Puerto Rica Glass Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 12, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 102 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act and thereby it engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
4 By discharging Angel Gonzalez on October 22, 1958, because of her con-
tinued union membership in and activities on behalf of the Union and by thereafter
failing or- refusing to reinstate her to her former position of employment for the
same reason the Company discriminated against her in regard to her lure and tenure
of employment to discourage membership in the Union, thereby violatmg Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
[Recommendations omitted from publication 7
Puerto Rico Glass Corporation and Union de Molderos de la
Puerto Rico Glass Corporation, Ind., Petitioner. Case No.
24-RC-1160 January 12, 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 Anthony J Di Salvo, hear-
ing 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 Rodgers and
Jenkins]
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 i 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)x(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4 The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of moldmakers and proba-
tionary moldmakers from an existing production and maintenance
unit which has been represented by Intervenor since at least 1951.
The Employer contends that the unit is inappropriate as the mold-
makers do not constitute a craft group entitled to separate representa-
tion and the Petitioner is not a craft union entitled to seek such sepa-
rate representation, under the Amerwan Potash doctrine 2 In addi-
tion, the Employer argues that, in view of the collective-bargaining
1 Intervenor, Union de Empleados de la Industria del Oristal, Local 1970, IBL-AFL-CIO,
was permitted to intervene on the basis of its having represented molders under a recently
expired contract
a American Potash and Cheinwal Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418
426 NLRB No 11
PUERTO RICO GLASS CORPORATION 103
history and its integrated operations, only a production and mainte-
nance unit which includes the employees in question is appropriate.
The Intervenor takes no position with respect to the appropriateness
of the requested unit.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of glass bottles and
containers. Among its operations, the Employer maintains a mold
shop which is located on the north side of the plant. There are 18
moldmakers and 6 probationary moldmakers regularly assigned to
the mold shop. These employees work almost exclusively on the
repair of mold sets which are used in the production of bottles and
glass containers and make new parts or component parts to replace
broken or worn out parts of mold sets.' They work principally with
metal and metal working equipment. Although there is no apprentice
program for moldmakers, many apparently have had mechanical
vocational training prior to being employed and all employees in the
mold shop have been trained in the moldmakers trade after assign-
ment to the mold shop. These employees are the highest paid, have
separate supervision, and are not interchanged with other employees.
The Employer concedes in its brief that "the type of work done in
the mold shop is a sort of skilled or semiskilled nature . . ." In
view of the foregoing, we find that moldmakers and probationary
moldmakers constitute a well-defined and functionally cohesive craft
group of a type which the Board has found may be appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining, notwithstanding a history of
collective bargaining on a plantwide basis.4 We, however, exclude
from this voting group, mold cleaners. These employees work outside
the mold shop cleaning molds, are not skilled, and are not yin direct
line of progression in the molders' craft 5
For the reasons set forth in Friden Calculating,6 we further find
that the Petitioner, which was organized for the sole purpose of
representing moldmakers at the Employer's plant, is entitled to seek
severance of the molders here involved.
Accordingly, we deny the Employer's motion to dismiss and shall
direct that an election be conducted in the following voting group of
employees at the Employer's Catano, Puerto Rico, plant:
All moldmakers and probationary moldmakers in the moldmakers'
shop of the Employer's plant at Catano, Puerto Rico, excluding all
production and maintenance employees, mold cleaners, executive, ad-
3 About 97 percent of the mold sets have originally been purchased from a mold
manufacturer.
' Cf. Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation, 101 NLRB 116 ; Southern States
Equipment Corporation , 113 NLRB 537, 538. For the reasons set forth in American
Potash and Chemical Corporation, supra , we find contrary to the Employer' s contention
that the right of separate representation should not be denied the members of a craft
group merely because the Employer 's operations are highly integrated
6 American Potash and Chemical Corporation , supra.
^ Friden Calculating Machine Co ., Inc, et at ., 110 NLRB 1618.
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ministrative, and professional personnel, office clerical employees,
watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for the
Petitioner, 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 certification
of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit described above, which
the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining. In the event, however, a majority
of the employees vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to remain a part of the existing unit now repre-
sented by the Intervenor and the Regional Director will issue a cer-
tification of results of election to such effect.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
° Since at least 1951 , the Intervenor has been the exclusive bargaining representative
of the Employer ' s production and maintenance employees , including the moldmakers who
are the subject of this proceeding Pursuant to an agreement for Consent Election in
Case No. 24-RC-64 , filed on August 11, 1959 , the Intervenor was certified on August 20,
1959, as representative of the production and maintenance unit of Employer 's employees
excluding "all mold makers who work in the mold shop of the company pending the
Board's decision in 24-RC-1160 ." The tally of the ballots showed that even if the
moldmakers had voted , their votes would not have affected the results of that election.
A. & M. Karagheusian , Inc. and Textile Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-3748. January 13, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 14, 1959, Trial Examiner Arnold Ordman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac-
tices as alleged. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the ent ire record in this
126 NLRB No. 14.