Emhart Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 375 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

EMHART MANUFACTURING COMPANY 375.
which case the question as to which of these ballots shall be opened
and counted will await further investigation concerning the employ-
ment status of the affected individuals.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
EMHART MANUFACTURING COMPANY and DISTRICT 104 , INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 1-RC--
2V9. September 25,1951
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 George A. Sweeney, 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.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. The question concerning representation :
During July 1950, th a Employer and the Intervenor executed as
collective bargaining agreement, effective from July 31, 1950, to July
31, 1953, covering all pi oduction and maintenance employees in the
E nployer's Stonington, Connecticut, plant. The Intervenor and the
E nployer contend that,his agreement is a bar to this proceeding.
The Stonington plant was formerly owned and operated by the
Universal Winding Company as a foundry and machine shop. The
Employer purchased the plant in July 1950, removed all equipment.
except the foundry, and altered the plant to permit plastic molding
operations in addition to the foundry operations. Plastic operations,,
however, did not commence until early in 1951. At the time the agree--
ment was executed, there were approximately 70 foundry and 8,main-
tenance employees in the plant. Since then, the number of employees.
has been increased to approximately 90 employees in the foundry and
Local 163 , International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL,
herein called the Intervenor , was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the hasiafor
an existing contract with the Employer.
96 NLRB No. 48.
376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
100 other employees, including 50 in the plastics department; 30 in the
machine shop, 12 in the maintenance department, and the remainder
in the toolroom, stockroom, and shipping and receiving department.
It is therefore clear that the agreement urged in.bar was executed
prior to the actual commencement of plastic operations at the plant
and at a time when the Employer had not yet recruited a complement
of employees with job functions representative of its present work
force. Under such circumstances we are of the opinion that the agree-
ment does not constitute a -bar to a determination of representatives
at this time.3
The Employer also contends that the petition was untimely filed
and a current election is barred under Section 9 (c) (3) of the Act,
because of a union-shop authorization election conducted on September
6, 1950.4 However, for the reasons fully stated in Baker Ice Machine
Company, 86 NLRB 385, we find the Employer's contention to be
without merit.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Stonington, Connecticut, plant, excluding
office, clerical, professional, and foundry employees, guards, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer and the Intervenor
contend that the unit sought is inappropriate because of the exclusion
of the foundry employees.
The Employer is engaged at its Stonington plant in the manufacture
of, iron castings and plastic products. As previously mentioned, it
employs a total of approximately 190 plant employees, of whom about
90 are assigned to the foundry department, 50 to the plastics depart-
ment, 30 to the machine shop, 12 to the maintenance department, and
the remainder to the toolroom, stockroom, and shipping and receiving
department. There is no controlling history of collective bargaining
at this plant.5
2 As noted in paragraph numbered 4, infra, the foundry employees utilize skills diverse
from those of the plastics department and other employees.
8 See e. g. Lehighton Furniture Company , 94 NLRB 318, and cases cited therein. We
find without merit the contention of the Employer and the Intervenor that the agree-
ment should , in any event , constitute a bar because further expansion of the unit from
approximately 190 to an estimated 600 employees is envisaged . The record indicates
that any increase in employment is speculative in nature . Moreover , there is no evidence
that different job functions will be performed . Accordingly , we find that the contemplated
expansion does not warrant any postponement of an immediate election . Metropolitan
.Life Insurance Company, Parklabrea Resident Community, 93 NLRB 381.
'Case No. 1-UA-3570.
At the time the Stonington plant was owned by the Universal Winding Company
and was operated as a foundry and machine shop, the Intervenor represented the
foundry employees and the Petitioner represented the balance of the employees. However,
hen the Employer purchased the plant in July 1950 , the plant, as described in para-
EMIAART MANUFACTURING COMPANY .377
- The foundry department employees, whom the Petitioner seeks to
-exclude, produce iron castings made of pig iron, coke, and scrap. They
include such classifications as metal patterninakers, molders, core-
makers, and sand conditioners, who perform the usual duties of their
classification under separate immediate supervision. The foundry
employees utilize distinct skills, are located in a separate area, and
have separate facilities, such as time clocks and washrooms. However,
the foundry is housed in the same building as the other departments,
and is under the same• over-all supervision. The maintenance depart-
ment, toolroom, shipping and receiving department, and stockroom
serve the entire plant, including the foundry; and 75 percent of the
castings worked upon in the machine shop are received from the
foundry and returned to it for painting. Although there has been
infrequent interchange of employees between departments, all em-
ployees appear on the same payroll; the same personnel office handles
the personnel functions for almost the entire plant; and all employees
are subject to generally the same conditions of employment.
While the Board has frequently recognized that foundry depart-
ment employees, such as those involved herein, may be accorded
separate representation, no labor organization is here seeking to rep-
resent them on a separate basis. Under these circumstances, including
the nature of the Employer's operations and the fact that no labor
organization seeks to represent them separately, we are of the opinion
that the foundry department employees are properly part of the more
comprehensive production and maintenance unit .6
• Although a unit of all production and maintenance employees,
including the foundry employees, is larger than that sought by the
Petitioner, it appears that the Petitioner has an adequate showing
of interest in this larger unit. We shall therefore treat the petition
as one requesting the alternative production and maintenance unit,
including the foundry employees 7
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Stonington, Connecticut, plant, including the foundry
employees, but excluding office, clerical, and professional employees,
graph numbered 3, supra, was dismantled , all equipment except the foundry was re-
moved, and it was altered also to permit plastic molding operations . In view of the
substantial change in operations from those of its predecessor , it is clear that the
bargaining history relating to that company is not determinative . See St. Regis Paper
Company, 84 NLRB 454. And the bargaining history since July 1950 , which began
before a representative group was employed and is of short duration , is also not con-
trolling. Cf. The North Electric Manufacturing Company, 89 NLRB 260; St. Regis
Paper Company, supra.
6 William R . Whittaker Co. Ltd., 93 NLRB 520; Taunton Pearl Works, 89 NLRB 1382 ;
Boeing Airplane Company, et el., 86 NLRB 368 ; Geneva Forge, Inc., 76 NLRB 497. Clearly
the distinct nature of the product manufactured in the foundry department is insufficient
reason, in this case , to require the exclusion of the foundry department employees from
the unit. Flora Cabinet Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 12; Shelbyville Desk Company, Inc., 82
NLRB 1230 ; A. J. Strus Products Corporation, 83 NLRB 99.
7 See Flora Cabinet Company, Inc., supra.
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
CROWN ZELLERBACH CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 3-RC-724, 725, 726, 727, and
728. September 25, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Ralph E. Kennedy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
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, Reynolds, 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.'
3. Questions affecting commerce exist 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. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing plant-wide unit
five separate units composed respectively of machinists, painters,
pipefitters, millwrights, and firemen and their helpers, at the Em-
ployer's Carthage, New York, plant, where it is engaged in the manu-
facture of paper and paper products. For 14 years the Employer has
executed collective bargaining agreements with the Joint Intervenors
i International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers of the United
States and Canada, AFL, and International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL (herein-
after called Joint Intervenors), were permitted to intervene on the basis of a joint contract
with the Employer covering the employees in the proposed bargaining unit.
2 At the hearing none of the parties to this proceeding asserted that the current contract
between the Employer and the Joint Intervenors is a bar to a present determination of
representatives. ,However, in Its brief, the Employer contends that the petitions were
untimely under the rule recently announced by the Board in De Soto Creamery and Produce
Company, 94 NLRB 1627. We do not agree. While there are other factors which dis-
tinguish this case from the De Soto case, it is sufficient for our conclusion that the rule of
that case is not applicable here to note that the petitions in the instant case were filed on
May 29, 1951, prior to the execution of the current contract on July 9, 1951.
96 NLRB No. 57.