Hamilton Foundry & Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1942

41 N.L.R.B. 1001 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of HAMILTON FOUNDRY & MACHINE Co. and INTER-
NATIONAL MOLDERS UNION LOCAL 68
Case No. R-3810.-Decided Jeune 16, 1942
Jurisdiction : iron and alloy castings fabricating industry.
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed where no appropriate unit within
the scope of the petition-unit composed of iron pourers held inappropriate ;
absence of bargaining as a separate group; bargaining in industry in plant-
wide basis; skill, duties, or working conditions indistinguishable from common
labor group.
Taft, Stettinius and Hollister, by Mr. John R. Bullock and Mr. J.
Mack Swigert, of Cincinnati , Ohio, for the Company.
Mr. Chester A. Sample, of Chicago , Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Max E. Halpern , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by International Molders Union Local 68,1
herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Hamilton
Foundry & Machine Co.,2 Hamilton, Ohio, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before Thomas E. Shroyer, Trial Examiner.
Said hearing was held at Hamilton, Ohio, on May 8, 1942. The
Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded
full opportunity to be. heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
riesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
On May 20, 1942, the Company filed a brief which the Board
has considered.
I The correct name of the Union, as disclosed at the hearing, is International Molders
and Foundry Workers of North America, Local 68.
2 Incorrectly designated in petition and amended to read as above.
41 N. L. It. B., No. 181.
1001
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Hamilton Foundry & Machine Co. is an Ohio corporation with
its principal office and plant in Hamilton, Ohio, where it is engaged
in the fabrication of gray, alloy and meehanite, iron castings. Dur-
ing 1941 the Company used raw materials consisting of pig and
scrap iron and coke, valued in excess of $400,000, 14 percent of which
was obtained from sources outside the State of Ohio. During the
same year the Company sold finished products exceeding $2,500,000
in value, 25 percent of which was shipped to points outside the State
of Ohio.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Molders Union Local 68 is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that the Company's iron pourers constitute
on appropriate bargaining unit. The Company asserts that the unit
urged is inappropriate and requests dismissal of the petition.
Since 1934, the Union, originally limited in jurisdiction to molders,
core makers and core assemblers, has admitted to membership all
types of foundry employees. In July 1937, the Union entered into
a contract with the Company covering all such employees on a plant-
wide basis. From the expiration of this contract in 1938 and for a
period of 3 years thereafter, no further negotiations were had be-
tween the Union and the Company. In May 1941, the Company
entered into a contract with the Union covering molders, core makers
and core assemblers, and in October 1941, the parties made a second
contract covering the Company's night shake-out men.3 The Com-
pany asserts that it was induced to accede to the Union's demands
for separate units of these employees after conferences at the Regional
Office of the Board, by reason of the Union's threat of strike, which
was made coincident with the Company's increased production. The
Company maintains, however, that it has consistently urged the de-
sirability of a plant-wide unit. In March 1942, after both contracts,
referred to above, had been automatically renewed by failure of
either party to give notice of termination, the Company refused
to negotiate with the Union concerning the iron pourers. The Union
11
8 The Company employs approximately 160 molders , core makers and core assemblers,
and 23 night shake-out men.
HAMILTON-FOUNDRY'&'MACHINE TO-.- 1OO3'
concedes that it has not bargained" for the iron pourers as a separate
group with the Company, or with any similar employer, and that
collective bargaining- i'n the` industry is' on' a plant-wide basis.4 `
The, Company-- operates 4 foundries employing approximately '400
production employees, classified by the Company as'molders, core'
makers,-core assemblers, finishers, grinders, chippers, and laborers.;
The Company contends that the 24 employees whom the Union'seeks
to represent in a separate bargaining unit as iron pourers, are part
of the group of ordinary day laborers and are indistinguishable by
skill, duties, or working conditions from this common labor group.'
The 24 iron pourers pour iron by hand ladle into molds produced
by the molders, and, upon occasion, assist the molders in pouring
semi-steel. However, iron pouring is not continuous work and the
iron pourers also perform duties similar to those performed by the
balance of the common labor group, such as pushing shank, hauling
flask, wheeling sand, making upsets and pig beds, moving bottom
boards, cleaning, and the other jobs of general labor required in
the foundries. The time spent by the 24 iron pourers doing work
similar to that performed by the common laborers varies, some of
the iron pourers performing this work as little as 5 percent of their
time, and others, up to 95 percent of their time. Although the
Company selects the iron pourers from the common labor group
l:ecause of dependability and regularity in work attendance, no par-
ticular skill and little or no previous training or experience are re-
quired to pour iron, ordinary laborers, upon occasion, having been
selected for this work almost immediately upon being hired.
The 24 iron pourers, while pouring iron, work under the direction
of a pouring supervisor, but otherwise are under the supervision
of foundry foremen who direct other common laborers. The iron
pourers receive no special compensation for their iron pouring work
and are paid at the same hourly rate as the common laborers.
Under these circumstances, we find that the unit urged by the
Union is not appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the Union is
not appropriate, as stated in Section III above, we find that no
question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the
Company in, an appropriate bargaining unit.
6 Only two or three companies in the industry, whose foundries operate on the
"conveyor system ," under which the iron pourers work continuously on iron pouring and
whose work, according to the Company, is more difficult than that of the Company's
iron pourers , negotiate for these employees as a separate group.
'According to the pay roll the Company classifies 55 employees , including the 24 iron
pourers, as "ordinary day laborers "
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation
and certification of representatives of employees of Hamilton Foun-
dry & Machine Co., Hamilton, Ohio, filed by International Molders
Union Local 68, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.