Ladish Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 14, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 159 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

LADISH Co. 159
4. By refusing on and after October 26, 1951, to bargain collectively with the
aforesaid Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By the aforesaid unfair labor practice, the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained,'and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby netify our employees that :
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO A\D -MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein, with
respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment. and other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining
unit is:
All plant department and operating department employees employed at
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, excluding office clerical and sales employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-named
union to bargain collectively with us, or refuse to bargain with said union,
as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit
set forth above.
THE AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Employer.
Dated ---------------------------------- By ------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
LADISH Co. and CUDAIIY FORGERS LOCAL #509, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF BLACI\SDIITHS, DROP FORGERS AND HELPERS, AFL,
PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-2591. July 14, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Seciion 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William D. Boetticher, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudical error and are hereby affirmed.
100 NLRB No 26.
160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to u three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mealiing of the
Act.'
2. The labor organization involved claims 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, a Wisconsin corporation, is engaged in the manu-
facture or forgings, flanges, and fittings for farm implements, road-
making, general industrial machinery, and oil well equipment at its
only plant in Cudahy, Wisconsin. A previously reported case' in-
volving the Employer shows that the Employer's plant was divided
into 17 departments,2 each with separate supervision and with a sepa-
rate and distinct function in the Employer's operations. The present
record indicates that, although a few departments may have been
added since our earlier decision above, the administrative division of
the plant has remained substantially the same. At the time of the
hearing, the Employer had approximately 3,500 employees, most of
whom are currently iepresented by various labor organizations 3 It
appears from the Board records that only 2 have been previously cer-
tified as bargaining agents for any of the employees which they now
represent, the other labor organizations having been recognized as
bargaining agents by the Employer.,
In a 1945 Board proceeding 4 the Petitioner was certified for two
departments (steel stores and forge shop) of the four departments it
now represents,' and in the same proceeding the IAM was certified for
the maintenance and repair department. Also, in 1945, following a
1 Ladish Drop Forge Company, 57 NLRB 1468 ( 1944).
2 These were , viz, steel stores, forge shop, heat treating, cleaning , straightening , grinding
and salvage , production machine, die room , painting , galvanizing , shipping , flange store,
stockroom , power plant , inspection , maintenance and repair , and metallurgical
B The labor organizations and the employees which they represent are (1) Petitioner
(steel stores, forge shop, draw bench, and heat treat departments ) ; ( 2) Milwaukee Die
Sinkers ' Lodge, Local 140 (all employees , working on dies or parts of dies) ; (3) Electrical
Workers Union , 494, IBEW ( electricians ) ; ( 4) Associated Unions of America and Its
Office and Professional Workers, Local 85 (plant clericals ) ; and (5 ) International Associ-
ation of Machinists , District 10 (all remaining employees except office employees and the
metallurgical department employees who together apparently constitute the only unrepre-
sented employees at the Employer ' s plant).
4 Ladish Drop Forge Company, 61 NLRB 572.
5 Since the certification of the Petitioner by the Board as bargaining representative in
1945 for the steel stores and forge shop departments , the Employer has also recognized the
Petitioner as the representative of the draw bench and heat treat departments.
LADISH CO. 161
consent election c the TAM was further certified as the bargaining agent
for those employees which it now represents , in addition to the main-
tenance and repair department . The Petitioner now seeks to repre-
sent as a separate unit all employees in the combustion control division
of the metallurgical department , or in the alternative , if the Board
finds that a separate unit of these employees is inappropriate , the Pe-
titioner seeks to include them in its existing unit. As discussed be-
low, it is the Petitioner 's contention that the employees in the combus-
tion control division constitute a readily identifiable group with a
nucleus of skilled employees and that they may thus appropriately be
bargained for as it separate unit. The Employer assumes a neutral
position with respect to the unit question . It appears from the record
that neither the metallurgical department as a whole nor the combus-
tion control division thereof is currently represented or has ever been
represented by a labor organization.
The metallurgical department is a separate and distinct depart-
ment with respect to location, supervision , and seniority. The metal-
lurgical department is charged with full responsibility for the metal-
lurgical quality of all forgings produced by the Employer, in which
respect it lends its assistance to all the manufacturing , processing,
engineering , and administrative departments . It is composed of
physical testing, chemistry , combustion control, administrative, pho-
tographic , metallographic , stress analysis , x-ray defraction , and non-
destructive testing divisions . A representative of the Employer.
.testified that a metallurgical department is more or less unusual in
the forging industry and that to his knowledge no other forging com-
pany has employees doing work similar to that done by the employees
in the Employer 's combustion control division . Because, however,
the Employer frequently works with unusual types of alloys in forging,
for example , parts for jet aircraft engines, the metallurgical depart-
ment is necessary to insure proper production of these forgings.
The metallurgical department as a whole comprises about 175
employees, of whom about 35 employees are in the combustion control
division sought by the Petitioner . The combustion control division
represents as extension of metallurgical engineering into the forge
shop. Thus, by necessity , combustion control employees spend the
greater part of their time in the forge shop area where they see that
the technical specifications developed and set forth by the metal-'
lurgical department are, followed in the forge operation.
The combustion control department has its own general supervisor
and a head supervisor . The latter is in turn under the supervision of
the chief metallurgist and his assistant who are the over-all supervisors
of the metallurgical department . When the combustion control em-
BLa(lish Drop Forge Company , Case No. 13-RC-2763 ( not reported in printed volumes
of decisions).
I
162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees are working in the forge shop, they are not subject to the
control or authority of the forge shop supervisors.
Although a part of the metallurgical department proper, the com-
bustion control personnel have their own suboffice which is adjacent to
the forge shop, and about 700 feet from.the metallurgical department
proper. At this office, the supervisors of combustion control employees
do their detail work and receive communications for directing the
assignments of their men. Combustion control employees spend a
total of about 30 minutes a day in this office, and the rest of their time
at their assignments which take them into the forge shop and other
departments represented by the Petitioner. They also spend somewhat
less than 5 percent of their time elsewhere in the plant checking vari-
ous inspecting operations adjacent to the metallurgical departient.
The job classifications of the combustion control division are process
controller, heat monitor, and combustion instrument adjuster.' The
Employer requires a process controller to have a high school educa-
tion, some college training in metallurgy or engineering, knowledge
-along specialized fields such as steel alloys, and ability to use pyrom-
eters and potentiometers. A heating monitor is required to have
a high school education and some college training in metallurgy or
mechanical engineering, or the equivalent in experience, while a
combustion instrument adjuster must have a high school- education
or the equivalent preferably with a background in science or
mechanics.
Each job classification has a learner and A, B, and C grades. It-
takes from 1 to 3 months for an employee to advance from a learner
to a class C grade and about the same time to advance to a class B
grade. It takes from 2 to 3 years for a class B employee to obtain
a class A grade. The record further indicates that class A employees,
if qualified, may advance further in the metallurgical department.
The Employer testified that he considers class A employees as skilled
employees. Although combustion control employees are upgraded
as they gain experience or show aptitude, there is no formal appren-
ticeship program for these employees. The rates of pay of all combus-
tion control division employees range from $1.35 to $2.10 per hour.
The top pay rates compare favorably with the hourly rates paid
to various craft employees in the plant. However, there are only
a few employees in the combustion control division who are paid
$2.10 per hour. The working hours of the metallurgical and forge
shop are substantially the same. All employees throughout the plant
receive the same benefits.
7 The combustion control division also includes some engineer trainees whom the Petitioner
would exclude from the unit sought and who are apparently newly employed college gradu-
ate engineers They are placed by the Employer in the combustion control division for
about 6 months to learn the practical aspects of forging in line with the Employer's policy
of developing metallurgical and mechanical engineers for special assignments.
LADISH Co. 163 :
The combustion control employees report for work to the metal-
lurgical department proper, where their lockers and washroom fa-
cilities are located. They also report to the metallurgical department
during the course of a specific forging, should they require any
interpretation or clarification of the specifications which are set
forth by the metallurgical department for each forging operation..
As part of their responsibility to see- that the precise heating and_
cooling cycles and other standards as set forth by these specifications.
are met, they are required to keep a record history of each forging-
which is sent to the metallurgical department. In the course of the
above duties, the combustion control employees, unlike forge shop
employees, do not handle any of the material or equipment used in,
snaking forgings.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, we are satisfied that although-
some of the combustion control employees are skilled, none of them
exercises or possesses any of the skills pertaining to a true or recog--
nized craft .8 Rather it is clear from the job descriptions and educa-
tional requirements of these employees that their work is primarily
technical in nature and that they are, therefore, technical employees
with interests related to those of other technical employees employed
in the metallurgical department .9 Accordingly, we find no merit to
the Petitioner's contention that the combustion control employees.
constitute an appropriate unit because the group has a sufficient nucleus-
of craft employees. Nor do the employees in question constitute an.
appropriate unit of technical employees, as they appear to be but a
segment of a larger group of technical employees in the. metallurgical
department 10 As the combustion control employees, are neither
craftsmen nor do they otherwise constitute a distinct and homogeneous
group, with interests different from those of other employees, suck
as we have recognized may be separately represented, we find that
they do not constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.-
As stated above, the Petitioner in the alternative requests that the
combustion control employees be included in its existing unit. In view
of the fact that the combustion control employees are technical em-
ployees whose duties and interests are distinct from those of the
employees currently represented by the Petitioner,, and the fact that the
Cf. Abbotts Dairies, Inc., 97 NLRB No . 2, and cases cited therein ; The Flexible Com-
pany, 85 NLRB 536.
9 The existence of other technical employees in the metallurgical department is indicated
by the names of the other divisions in the metallurgical department.
11 The Monarch Machine Tool Co., 98 NLRB 1243 ( Members Houston and Styles, dissent-
ing). See also The De Laval Separator Company, 97 NLRB 544; F. IT. Sickles Company,
81 NLRB 390.
u Thus, the only basis for establishment of the proposed unit, that we can perceive, is
the extent of the Petitioner 's organization among these employees . The Act, however,
precludes a finding on this basis alone . Pacific Gas t Electric Company, 91 NLRB 617.
227200-53-vol. 100--12
1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-combustion control division is functionally related to the metallurgical
-department as a whole which includes other technical employees, we
find no basis for permitting the Petitioner to add the combustion
control employees to its existing unit 12
As we have found that the combustion control employees neither
may constitute a separate unit nor be included in the Petitioner's
.existing unit, we shall dismiss -the petition.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the petition herein be and it hereby is,
dismissed.
u See Monsanto Chemical Company , 89 NLRB 1478.
THE ENGLANDER COMPANY, INC. and UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 5-RC-1073. July 14,1952
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 Louis Aronin, 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 Murdock and Peterson.]
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 involved claims 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.'
1 The Respondent contends that the Petitioner-an International Union-is not entitled
to maintain this proceeding unless all of its Local Unions, and particularly those whose
officers were present at the hearing , are found to be in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g),
and (h) of the Act. We find no merit in this contention , as we are satisfied upon the
record that the International , which has achieved compliance , is the real party in interest
in this proceeding , and is therefore entitled to maintain the proceeding in its own behalf
without regard to the compliance status of its locals . Cf. Tin Processing Corp., 80
NLRB 1369 , 1371 . We shall , accordingly , deny the Employer 's motion to dismiss the
petition.
100 NLRB No. 33.