The Store Kraft Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 29, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 968 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Both parties to the contract state that section 22 was not intended:
to, and did not, cover union security. This position is supported by
the history both of contract provisions between the parties and of
grievances proceedings to prevent changes in working conditions of
some employees which have been based on this provision. The rec-
ord is barren of evidence that this section has ever been interpreted
as relating to union security. Furthermore, the Petitioner's argu-
ments assume illegality,5 whereas the proper assumption is one of
legality.6
The contract contains no union-security provision and considera-
tions as to the legality of the checkoff provision under section 302
are irrelevant to the question of contract bar 7 It follows that the
current contract between the Employer and the Amalgamated must
be regarded as a bar to a present determination of representatives.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
6 E g., the Petitioner assumes that the deletion of a union -shop condition from the 1948
contract was a nugatory act because such practices were to be continued under the "pre-
vious working Conditions" section. Such a view ignores the elementary principle of
interpretation which assumes that all omissions are intended to be omissions. See Roscoe
Pound, Spurious Interpretation, VII Col. I. Rev. (1907) 379.
6 Restatement of Contracts , § 236 (c ) ; see Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc ., 97 NLRB
1488
7 Crown Products Company, 99 NLRB 602. Clearly , the legality of practices apart from
the contract is not litigable in representation proceedings . Canada Dry Ganger Ate, Incor-
porated, 97 NLRB 597.
THE STORE KRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED BROTHER-
HOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, MILLMEN 'S LOCAL
UNION No. 832, AFL,' PETITIONER
THE STORE KRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and BROTHERHOOD OF
PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, FIXTURE &
GLASS WORKERS LOCAL No. 621, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos.
17-RC-1351 and 17-RC-1368. August 29, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before William M.
Guerin, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
' The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
100 NLRB No. 142.
TEJE STORD KRAFT •MANTTEACTURIN^Gr,COMPANY 969
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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
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 Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Mill-
men's Local Union No. 832, AFL, herein called the Carpenters, pro-
poses a unit embracing all production, maintenance, and shipping
employees at the Employer's Beatrice, Nebraska, plant. Brotherhood
of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Fixture and
Glass Workers Local No. 621, AFL, herein called the Painters, re-
quests a unit limited to the production and maintenance employees in
the finishing department and the glass department. The Employer
agrees with the Carpenters' unit contention. All parties agree to
exclude from any unit found appropriate certain specified categories
listed below.
The Employer is engaged principally in the manufacture and sale
of store equipment. Its production operations are performed in
several departments : Machine, assembly, glass, finishing, shipping,
and maintenance. The machine department handles and prepares for
assembly the lumber and materials fabricated in the main woodwork-
ing plant. The assembly department assembles the lumber and hard-
ware of various fixtures, excluding the fitting of glass parts. The
finishing department sands, paints, and performs the finishing opera-
tions on the products manufactured. The glass department processes,
cuts, and fits glass items, and manufactures some wood items. The
shipping department boxes and crates the items manufactured and
has general responsibility for shipping all products. The mainte-
nance department maintains the plant's machinery and equipment.
The departmental designations apparently are not intended to
describe a rigid separation of functions performed in the respective
departments. Some shipping and woodworking is performed in the
glass department and some shipping is done in the finishing depart-
ment.
The plant employees as a whole are grouped into three scale desig-
nations, scale No. 1 being the highest paid and most skilled. However,
scale designation and departmental assignment are unrelated. The
employees are also classified under specific job titles. The record shows
970 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR'-RELATIONS, BOARD
the departmental assignment of, some classifications . For example,
there are glass cutters , glass wheel operators, and Weber glass machine
operators in the glass department; there are spray operators in the
glass and finishing departments and woodworking machine operators
in the glass and machine departments; and there are cabinetmakers
in the assembly department. Precisely what other classifications of
employees also work in these departments the record does not reveal.
Further, although it appears that there is an overlapping of work,
particularly among the woodworkers, in the various departments, in-
cluding glass, the record does not identify all classifications in each
department or show which classifications appear in more than one
department. It is clear, however, that each department includes em-
ployees in different scales and in diversified classifications. Also, there
are a number of clearly unskilled laborers in every department.
The Employer maintains a training program under which the pro-
duction employees, over an apprenticeship period of 3 or 4 years,
advance to.journeyman status. The machines in certain departments
require a higher degree of skill than do others, but this fact has not
been a barrier to transfers between departments as the need arises.
Transfers on a temporary basis are accomplished without affecting an
employee's seniority. In accordance with the existing collective bar-
gaining contract, permanently transferred employees retain a part of
the seniority acquired in the department from which they transfer.
-Since 1941 the two Petitioners, as a single joint bargaining agent,
have represented, under successive contracts, substantially all the em-
ployees here involved in a single unit. Grievances have been handled
by a stewards' committee selected by the two unions. The jointly se-
lected committee has presented grievances for all employees , regard-
less of any individual's union affiliation or departmental assign-
ment.
The Painters would justify a unit of two production departments
on the asserted ground that together they constitute a craft group.
The record does not support this assertion . It is clear that the em-
ployees in these departments fall into a number of classifications,
that they exercise varying degrees of skill, and that the functions of
the two departments are neither closely related to one another nor en-
tirely different from those of the other production departments. It
is true that some employees in each department, such as the glass
cutters and some wood finishers, may be sufficiently skilled to be
called craftsmen under the,Board's established meaning of the term.
However, the difference in their type of work makes their joinder in
a single craft unit inappropriate in any event .2 In substance, the lim-
ited unit proposed by the Painters is but a segment of the Employer's
2 Inland Empire Paper Company , 80 NLRB 749.
GOODYEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION 971
production operations. As such it may not constitute a separate bar-
gaining unit. As the two-department unit is not it distinctive hoino-
geneous craft group, and as it was not shown to be otherwise supported
by any significantly common interests among its employees, we find
it is inappropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.8
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employees
in the machine department, assembly department, shipping depart-
ment, maintenance department, finishing department, and glass de-
partment at the Employer's Beatrice, Nebraska, plant, but excluding
office and technical employees, sales and service department em-
ployees, inspectors, guards and watchmen, firemen, janitors and jani-
tresses, foremen, all supervisors as defined in the Act, and all em^
ployees in the above-named departments not engaged in production
and maintenance work, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, 79 NLRB 594, 596.
GOODYEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL
WORKERS UNION, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 35-RC-719. August
9,195E
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert Cohn, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejll-
dicial 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 Houston 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 em-
ployees of the Employer.'
1 United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO, herein called CIO ; District
Lodge No. 27, International Association of Machinists, AFL, herein called Machinists ;
Local No. 369, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, 'herein called
Electricians ; Local No. 320, International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, AFL, herein
called Firemen and Oilers, were permitted to intervene on the basis of adequate showing
of interest. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, failed to
present a showing of any interest among the employees and was denied permission to
intervene.
100 NLRB No. 145.