The Reliance Electric & Engineering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 488 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the unit and are entitled to express their desires with regard to
representation. As to the part-time employees, we find, with the
exception noted below, that they work regularly a sufficient number
of hours each week to be eligible to vote in the election.'
The Employer would find ineligible and the Petitioner eligible to
vote a number of employees presently on strike. The strike occurred
on February 8, 1951. Unfair labor practices filed by the Union against
the Employer on November 13, 1951, were dismissed by the Regional
Director on January 30, 1952.6 The record reveals that a number of
strikers have been permanently replaced, some have returned to their
jobs, some jobs have been eliminated for efficiency reasons, and a num-
ber of jobs have been consolidated. As a consequence the Employer
does not contemplate additions to its present working complement
whether or not the strike terminates. The employees on strike either
have been permanently replaced or their jobs abolished. Accordingly,
we find that the employees on strike, who have not been reemployed,
are not entitled to reinstatement and are ineligible to vote in the
election.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Ocala Star Banner, 97 NLRB 384. We find , however , that James Lynch , a part-time
employee , is not eligible to vote because he is a pensioner who continues to receive his
pension whether or not he works.
e 1-CA-1059.
a Big Run Coal & Clay Company , 93 NLRB 1351.
THE RELIANCE ELECTRIC & ENGINEERING COMPANY 1 and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS, LOCAL
737, CIO, PETITIONER _
Tim RELIANCE ELECTRIC & ENGINEERING COMPANY and DISTRICT 54,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, PETITIONER.
Cases Nos. 8-RC-1476 and 8-RC-1492. March 10, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Bernard Ness,
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 these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
3 The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
98 NLRB No. 92.
THE RELIANCE ELECTRIC & ENGINEERING COMPANY 489
Upon the entire record in these cases , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers,
Local 737, CIO, herein called the IUE; District 54, International
Association of Machinists, AFL, herein called the IAM ; and United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 715, herein
called the UE, are labor organizations which claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the UE assert their existing contract as a bar
to this proceeding? The contract in question was originally executed
on March 6,1950, for a period of 2 years (i. e., to expire March 6,1952),
with a 60-day automatic renewal provision. In October 1950, the con-
tracting parties by mutual agreement reopened the contract and,
among other things, extended the contract term to November 15, 1952.
In Novembzer 1951 the contract was again reopened, but the November
155 1952, expiration date was left unchanged. The IUE's petition was
filed on October 9, 1951, and the IAM's petition on October 30, 1951.
In Republic Steel Corporation,3 and later cases,4 the Board held that
where, as here, the term of a contract is.prematurely extended, this
should not in and of itself render the extended agreement ineffectual as
a bar during the period that the original contract would have remained
in effect had it not been so extended. However, as it appears that the
petitions herein were timely filed with respect to the automatic renewal
date in the original contract, we find that the contract does not con-
stitute a bar to a present determination of representatives.
4. The appropriate units :
Case No. 8-RC-1476
The IUE seeks a multiplant unit of production and maintenance
employees, including firemen and inspectors, at the Employer's plants
at Cleveland and Ashtabula, Ohio.5 The UE contends that separate
units of the employees at the Cleveland Plant and at the Ashtabula
Plant are appropriate. The Employer agrees with the position of the
IUE as to the scope of the unit. All the parties are in agreement as to
the composition of the unit or units in question, except with respect
to the placement of certain inspectors and watchmen, as fully dis-
cussed later in the case.
2In view of our disposition of the contract -bar question on other grounds, we find it
unnecessary to pass upon the IUE's contention that a schism in the ranks of the UE
removed the contract as a bar.
3 84 NLRB 483.
See also, Western Electric Company, 94 NLRB 54.
e At Ashtabula , Ohio, the Employer operates one plant , herein called the Ashtabula
Plant, and at Cleveland , Ohio, two plants ( i. e., the Ivanhoe and Euclid Divisions ), herein
collectively called the Cleveland Plant.
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Scope of the Unit
Since May 1948 the Employer has been under contract with the
UE with respect to a single unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees. Until July 1947 these employees were confined to the Cleve-
land Plant. In February 1948 the contracting parties extended their
agreement to include in the existing unit the employees at the Em-
ployer's newly established plant at Ashtabula, Ohio. Local 715, UE,
which had been representing the Cleveland employees, also undertook
at about that time to absorb into its membership the Ashtabula em-
ployees, with the specific consent of the latter group. Since then, two
of the six employees on the union negotiating committee represented
the Ashtabula employees; and the negotiated contracts were ratified
by the employees of both the Cleveland and Ashtabula Plants.
The Cleveland Plant and the Ashtabula Plant are 50 miles apart .s
At both plants the Employer manufactures electric motors, albeit a
smaller variety at the Ashtabula Plant. At both plants the opera-
tional methods, classifications of employees, wage rates, and general
working conditions are similar. By agreement with the UE, no
hourly paid employees are interchanged between the two plants.
However, salaried employees who are not in the bargaining unit are
freely interchanged. Except with respect to job seniority, all seniority
rights gained with the Employer are transferable between plants.
Each plant is substantially dependent upon the other for parts, thus,
it was estimated that either plant could not remain in operation more
than 30 days without the parts manufactured by the other. Both
plants are subject to common over-all supervision, common manage-
ment and labor relations policies, and centralized control of pur-
chases, sales, and engineering. In addition, it was testified, the plants
in Cleveland and Ashtabula are in close and constant contact by rea-
son of a highly integrated communications system, consisting of
direct telephone and teletype lines, and a 2-hour trucking service
regularly operated by the Employer.
In view of the foregoing, and in particular the history of collective
bargaining on a multiplant basis, we find, as to scope, that a single
unit embracing the Employer's plants at Cleveland and Ashtabula,
Ohio, is appropriate.
Composition of the Unit
The existing contract includes in the unit the inspectors in the Cleve-
land Plant but not those in the Ashtabula Plant. At both plants, the
inspectors perform the same type of work. The Employer and the
UE urge that in this regard the contract unit should be continued.
6 In Cleveland, the Euclid and Ivanhoe Divisions are 41h miles apart.
THE RELIANCE ELECTRIC & ENGINEERING COMPANY 491
The IUE would include all the inspectors. We find merit in the posi-
tion of the IUE. Apart from the contract, no reason is offered for
distinguishing between the inspectors at either plant. Accordingly,
notwithstanding the contract unit, we shall include the inspectors in
both plants.'
The watchmen are presently included in the contract unit. The
Employer and the UE would continue to include them, while the IUE
desires specifically to leave the question to the Board. Plant protec-
tion functions at the Employer's plants are exclusively performed by
employees supplied to the Employer by another company under con-
tract. Such employees the parties agree to exclude. As to the watch-
men in question, it appears that they spend only about 30 percent of
their time making the rounds of the plant and devote the remainder
of their time to sundry duties more closely related to production opera-
tions." Accordingly, we shall include the watchmen.9
Case No. 8-RC-1492
The IAM seeks to sever a unit of toolroom employees from the exist-
ing production and maintenance unit at the Cleveland and Ashtabula
Plants. The Employer, the IUE, and the UE oppose the IAM's
request.
The toolroom in Cleveland (referred to by the Employer as De-
partment 80), although separately housed in the Euclid Division, per-
forms all the toolroom work for the Euclid and Ivanhoe Divisions and
some of the work for the Ashtabula Plant. Employed in the Cleveland
toolroom, under the separate supervision of a foreman, are 44 em-
ployees, of whom 26 are tool makers, and the remainder tool grinders,
machine operators, welders, inspectors, tool crib attendants, and
laborers. It was testified on behalf of the Employer that all these
employees "work as a unit." At least with respect to the tool makers,
the parties concede that they possess a high degree of craft skill.
Under the contract toolroom employees were given a special wage
rate, called the "red circle rate."
In view of the large nucleus of highly skilled craftsmen in the Cleve-
land toolroom and the fact that all of the toolroom employees are
devoted to a specialized function in the plant operations, it seems clear
that these Cleveland employees constitute the type of craft. group
which may, under existing Board precedent, be represented separately
for collective bargaining purposes 10
a Waterous Company, 92 NLRB 76.
8 E g., lighting up soldering pots, checking gauges on heating units, and answering the
telephone.
See Pine Hall Brick & Pipe Co ., 93 NLRB 362.
30 See General Electric Electric Company, 89 NLRB 726, 745.
492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the Ashtabula Plant, the record establishes that the toolroom em-
ployees have substantially the same duties, classifications, and wage
rates as do the toolroom employees in Cleveland. Thus, of the 20
employees in question, 7 are tool makers, and the remainder tool
grinders, machine operators, inspectors, laborers, and a tool crib at-
tendant. Although these employees are in fact physically set apart
from other employees, they are located in the Ashtabula Plant as part
of the machine shop and are under the supervision of the machine-shop
foreman. However, it appears that one of the assistant supervisors 11
subordinate to the machine-shop foreman separately supervises the
toolroom group on the first shift. While at the Cleveland Plant all
the toolroom employees work exclusively in tool making operations,
in Ashtabula the tool grinders also grind tools for the production
employees and the inspectors inspect production tools, at their
places of work in the toolroom. However, notwithstanding such
minor production functions, we believe that the Ashtabula toolroom
employees are sufficiently distinct and, segregated as a group, and are
substantially similar in their craft characteristics to their counterparts
in Cleveland, to warrant separate representation, on a multiplant basis
with the latter employees, if such is the choice of the combined group.
The Employer contends that the toolroom employees should be
denied separate bargaining rights in view of (a) the long bargaining
history of their inclusion in the production and maintenance unit,
(b) their direct representation on the union negotiating committee
and participation in the administration of the contract, and (c) their
general acquiescence in past bargaining on a comprehensive basis.
We find merit in none of these factors insofar as they pertain to the
question of craft severance 12
Accordingly, we shall direct elections among the employees at the
Employer's plants at Cleveland and Ashtabula, Ohio, in the following
voting groups :
1. All toolroom employees.
2. All remaining production and maintenance employees, including
inspectors, firemen, and watchmen, but excluding clerical employees,13
plant-protection employees, technical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but
shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in the
elections hereinafter directed. If the employees in group 1 select
a bargaining representative different from that selected by the em-
11 Mooney.
12 See, e. g, Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 75 NLRB 638.
13 The parties agree to exclude the plant clericals who have historically been excluded
from the unit.
HOLLOW TREE LUMBER COMPANY 493
ployees in group 2, the Board finds that they constitute a separate
appropriate unit; and if, in these circumstances the employees in
group 2 also select a bargaining agent, the Board finds that the em-
ployees in group 2 also constitute an appropriate unit. If the em-
ployees in the two groups select the same bargaining agent, the Board
finds that together they constitute an appropriate unit. The Regional
Director conducting the elections directed herein is instructed to issue
a certification of representatives to the union or unions in the unit or
units which may result from the election. If either group selects no
bargaining agent, the Regional Director shall issue a certificate of
results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
HOLLOW TREE LUMBER COMPANY ; WILLIAM M. ' MOORES, W. H. A.
SMITH, AND J. GROVES SMITH , D/B/A RUSSIAN RIVER REDWOOD CO.;
WILLIAM M . MOORES, W. H. A. SMITH , AND LORENZO D. COURTRIGHT,
D/B/A UKIAH VALLEY LUMBER COMPANY and LUMBER & SAWMILL
WORKERS, LOCAL No. 2975, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS &
JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL , PETITIONER . Case No. 20-RC-1673.
Marche 11, 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 David Karasick, 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 [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.'
1 The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition was
fatally defective because it failed to indicate the date request for recognition was made
and that recognition was thereafter refused. The hearing officer referred the motion to
the Board . The Employer admitted at the hearing That the Petitioner requested recogni-
tion and that such request was refused . Although the petition was technically defective
in failing so to state , the Employer has not shown that any prejudice resulted . Accord-
ingly, the motion is denied . Petco Corporation-New Orleans Division , 98 NLRB 150.
8 For the reasons stated in paragraph numbered 4, we find that the three companies
involved herein together constitute a single employer . In view of the totality of their
operations , we also find , contrary to the companies' contention , that they are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it would effectuate the purposes of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Commercial Equipment Company, Inc., et at,, 95 NLRB
354 ; Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
98 NLRB No. 101.