Delta Tank Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 364 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DELTA TANK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INCORPORATED ('SHELL DIvI-
SION)1 and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE No.
1366, AFL ,2 PETITIONER
DELTA TANK MANUFAC'T'URING COMPANY, INCORPORATED (SHELL DIvI-
SION) and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL 767, AFL,3 PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 15-RC-670 and 15-RC-
752. July 24,1952
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
Charles A. Kyle, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 4
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Styles].
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
employees of the Employer.
3. The Boilermakers and the Employer contend that their current
contract, executed on December 31, 1950, and amended on March 18,
1952, is a bar on the ground that its coverage extends to the Em-
ployer's newly established shell division at Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
which is involved in these proceedings. The IAM and the IBEW
argue that the contract is not a bar because it is limited to the Em-
ployer's tank division in the same city. Although the Employer had
already agreed to produce shells for the Government before the Em-
ployer and the Boilermakers completed their negotiations for modi-
fication of their contract in March 1952, it contains no provision ex-
tending its coverage to the shell division which began its operations
in the following month. As the contract in question was made before
' The name of the Employer appears as requested by the Employer at the hearing and
by the IAM in a motion made subsequent thereto. However , the parenthetical phrase
is added to identify the division petitioned for by the IAM.
z Herein called IAM.
$ Herein called IBEW.
* The hearing officer properly permitted the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America, Local 582, AFL, herein called Boilermakers,
to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest.
100 NLRB No. 56.
DELTA TANK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INCORPORATED 365
the inception of production at the shell division, we find that it is not
a bar to these proceedings.5
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce,exists con-
cerning the representation of the employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The JAM seeks a unit of all employees at the Employer's shell
division, excluding electricians, clerical employees, and supervisors
as defined in the Act. The IBEW desires a craft unit of electricians
at the shell division. The Employer and the Boilermakers contend
that only a unit composed of both the shell and tank divisions is
appropriate.
The Employer's tank and shell divisions are located in separate
plants within 100 yards of each other. At these plants, which have
similar classifications of employees but different operations, the Em-
ployer is respectively engaged in the production of tanks or pressure
vessels and artillery shells. Although they are under the over-all
supervision of 2 top officers of the Employer, each plant is under
separate immediate supervision.' The Employer does not plan to have
any interchange of employees between the two plants except in cases
of emergency. However, about 40 employees and a few supervisors -
were transferred to the shell division at the outset of its operations.
The employees in both plants have the same holidays and vacation
program, and participate in the Employer's group insurance plan.
In addition, the Employer has requested the Wage Stabilization
Board to approve a uniform wage scale for the employees in both
plants. A common office and clerical staff and traffic and transporta-
tion department serve both divisions.
While some factors present in these cases indicate the appropriate-
ness of a two-plant unit, they are not so compelling as to require our
holding that no other unit is appropriate. The Board normally per-
mits employees at a new plant to have a voice in the determination as
to whether or not they shall be separately represented apart from
employees at other plants of the same employer .6 We believe, there-
fore, upon the record in this case, including the difference in plant
functions and the absence of bargaining history on a multiplant basis,
that a bargaining unit of employees at the shell division may also be
appropriate, depending upon the results of the election hereinafter
directed.
There remains for consideration the IBEW's request for a unit of
electricians at the Employer's shell division. The record shows that
" The Hertner Electric Company , 99 NLRB 567.
The Hertner Electric Company, supra.
366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these electricians possess skills and perform duties similar to those
whom the Board has frequently found may constitute a separate
craft unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.' We
shall therefore establish a separate voting group for them.
Accordingly, we shall direct separate elections in the following
voting groups at the Employer's shell division in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana :
(1) All employees, excluding electricians, clerical employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) All electricians and their apprentices and helpers, excluding all
other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority in voting group (1) vote for the IAM, they will be
taken to have indicated their desires to constitute a separate appropri-
ate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed
herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
IAM for that unit as described in the voting group which the Board,
under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining. In the event the majority vote for the Boiler-
makers, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to become
part of the unit at the Employer's tank division in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, now represented by the Boilermakers; and the Regional
Director will certify the results of the election.
If a majority in voting group (2) vote for the IBEW, they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appro-
priate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed
herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
IBEW for that unit as described in the voting group which the
Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining. In the event the majority vote for the
Boilermakers, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
become part of the unit at the Employer's tank division in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, now represented by the Boilermakers, and the
Regional Director will certify the results of the election.
5. The record discloses that the present complements of employees
in the shell division voting groups are substantial and representative
segments of the employees to be employed in the coming months.
Under these circumstances, we shall follow our usual policy of direct-
ing immediate elections.8
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
7 Potlatch Forests , Inc., 94 NLRB 1444.
e F.lectro Metallurgical Company, A Division of Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation,
98 NLRB No. 183.