees including in voting groups (1), (2), and (3).
Although the employees in voting groups (1), (2), and '(3) may
constitute separate appropriate units, as indicated above, they may
also be included in the same unit with the operating and maintenance.
employees in voting group (4). In these circumstances, we shall not
make any final unit determination until we have first ascertained the
desires of the employees involved.
If a majority of employees in voting groups (1), (2), or (3) vote
for the same bargaining representative as those in voting group (4),
such employees will be taken to have indicated their desire to consti-
tute a single appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting
the elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of
representatives to such labor organization for a unit comprising em-
ployees in voting group (4), plus the employees in other voting groups
voting for the same labor organization, which unit the Board, under
such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining. If a majority of employees in any of voting groups (1),
(2), or (3), vote for a different representative, the employees in that
voting group will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute
a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director is instructed:
to issue a certification of representatives to the winning labor organi-
zation for a unit comprising the employees in that voting group, which
the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
JANDEL Funs, A PARTNERSHIP COMPOSED OF JOSEPH ANDELMAN, DAVID
SILBERMAN , AND JuLES RENDELMAN and ABE WEINSTEIN
FuR WORKERS UNION LOCAL 72 (WASHINGTON, D. C.) OF INTERNA-
TIONAL FUR AND LEATHER WORKERS UNION OF UNITED STATES AND
CANADA and ABE WEINSTEIN . Cases Nos. 5-CA-363 and 5-CB-69.
October 9, 1952
Decision and Order
On December 14, 1951, Trial Examiner Charles L. Ferguson issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled 'proceeding, finding. that
the Respondents had not engaged in and were not engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that the complaint herein be
dismissed in its entirety . Thereafter, the charging party filed excep-
100 NLRB No. 234.