Amerace Corp., 988 (1963)

DECISION AND ORDER

Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Bernard Levine, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.

Upon the entire record the Board finds:

1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.

2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer.' 3. For the following reasons we find that no questions exist concerning the representation of employees of the Employer.

The Intervenor has represented the production and maintenance employees of the Employer since 1936.' The Petitioners seek to sever from that unit five units of alleged craftsmen who work in the Employer's maintenance department. We deny the requests because, in 1 Local No. 15, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFLCIO, herein called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene at the hearing The record indicates that the separate Petitioners herein were established after the Board's unpublished decision in an earlier proceeding involving this Employer (Case No.

8-RC-3538, December 21, 1959 ). They exist for the purpose of dealing with the Employer concerning the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of the types of employees stated in their names. We find that they are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.

2 Prior to 1950 this unit included powerhouse employees who, since then, have been represented by Local 821, Operating Engineers. In 1957 the Employer became, as it now is, a division of Amerace Corporation, but this did not change the representation of the employees.

142 NLRB No. 116.

AMERICAN HARD RUBBER CO., A DIV. OF AMERACE CORP. 989 our view, the record supports a finding that none of the proposed groups-which are sufficiently described by,the names of the respective Petitioners-is a true craft.

The employees sought are all under the supervision of the maintenance foreman; there are no separate supervisors for each group.

Each group has a separate work station. They work without much supervision and have separate seniority for layoff and recall. There is cross-bidding for jobs and there have been transfers into these groups from other parts of the plant.

We note first that there is no apprenticeship program for any of these employees at this time. In 1946 there was such a program for machinists only, but it has not been in effect for some time, and only one machinist completed it. There is no other formalized training program. New employees are hired as trainees or probationary employees and advance to the A rate (at which all the present employees are classified) as they are deemed qualified. There is no fixed period for such advancement but employees have reached the top rate in as little as 6 or 7 months.

This suggests that the work of these employees does not embrace the full gamut of craft skills, and the record so shows. Thus, all dies are neither made nor repaired by the tool and die makers; such repair work is sent out. The plant manager testified that the machinists could not handle work to sufficiently close tolerances, so that some of their work had to be sent out as well. The Employer also sends out all armature rewinding work rather than having it done by the electricians. There has also been an instance where outside help had to be summoned to handle an electrical breakdown the electricians were unable to remedy. Similarly, the Employer's refrigeration work is subcontracted rather than done by the pipefitters.

None of these factors is to be considered in isolation. Combining the absence of apprenticeship, the relatively short time in which employees have reached the A rate, and the number of tasks which the Employer has performed elsewhere, we are satisfied that the employees sought by the Petitioners are not true craftsmen. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petitions.' [The Board dismissed the petitions.]...