Outboard Marine Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 7, 1960

129 N.L.R.B. 316 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
elections in the following voting groups of employees at the Em-
ployers Weldon Spring, Missouri, plant, excluding from both groups
office clerical employees, laboratory personnel, powerplant employees,
guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
Group 1: All maintenance and construction electricians, their help-
ers, and apprentices;
Group 2: All production and maintenance employees, but exclud-
ing electricians.
If the employees in the electrician voting group vote for Local 1,
they will be taken to have voted for separate representation, and the
Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives to Local 1 for a separate unit of elec-
tricians, which the Board, in these circumstances, finds to be appro-
priate for the purpose of collective bargaining. And, in that event,
should a majority of the employees in the production and maintenance
voting group select a bargaining representative, the Regional Di-
rector is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such
bargaining representative for a unit of production and maintenance
employees, excluding electricians, which the Board in these circum-
stances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
On the other hand, if a majority in the electrician voting group do
not select Local 1, the ballots of the employees in the electrician voting
group will be pooled with those of the employees in the production
and maintenance voting group.' If the employees in the pooled group
select a bargaining representative, the Regional Director is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to such bargaining repre-
sentative for a unit of production and maintenance employees, includ-
ing electricians, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be an
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
' If the votes are pooled, they shall be tallied in the following manner : The votes
for Local 1 shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against Local 6 or the
Intervenor; all other votes are to be accorded their face value whether for or against
representation by Local 6 or the Intervenor.
Outboard Marine Corporation 1 and Independent Marine and
Machinists Association , Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-7303.
October 7, 1960
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 Sinclair Kassoff, hearing
3 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
129 NLRB No. 32.
OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION 317
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 Leedom and Members Jenkins and Fanning].
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. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Petitioner, which requests an election in a unit of employees
in the engine section of the Employer's marine engineering division,
represented these employees prior to their transfer from another plant
of the Employer. The Employer agrees that this is an appropriate
unit. The Intervenor also agrees that this unit is appropriate except
that it would sever therefrom a unit of patternmakers, which it seeks
to represent separately. The Employer and the Petitioner oppose the
severance of this unit. There are 39 employees in the engine section
unit, and 4 patternmakers.
The Employer manufactures outboard motors, motor scooters, lawn
mowers, and other mechanical products at the plant here involved
which is located at Waukegan, Illinois. Due to a corporate reorgani-
zation in January 1960, the employees in the unit claimed by the
Petitioner were transferred from another division of the Employer,
also located in Waukegan, to a newly established engineering division
which designs, develops, and tests the outboard motors produced at
various plants of the Employer. The Petitioner, which represented
these employees for about 25 years prior to the transfer, filed an
unfair labor practice charge against the Employer when it refused
to recognize the Petitioner as their representative after the transfer.
A complaint was issued, but the parties subsequently agreed to hold
an election, and the complaint was withdrawn. The Petitioner filed
its petition pursuant to this agreement.
The four patternmakers manufacture, alter, and repair wooden
patterns and core boxes. They work in a pattern shop which is
physically separated by walls from the other departments. They
perform only patternmaking functions, are supervised by a foreman
who is a skilled patternmaker and who supervises no other employees,
and do not interchange with other employees. They receive the high-
est hourly wage rate of the 39 employees here involved. While the
'Patterns \iakers League of North America, Chicago Association, herein called the
Inter%error, intervened on the basis of a showing of interest.
318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer maintains no formal apprenticeship program, the record
shows that one of the patternmakers has had a total of almost 40
years' experience, and another has had 5 years' experience in this craft
with the Employer. There is no indication that the other two em-
ployees do not possess equivalent skill and training in the pattern-
making craft. None of the parties disputed the craft status of the
patternmakers. While the Employer and the Petitioner opposed
severance of the patternmakers, they did so on the basis only of the
bargaining history and the terms of the settlement agreement pro-
viding for an election in the historical unit. It is clear, however,
that these factors cannot preclude the Board from finding a craft unit
appropriate herein.' Moreover by the elections herein, the Board
is not precluding the Petitioner from obtaining representation in the
unit covered by the settlement agreement, should the employees so
desire.
In view of the foregoing, and the record as a whole, we find that
the patternmakers are craftsmen who may constitute a separate ap-
propriate unit if they so desire.' The Intervenor has traditionally
represented employees in the patternmakers' craft.
In view of our determination that the patternmakers may constitute
a separate craft unit if they so desire, we shall make no final unit
determination at this time but shall direct separate elections in the
following voting groups of employees in the Employer's engineering
division, Waukegan, Illinois :
A. All patternmakers, excluding all other employees, office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
B. All experimental mechanics, experimental parts mechanics, tool-
makers, machinists, stock chasers, and janitors, excluding all pattern-
makers, rate setters, metal polishers, office clerical employees, technical
employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.'
If a majority of the employees in voting group A vote for the
Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con-
stitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director con-
ducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certificate
of representatives to the Intervenor for such unit which the Board,
under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for collective bar-
gaining. In that event, if a majority of the employees in voting group
B select the Petitioner, the Regional Director is instructed to issue
3 See Section 9(b) (2) of the Act ; American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB
1418; Southern Paperboard Corporation, 112 NLRB 302; Vickers, Incorporated, 122
NLRB 155
4 See General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Division , Tonawanda Foundry
Plant, Tonawanda, New York, 111 NLRB 841, 844-845.
5 Except as indicated with regard to the patternmakers, the parties stipulated to the
-composition of this voting group.
FOREIGN CAR CENTER, INC. 319
a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which
the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
However, if a majority of the employees in voting group A do not
vote for the Intervenor, such group appropriately will be included
in the same unit with the employees in voting group B, and their votes
will be pooled with those in voting group B.e If a majority of the
employees in the pooled group select the Petitioner, the Regional
Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
Petitioner for the pooled group which the Board in such circumstances
finds to be an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
"If the votes are pooled , they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes
for the Intervenor shall be counted as valid votes but neither for nor against the Peti-
tioner, all other votes are to be accorded their face value , whether for the Petitioner or
for no union.
Foreign Car Center, Inc., formerly Bob Snead , Inc. and Machin-
ists Lodge 695, International Association of Machinists, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 19-CA-1948. October 7, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 3, 1960 , at the close of the hearing in the above -entitled
proceeding, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster , en bane, granted the
Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint . The complaint, as
dismissed , alleged that the Respondent , by disavowing its contract
with the Union in midterm and thereafter refusing to recognize the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative , refused to bargain
in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
The facts are as follows : On or about December 9, 1958, Bob Snead,
Inc., signed an exclusive bargaining contract with the Union, covering
several classifications of mechanics , to rununtil June 1961 . Although
formerly employing at least two mechanics , at the time this contract
was executed and continuing until the date of the hearing herein, Bob
Snead , Inc., and its successor, Foreign Car Center , Inc., employed
only one mechanic.
In December 1959 , Oliver Beatty, sales manager for Bob Snead,
Inc., informed a union representative that a new corporation, For-
eign Car Center , Inc., would take over the operations of Bob Snead,
Inc., and that Foreign Car Center, Inc., would not be bound by the
Union's existing contract with Bob Snead, Inc.
On January 4, 1960 , Beatty became the president and a minority
stockholder of Foreign Car Center , Inc. Thereafter , the new cor-
129 NLRB No. 36.