International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 25, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 926 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY (WISCONSIN
STEEL WORKS) and FOREMAN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, CHAPTER
No. 107
Case No. 13-R-3076.-Decided July 25,19-116
Messrs. Ernest S. Ballard, John H. Thompson , Frank B. Schwarer,
and Robert E. Dickman, all of Chicago , Ill., for the Company.
Mr. Walter M. Nelson, by Mr. Bernard E. Konopka , of Detroit,
Mich., Mr. Hugh P. Davis , of Chicago , Ill., and Mr. Floyd O. Cunning-
ham, of Lansing, Ill., for the Foreman's Association.
Mr. Harold Nommensen , of Chicago , Ill., for the Progressive.
Mr. William J. Harrigan , of Hammond , Ind., for the Bricklayers.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by Foreman's Association
of America, Chapter No. 107, herein called the Foreman's Association,
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of International Harvester Company
(Wisconsin Steel Works), Chicago, Illinois, herein called the Com-
pany, the National Labor Relations Board, provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice before Robert T. Drake, Trial Exam-
iner. The hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on various dates be-
tween October 1, 1945, and May 1, 1946. The Company, the Fore-
man's Association, the Progressive Steel Workers Union, herein called
the Progressive, and Bricklayers, Masons, and Plasterers Inter-
national Union, Local No. 21, herein called the Bricklayers, appeared
and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made
at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
69 N. L . R. B., No. 111.
926
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE COMPANY
927
International Harvester Company, a New Jersey corporation with
general offices at Chicago, Illinois, is engaged primarily in the manu-
facture of farm equipment and related supplies, in the course of which
it operates numerous plants throughout the United States. The. only
plant involved in this proceeding is the steel manufacturing plant
known as the Wisconsin Steel Works located at Chicago, Illinois.
During the year 1944 the Company purchased for use in its operations
at that plant raw materials of $1,000,000 in value, of which approxi-
mately 90 percent was obtained from points outside the State of Illi-
nois. During the same period the Company manufactured at its Wis-
consin Steel Works finished products valued in excess of $2,000,000,
of which more than 40 percent was shipped to points outside the State
of Illinois. There are presently employed about 4,500 employees at
the Company's Wisconsin Steel Works.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing the the National Labor Relations Act.
II. TIIE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Foreman's Association of America, Chapter No. 107, is an unaffili-
ated labor organization, admitting to membership supervisory em-
ployees of the Company.
Progressive Steel Workers' Union is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
Bricklayers, Masons, and Plasterers International Union of Amer-
ica, Local No. 21, of Illinois, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Foreman's
Association as the exclusive bargaining representative of any of its
supervisory employees upon the ground that supervisors are not em-
ployees within the meaning of the Act. Both the Board I and the
courts 2 have negated this argument. We find that the supervisory
i hatter of Soss Manufacturing Company, et al., 56 N. L. R. B. 348 ; Matter of Packard
Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, and 64 N. L. it. B. 1212; Matter of L. A. Young
Spring S Wire Corporation, 65 N. L. R. B. 298; Matter of I-T-B Circuitbreaker company,
67 N. L. R. B. 465.
2 N. L. R. B. v. Armour and Company, 154 F. (2d) 570 (C. C. A. 10), Nov. 5, 1945; Jones
S Laughlin Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 146 F. (2d) 833 (C. C. A. 5) ; N. L. R. B. v.
Skinner S Kennedy Stationery Company, 113 F. (2d) 667 (C. C. A. 8).
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees considered herein are "employees" within the meaning of
Section 2 (3) of the Act.
At the hearing, the Progressive and the Bricklayers intervened
for the purposes of protecting their interests ender existing bargaining
agreements with the Company covering certain of the Company's
employees at its Wisconsin Steel Works.3 Neither of the intervenors,
however, claims that its contract is a bar to the present proceeding.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the Foreman's Association represents a substantial
number of employees in the unit claimed to be appropriate.4
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Foreman's Association seeks a unit of supervisory employees
below the level of assistant superintendent, i. e., general formen, turn
foremen and assistant foremen or employees having equivalent super-
visory status. The Company, aside from its general contention that
supervisors are not "employees" within the meaning of the Act, con-
tends that the unit is inappropriate by reason of the fact that the fore-
men included therein are an inseparable part of management, and also
upon the ground that the proposed unit includes employees on dif-
ferent levels of supervision. As an alternative position, the Company
advocates the establishment of two supervisory units consisting of
(1) employees above the level of assistant foremen, including super-
intendents and assistant superintendents of departments; and (2) em-
ployees at or below the level of assistant foremen. So far as the
intervenors were concerned, while neither organization objects as such
to the unit proposed by the Foreman's Association, the Bricklayers
contends that non-working bricklayer foremen who supervise craft
bricklayers now represented by the Bricklayers should be excluded
from the over-all unit of production and maintenance foreman.
With respect to the general contention of the Company that all fore-
men claimed by the Foreman's Association are managerial employees
3 The contract of the Progressive covers all employees of International Harvester Com-
pany employees at its Wisconsin Steel Works , excluding those employees who exercise
functions of management , or who act primarily in a supervisory capacity , or who act in a
confidential capacity , plant -protection employees , and bricklayers , bricklayers ' apprentices
and working bricklayer foremen ." The contract of the Bricklayers covers "all bricklayers,
bricklayers ' apprentices and working bricklayer foremen of the Intenational Harvester
Company employed at its Wisconsin Steel Works."
' The Board agent reported that the Foreman ' s Association had submitted 274 cards, of
which 263 checked with the Company's pay roll of June 1945 ; that of the 263 cards
checked, 253 were dated between July and December 1944 and 10 were dated between
January and February 1945 . The Board agent further reported that there are 317
employees in the claimed appropriate unit.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 929
and are not properly the subject of collective bargaining, the Company
relies (1) upon the authority of such foremen in regard to the hire,
discharge, and discipline of rank and file employees; and (2) upon the
part played by such foremen in the formulation of company policy,
the handling of the Company's labor relations, and the alleged assump-
tion of managerial authority in the absence of the departmental super-
intendents on certain shifts.
So far as the hiring of employees is concerned, while it appears that
the actual hiring is initiated and completed by the department of in-
dustrial relations, foremen have authority to reject for service in their
departments, applicants for employment sent to them by the depart-
ment of industrial relations. On the other hand, the rejection of such
applicants by foremen will not of necessity prevent their employment
elsewhere in the plant. We are of the opinion that the authority of
foremen in this regard is of the usual type exercised by foremen and
does not establish such attributes of management that they should be
denied the privilege of bargaining collectively in a unit of super-
visory employees.
With regard to the authority of foremen in the matter of dis-
charging and disciplining employees under their supervision, the
evidence discloses that, aside from emergency authority to discharge
who are found to be in an intoxicated condition, the authority of
to discharge employees from the plant but are only authorized to
release unwanted employees to the department of industrial relations.,
Similarly, in the matter of discipline, although it appears that fore-
men may orally reprimand employees or even send home individuals
who are found to be in an intoxicated condition, the authority of
foremen to impose discipline is generally limited to minor offenses .6
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the authority of foremen in
the matter of discharge and discipline does not indicate that they
are essentially managerial employees to the degree that they should
thereby be deprived of the right to participate in collective bargaining.
As regards the foremen's part in the formulation of company
policies, the Company relies upon the fact that foremen have fre-
quently made suggestions for the improvement of plant facilities and
the elimination of unsafe practices, which suggestions have been
adopted by the safety department as part of its rules and regulations
governing plant operations. However, it does not appear that fore-
5 The authority of foremen to release employees upon their own responsibility is con-
fined to cases involving probationary employees without permanent employment status.
Where employees with permanent status are concerned, foremen do not release employees
from their departments except after consultation with the superintendents or department
heads.
9 Where serious offenses are concerned, it is the practice of foremen to consult with the
departmental superintendent before imposing discipline upon the employees concerned
therein.
701592-47-vol. 69--60
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
men, as such, have any policy-making functions or that they cus-
tomarily participate in meetings which result in the formulation
of plant-wide management policy. As regards the subject of labor
relations, the only direct concern of foremen in this regard is the
handling of grievances at the first step of the grievance procedure.?
Moreover, the fact that certain of the foremen are on duty at night
when the departmental superintendents are absent from the plant,
does not establish that such foremen are so closely allied to manage-
ment that they may not form the basis of an appropriate bargaining
unit."
Upon consideration of the evidence as a whole, we are of the opinion
that, although the foremen of the Company are vested with certain
management responsibilities with respect to production and the main-
tenance of harmonious relations between the Company and its rank
and file employees, such foremen, as distinguished from policy-making
officials of the Company, do, not constitute such an integral part
of management that they may not be segregated therefrom and recog-
nized as it separate group for the purposes of collective bargaining.9
There remains the problem of the proper grouping of the super-
visory employees sought to be represented. In connection therewith,
there is presented the question of including or excluding supervisors
of certain employees who are either presently represented in a separate
bargaining unit, or who were specifically excluded from the production
and maintenance unit as recently established by the Board for the
plant herein concerned io
The contention of the Company that the proposed unit is inap-
propriate for the reason that it groups together employees on different
supervisory levels, has been considered in prior decisions, wherein
the Board has found that there existed a sufficient community of
interest to justify the establishment of foremen on all levels of su-
pervision in a single bargaining unit." On the other hand, the Board
has generally taken the position that where general foremen and
By contrast therewith, superintendents of departments handle grievances at the second
step of the grievance procedure . The contention that foremen are managerial through
their handling of grievances at the first step of the grievance procedure has been considered
by the Board in prior decisions and rejected as a basis for denying to foremen the right
to bargain collectively in a separate appropriate unit. See Matter of General Mills, Inc.,
66 S. L. R. B. 1423 ; Matter of Aluminum Company of America, 67 N. L. R. B. 958.
8 See Matter of General Mills, Inc., supra, and Matter of Carnegie Illinois Steel Corpo-
ration, 67 N. L. R. B. 1238.
U See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation v. N. L. R . B., 146 F. (2d) 833 ( C. C. A. 5) ;
Matter of General Mills, Inc., supra.
10 See Matter of International Harvester Company, Wisconsin Steel Works, 61 N. L. R. B.
133.
11 See Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company, 65 N. L. R. B. 997 ; Matter of
Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Company, 66 N. L. R. B. 570. The contention of the Company that
foremen should be separate from assistant foremen has been recently considerejl and
rejected by the Board in a holding that foremen and assistant foremen should not be sepa-
rated for the purposes of collective bargaining. See Matter of American Maize-Products
Company, 69 N. L. It. B. 66.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 931
assistant general foremen constitute a small minority of the entire
foremen's group 12 and enjoy a closer relationship to the top man-
agerial group of superintendents, and an issue is raised as to the pro-
priety of including in the same unit supervisors on top levels and those
on lower levels of supervision, such general foremen and their assist-
ants should be given an opportunity by separate voting to determine
whether or not they desire to be in the same unit with foremen on
lower levels of supervision.13 We shall, therefore, afford the general
foremen and assistant general foremen herein concerned'14 the op-
portunity by separate voting to express their desire in the matter 15
Accordingly, we shall make no final unit determination at this time,
but will be guided by the desires of the employees involved as expressed
in the elections hereinafter directed. In the event that the employees
in the voting groups described below, voting separately, select the
Foreman's Association as their bargaining representative, they shall
together constitute a single appropriate unit.
There remains for consideration the question of including or exclud-
ing particular foremen from the several voting groups of supervisory
employees. Among the foremen to be considered in this connection are
nonworking craft bricklayer foremen who the Bricklayers contends
should be excluded from any unit or voting group of supervisory
employees which may be established in the present proceeding. In
support of its contention that craft bricklayer foremen should be thus
excluded, the Bricklayers points to the fact that bricklayers as a group
have been excluded from both the unit established by the Board for
the Company's production and maintenance employees, and from the
Progressive's contract covering the production and maintenance em-
ployees at this particular plant of the Company; furthermore, that
the Bricklayers now represents the non-supervisory employees in
bricklayer classifications under a separate bargaining agreement with
the Company.
In the determination of the question of inclusions and exclusions
from units of supervisory employees, the Board has adopted the
principle that the pattern of organization for supervisors should con-
11 The record discloses that the foremen on various supervisory levels comprise 18 general
foremen, 6 assistant general foremen, 155 foremen and 68 assistant foremen.
"See Matter of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (East Springfield Works), 66
N. L. R. B. 1297; Matter of The Baldwin Locomotive Works, 67 N. L. R. 13. 1287.
11 The record discloses that, with some exceptions general foremen and assistant general
foremen have somewhat greater management responsibilities and have interests more
closely aligned to those of the departmental superintendents than to those of foremen on
lower levels of supervision.
1i The Company's contention that departmental superintendents and their assistants
should be included in a grouping of higher supervisory employees is hereby rejected in view
of the fact that both departmental superintendents and assistant superintendents have
substantially greater management functions than those exercised by general foremen ; and
also in view of the fact that superintendents and assistant superintendents have not been
organized and are not sought by the Foreman's Association as part of its proposed unit of
supervisory employees.
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
form generally to that approved by the Board for rank and file em-
ployees.16 Since, in the present instance, bricklayers as a group have
not only been excluded from the production and maintenance unit
as established by the Board, but are also organized and represented
by the Bricklayers in a separate bargaining unit, we shall. exclude
craft bricklayer foremen or their superiors from the several voting
groups of supervisory employees."
We turn to the other supervisory groups concerning the propriety
of whose inclusion within the voting groups a question exists.
Although there is no substantial issue between the parties in regard
to the inclusion of supervisors in clerical and technical classifications,19
the Board, in its decision establishing the production and maintenance
unit at this particular plant, excluded therefrom office clerical, plant
clerical, and technical employees.19 Although, it appears that the
Progressive which currently represents the production and mainte-
nance group, has also bargained for clerical employees through ex-
tension of the unit found appropriate by the Board, a similar extension
at variance with the Board's findings was considered in the decision
relating to the production and maintenance employees and found to
constitute no reason fo'r departing from the Board's prior decisions
involving the employees at this plant. Accordingly, in conformance
with the principle that the pattern approved for the rank and file
employees should govern the composition of a unit of the supervisors
of such employees, we shall exclude from each of the several voting
groups all supervisors of office clerical, plant clerical, and technical
employees.
The only other group yet to be considered consists of employees in
the classification of assistant to superintendents. The Foreman's Asso-
ciation would include employees in this classification within its pro-
posed unit of supervisory employees. The record discloses, however,
that aside from certain instances in which they have small groups of
employees under their supervision, assistants to superintendents func-
tion primarily as technical assistants and consultants to department
heads. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that assistants
to superintendents generally lack substantial supervisory authority
and, in any event, have interests more closely aligned to those of
superintendents than to those of the several groups of foremen herein
concerned. Accordingly, we shall exclude assistants to superintendents
from each of the voting groups of supervisory employees.
n8 See Matter of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (East Springfield Works), supra;
Matter of General Cable Corporation, 67 N. L. R. B. 538.
17 See Matter of The Baldwin Locomotive Works, 67 N. L. R. B. 1287.
18 Both the Foreman' s Association and the Company would include supervisory employees
in the technical and plant-clerical classifications . The Foreman's Association, however,
would limit the inclusion of clerical supervisors to those in plant-clerical classifications and
would not, as would the Company, include the supervisors of office clerical employees.
le See footnote 10, supra.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 933
We shall direct that separate elections be held among the employees
in the voting groups described below who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of
Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth
in the Direction :
(1) All production and maintenance foremen and assistant f ore-
men, whether so designated or serving in these or comparable positions
at the supervisory levels of turn foreman and assistant foreman,20
employed at the Company's Wisconsin Steel Works and having regu-
lar supervision over other employees, excluding craft bricklayer fore-
men,21 assistants to superintendents, the supervisors of office clerical,
plant-clerical and technical 22 employees, and excluding all supervisory
employees in administrative departments; 23
(2) All production and maintenance general foremen and assistant
general foremen, whether so designated or serving in these or com-
parable positions at the supervisory levels of general foremen and
assistant general foremen, employed at the Company's Wisconsin Steel
Works and having regular supervision over other employees, excluding
the supervisors of craft bricklayer foremen, assistants to superin-
tendents, all supervisors of office clerical, plant-clerical, and technical
employees, and excluding all supervisory employees in the adminis-
trative departments hereinabove referred to.
As stated above, there will be no final determination of the appro-
priate unit pending the results of the elections.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations, Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with International Har-
vester Company, Chicago, Illinois, separate elections by secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30)
clays from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, acting in
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to.Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula-
20 Included as falling substantially within these levels are turn labor leaders, pit labor
leaders, and mould yard foremen in the open hearth department.
21 Craft bricklayer foremen bear the company classification of mason foremen and assist..
ant mason foremen.
22 Excluded as technical employees are all supervisory employees in the engineering
department and in the metallurgical and inspection department.
23 Excluded under this provision are all supervisory employees in the industrial relations
department and the general superintendent's office.
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions, among employees in the voting groups described in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who (lid
not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca-
tion or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed
forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the
polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been dis-
charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the elections, to determine in each of the voting groups
whether or not they desire to be represented by Foreman's Association
of America, Chapter No. 107, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Mn. GERARD D. REILLY, concurring separately :
My position in this case is the same as that expressed in my concur-
ring opinions in The Midland Steel Products Company and -Westing-
house Electric Corporation cases.24 As in those cases, I would direct
no election in this matter since all the persons who are the subject of
this petition are supervisors and the business involved here does not
differ in any relevant respect from the kind of business carried on by
the Packard Company.25 Since the majority of the Board entertain
a contrary view, however, I wish to concur in the conclusion that the
general foremen and assistant general foremen should be balloted sepa-
rately so as to ascertain whether or not they desire to be in the same
bargaining unit which includes the foremen and assistant foremen.
There is sufficient evidence in the record to indicate that the duties
and responsibilities of the general foremen and the assistant general
foremen are distinguishable from those of the foremen and assistant
foremen.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON, concurring separately:
For the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in The Midland
Steel case, cited above, which I find equally applicable here, I would
provide for only one voting group including all four levels of foremen.
24 Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company , 65 N. L. R. B. 997 ; Matter of West-
inghouse Electric Corporation ( East Springfield Works ), 66 N. L. R . B. 1297.
16 My views on this basic question are contained in the dissenting opinion in Matter of
Packard Motor Car Company , 61 N. L. R. B. 4.