Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1939

10 N.L.R.B. 1470 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of LIBBEY-OWENS-FORD GLASS COMPANY and FEDERA-
TION OF FLAT GLASS WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. R-1028.-Decided January 30, 1939
Glass Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives: controversy
concerning representation of employees : rival organizations ; refusal of em-
ployer to bargain collectively with union whose majority status uncertain ;
controversy concerning appropriate unit: employer questions appropriateness of
unit proposed by union and refuses to bargain collectively-Unit Appropriate
for Collective Bargaining: production and maintenance employees, including
janitors, firemen, power employees, truck drivers, watchmen, and subforemen,
and excluding window-glass cutters, supervisory employees, timekeepers, and
clerical employees not directly connected with production ; inclusion of all
plants of company in unit; history of union organization and collective bar-
gaining; separate organization and collective bargaining for one plant resulting
from company's previous non-ownership of plant no reason to exclude it from
unit; desire of union with majority at one plant for separate unit for plant
not controlling under circumstances of case-Representatives: proof of choice :
majority of union ; union records showing members and dues paid-Certification
of Representatives: upon proof of majority representation.
Mr. Philip C. Phillips, for the Board.
Mr. E. J. Marshall and Mr. Leland L. Lord, of Toledo, Ohio, for
the Company.
Mr. Julius Holuberg, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Federation.
Mr. James A. Glenn, of Coshocton, Ohio, for the National.
Mr. J. E. Mayeur, of Columbus, Ohio, for the League.
Mr. Robert Kramer, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 14, 1938, Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America,
herein called the, Federation, filed with the Regional Director for
the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio) ' a petition alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, Toledo, Ohio,
herein called the Company, at its plants situated in Ottawa, Illinois;
10 N. L R. B., No. 134.
1470
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1471
Shreveport, Louisiana; Charleston and Parkersburg, West Virginia;
and East Toledo and Rossford, Ohio, and requesting an investigation
and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On August 19, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and
Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and
authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On September 9, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and
the Federation, and upon National Flat Glass Workers Union of
America of the American Federation of Labor, herein called the
National, and Window Glass Cutters' League of America, herein
called the League, labor organizations claiming to represent em-
ployees directly affected by the investigation. On September 16,
1938, the Regional Director granted a petition by the National to
intervene in this proceeding. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was
held on September 22 and 23, 1938, at Columbus, Ohio, before Gustaf
B. Erickson, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The Board, the Company, the Federation, the National, and the
League were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence, bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner
made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
After the hearing, the Company, the Federation, and the National
filed briefs, which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu-
tion of many types of flat glass . It has plants at Shreveport,
Louisiana; Ottawa, Illinois; East Toledo and Rossford, Ohio; and
Charleston and Parkersburg, West Virginia. Its principal office
is at Toledo, Ohio. In 1937, the total sales of the Company amounted
to approximately $40,000,000. More than 50 per cent of the products
of each of the Company's plants are shipped to points outside the
1472 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
State in which the plant is situated, and more than 50 per cent of
the raw materials used at each plant are shipped to it from points
outside the State in which it is situated. There were 3,974 employees-
on the Company's pay rolls for September 1-15, 1938, at all its plants.
The Shreveport plant, employing 347 men, is engaged solely iii
the production of window glass. The Charleston plant, employing
693 men, makes window glass and also rough plate glass. It does
not finish this rough plate glass for sale by grinding and polishing it.
The Ottawa plant, employing 1,279 men, makes rough plate glass,
part of which is there ground and polished for sale as finished plate
glass, and part of which is there made into safety glass. Some of
the rough plate glass made at the Charleston plant is also sent to
Ottawa to be processed further for sale as finished plate or safety
glass. At East Toledo, there are two plants, one of which, employing
292 men, is engaged solely in the processing of rough plate glass sent
there from Charleston, Ottawa, and Rossford, into finished plate glass;
the other, employing 537 men, is engaged solely in the production of
safety glass from rough plate glass sent there from Charleston,
Ottawa, and Rossford. The Rossford plant, employing 692 inen,
manufactures rough plate glass, only part of which is there finished
for sale by grinding and polishing. The Rossford plant also makes
a structural building glass known by the trade name of vitrolite.
Only black vitrolite can be produced at Rossford. The Parkersburg
plant, employing 134 men, is engaged solely in the production of
vitrolite. Any vitrolite requiring bending, polishing, or grinding,
whether made at Rossford or Parkersburg, must be sent to Rossford
for these operations. All vitrolite, regardless of where it has been
made or finished, is sent to Parkersburg for cutting and marketing.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. It
admits to its membership all production and maintenance employees
at all the plants of the Company, including watchmen, janitors, fire-
men, power employees, subforemen, and truck drivers, and excluding
window-glass cutters, supervisory employees, timekeepers, and clerical
employees not directly connected with production.
National Flat Glass Workers Union of America is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to
its membership the same employees of the Company as the Federation.
Window Glass Cutters' League of America is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to its
membership window-glass cutters employed in the Company's plants.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
1473
The Federation, from its founding in 1933 until 1936, was affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor. In 1936 the Federation and
all its locals at each plant of the Company, including Parkersburg,
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. In De-
cember 1937, the Federation's Parkersburg local affiliated with the
National and the American Federation of Labor. Since then both
the Federation and the National have sought to bargain collectively
with the Company for the employees at the Parkersburg plant, but
the Company has refused to bargain with either organization because
of its uncertainty as to which organization represents a majority of
the Parkersburg employees. The Federation in its petition and at
the hearing sought to have the employees at all the plants of the
Company, including Parkersburg, designated as a single unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Company re-
fused to consent to such a bargaining unit, at least in so far as it
involved grouping the employees at Parkersburg with the employees
at the other plants.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
-V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
Tl,e Federation admits to its membership all production and
maintenance employees of the Company, including watchmen, jani-
tors, firemen, power employees, truck drivers, and subforemen, and
excluding window-glass cutters, supervisory employees, timekeepers,
and clerical employees not directly connected with production. The
Federation claims that this classification of employees may be prop-
erly adopted as a definition of the classes of employees to be included
in the unit or units found to be appropriate. Neither the Company,
the National, nor the League objected at the hearing to this classi-
fication of employees. All window-glass cutters employed by the
Company are members of the League, and all parties at the hearing
1474 NATIONAL TABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stipulated to the exclusion of window-glass cutters. We see no reason
for departing from this classification of employees.
The Federation seeks to include all the employees at all the plants
of the Company-or in lieu thereof, as many of the plants as pos-
sible-in a single unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. The
Company and the National desire to have either a separate bargain-
ing unit for the employees at each plant, or one bargaining unit for
the employees at Parkersburg and another for the employees at all
the other plants.
The Federation was formed in 1933 after the passage of the
National Industrial Recovery Act and at that time was affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor. In November 1933 it entered
into a written agreement with the Company for its members who
were employees at the Shreveport and Charleston plants, and in May
1934, it signed an agreement with the Company for its members em-
ployed at the Rossford and East Toledo plants. In November 1934,
the Company and the Federation entered into a written contract for
all employees in the Rossford, East Toledo, Shreveport, and Charles-
ton plants, who were members of the Federation. Inasmuch as the
Company did not then own or operate the Parkersburg plant, this
contract, which expired in November 1935, included all the Com-
pany's plants. Meanwhile, the Federation had begun organizing the
employees at the Parkersburg plant, which was then owned and op-
erated entirely independently of the Company, and in March 1935, the
Federation and the Vitrolite Company, the owner of the Parkersburg
plant, signed an agreement, expiring in March 1936, for the Federa-
tion's members employed at the plant. A few months later the Com-
pany purchased the Parkersburg plant and succeeded to the rights
and duties of the Vitrolite Company under its contract with the
Federation. In December 1935, the Federation and the Company
executed a contract for the ensuing year covering all the plants except
Parkersburg, where the existing contract did not terminate until
March 1936. In March 1936, the Parkersburg contract was extended
until July 1936, when the Company, and the Federation signed an
agreement for Parkersburg only, expiring in July 1937. The evi-
dence is conflicting as to whether or not the Federation sought to
have this Parkersburg contract terminate in December 1936, in order
then to include Parkersburg in the contract covering the other plants,
and was unable to do so because of the Company's objections. Mean-
while, the Federation and all its locals, including the one at Parkers-
burg, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. In
January 1937 the Federation and the Company signed a contract
covering all the plants except Parkersburg, and in February 1938, this
contract was renewed for another year. In July 1937, the Federation
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1475
and the Company entered into a written agreement for Parkersburg
only, for the following year. In December 1937, the Parkersburg
local affiliated with the National which was then being organized by
the American Federation of Labor. At the expiration of the Parkers-
burg agreement in July 1938, the Company refused the requests of
both the Federation and the National to enter into an agreement for
the employees at this plant.
Excluding from our consideration at this point the Parkersburg
plant, we are unable, after a careful examination of the entire record,
to, find any substantial reason why the request of the Federation to
have the employees at all the other plants of the Company grouped
into one unit for the purposes of collective bargaining should not be,
granted as the best method of insuring to employees of the Company,, ,
the full benefit of their right to self-organization and collective bary,
gaining under the Act. Almost from the time of its formation, the,,
Federation has successfully organized these employees and bargained,,
collectively for them with the Company by treating all these plants,
as one unit. Although the National asserted at the hearing that it
had begun organizing the employees at these plants in 1938, it pre-
sented no evidence showing the extent, if any, of its membership
among the employees at these plants, and admittedly has never bar-
gained collectively for the employees at any of these plants. Under
these circumstances we see no reason to modify the unit which has
been in effect.'
The Company and the National in support of their contention that
the employees at the Parkersburg plant constitute a separate unit
emphasize the fact that the Parkersburg employees were separately
organized and have always been separately bargained for by the
Federation ; that of the 134 employees at this plant, none, at present,
belong to the Federation, and 133 belong to the National; and that
these 133 employees through their present membership in,the National
currently express a desire for a separate unit. This separate organi-
zation of and collective bargaining for the employees at Parkersburg
by the Federation, as we have pointed out above, were fortuitous,
originally caused merely by the Company's non-ownership of this
plant when the Federation first organized the employees there and
bargained for them, and continued after the Company purchased the
plant solely because the Parkersburg contract always expired several
months after the contract covering the employees at the Company's
other plants. We believe, therefore, that this history of separate
organization and bargaining is not an adequate reason for denying
1 C. Matter of American Hardware Corporation and United Electrical and Radio
Workers of America, 4 N. L R B 412; Matter of Tennessee Copper Company and A F.
of L Federal Union No. 91161,, 5 N. L. R B 768
1476 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Federation's request to include the employees at Parkersburg in
a single unit with the employees at the other plants-a request by
which it seeks to reestablish the employer unit on the basis of which
it originally organized and bargained for the employees at the Com-
pany's plants. There, is no evidence that Parkersburg's previous
independent organization and bargaining will impede or obstruct its
bargaining together successfully with the other plants. Nor is there
anything in the history of its separate organization and bargaining
to indicate that an employer.unit would not be feasible and desirable
both for it and the other plants. On the contrary, the evidence con-
vinces us of the importance to the Federation, its members, and the
employees at all the Company's plants, of presenting a united front
when bargaining collectively with the Company. In Section I, above,
we have described the relationship between these plants and have
shown how partially manufactured products are continually being
sent from one plant to another for further processing. Parkersburg
is as firmly interlocked with the other plants as they are with each
other, for all Rossford vitrolite is cut and marketed at Parkersburg.
and all Parkersburg vitrolite requiring bending, grinding, or polish-
ing, must be sent to Rossford for these operations. The functional
interdependence of plants inevitably results in an interdependence of
the interests of the employees at these plants. To grant the request
of the National and its 133 Parkersburg members, who constitute but
a very small minority of the 3,640 employees of the Company here
involved, for a separate bargaining unit at Parkersburg would
seriously impede and obstruct the efforts of the far larger number of
employees at the other plants effectively to organize and bargain
collectively.' Under all the circumstances of this case, we do not
regard the fact that the majority of the Parkersburg employees
through their present membership in the National have expressed a
2 In England and Sweden collective bargaining agreements are now commonly nego-
tiated on the basis of an industry -wide unit. Report of the Commission on Industrial
Relations in Sweden ( 1938),_p. 4; Report of the Commission on Industrial Relations in
England ( 1938 ), p. 4. The Report of'the Commission on Industrial Relations in' England,
in regard to the effect of such large bargaining units upon strikes and other forms of
industrial unrest and strife , and the process of collective bargaining itself , states
(pp. 23-24) :
We can , however, state with certainty that among the persons we conferred with
there was a common feeling of confidence in the existing method of handling
industrial relations , and that in those industries where collective bargaining be-
tween national unions and national associations of employers have long been
established, strikes have been rare, and in a few instances non-existent (with
the exception of the general strike in 1926 ) since the very beginnings of the
collective bargaining arrangements . . .
. . . the acceptance and general practice of collective bargaining on an industry
basis places upon the employers ' and workers ' organizations , because of sheer
numbers of men and the magnitude of interests involved, a peculiarly heavy
responsibility calculated by its very nature to call forth patience, understanding,
and a desire to make and keep agreements and to achieve industrial peace.
DECISION'S AND ORDERS 1477
current desire for a separate unit as being decisive of the issue here
presented.8
Almost without exception the other reasons advanced by the Com-
pany and the National as to why the Parkersburg plant would
function better as a separate bargaining unit apply with equal if
not greater force to any one of the Company's other plants which
have bargained together successfully in one unit since 1934.4 Parkers-
burg was acquired by the Company at a different time than its other
plants, but each of the other plants was acquired by the Company
at a different time from the rest. The distances separating some of
the other plants, such as Ottawa, Shreveport, and Charleston, are
much greater than the distances between Parkersburg and these
plants. The Parkersburg plant superintendent has no more inde-
pendence in the operation of this plant than the other plant superin-
tendents have.
The Company stresses the unique nature of colored vitrolite, the
product of the Parkersburg plant, as a reason for holding that the
employees of this plant constitute a separate bargaining unit. How-
ever, the Rossford plant employees who are engaged in the pro-
duction of black vitrolite have experienced no difficulty in bargain-
ing in one unit', together with the other flat-glass workers employed
at this and the Company's other plants. Also, the Federation's
members who are employees of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company,
the Company's leading competitor, and who are engaged in the
production of carrara, a product similar to vitrolite, have bargained
collectively with the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company since 1934 in
one unit with the other flat-glass employees at the various plants
of that company. Moreover, the other plants of the Company make
products-plate, safety and window glass-whose manufacturing
processes and uses differ as much from each other as vitrolite does
from any of them. Such differences as there are between Parkers-
burg and the other plants in regard to processes and products are no
greater than the differences found among the Company's other-plants,
and inasmuch as the employees of these plants have bargained to-
gether successfully since 1934 despite these differences, we are unable
to see any reason why the Parkersburg employees should experience
difficulty, because of any such differences, in bargaining together
with the employees at the Company's other plants.
8 Cf Matter of Tennessee Electric Power Company and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, 7 N L R. B . 24; Matter of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company and
Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America, Af}lltated with C 1 G , 10 N L R B 1111;
Matter of Admiar Rubber Company and American ( Federation of Labor on behalf of Em-
ployees of Company, 9 N L R B 407
'' Cf Matter of American Steel and Wire Company and Steel and Wvi e Workers Protce-
tiv+e Association , 5 N L. R B 871 ; Matter of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company , supra,
foctnote 3, and decisions cited in that case.
1473 41---39-vol 10-94
1478 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the production ' and maintenance employees of the
Company, including iratclinien, janitors, firemen, power employees,
truck drivers, and subforemen, and excluding window-glass cutters,
supervisory employees, timekeepers, and clerical employees not di-
rectly connected with production, at its plants situated in Shreveport,
Louisiana; Ottawa, Illinois; Charleston and Parkersburg, West Vir-
ginia; and Rossford and East Toledo, Ohio, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit
will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their
right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise
effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
At the hearing, the Company introduced in evidence its pay roll
at each plant for September 1 to September 15, 1938. Both the
Federation and the National checked the, names on these pay rolls.
The Federation's witnesses testified that a certain number of em-
ployees, ' in the case, of -'several''of these`plant ' lay ' rolls, should be
excluded because their work made them ineligible for inclusion in
the appropriate bargaining unit. At the hearing, neither the Na-
tional nor the Company objected to the exclusions proposed by the
Federation. The Federation introduced in evidence its records show-
ing the names of its members at each plant of the Company and the
dues paid by such members. The names of such members who were
in good standing, either because they had paid dues within the
preceding 3 months or had been' excused from payment of dues
because of unemployment during this period, were then checked by
the Federation against the names of the employees in the appropriate
unit listed on the Company's pay rolls. Neither the Company nor
the National, both of whom had full opportunity to inspect the
Federation's records and cross-examine the Federation's witnesses,
objected to this method of proving the Federation's membership.
The following table shows the number of employees in the appro-
priate unit at each plant, the number of Federation members in
good standing at each plant, the total number of employees 'in the
appropriate unit, and the total number of Federation members in
good standing at all the plants :
Plant
Number
of eligible
Number of
Federation
employees members ingood standing
Ottawa 1,267 997
Charleston ---------------------------------------------------------------=-- 496 445
Parkersburg--------------------------------------------------------------- 134 0Ros',ford 692 211
East Toledo (Plate) ----------------------------------------------------------- 292 174East Toledo (Safety) -------------------------------------------------------- 512 260
Shreveport ----------------------------------------------------------------- 250 200
Totals ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3, 643 2,97-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1479
The National asserted that it had members at all the Company's
plants, but, except for Parkersburg, presented no evidence regard-
ing its membership. The National proved by its records of dues
payments that 133 of the 134 eligible employees at the Parkersburg
plant were members of the National in good standing. This does not
affect the showing of the Federation that it represents a majority of
all the employees in the appropriate unit.
We find that the Federation has been designated and selected by
a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining. It is, therefore,
the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining, and we will so certify.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAIN'
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company,
Toledo, Ohio, at its plants situated in Shreveport, Louisiana; Ottawa,
Illinois; Charleston and Parkersburg, West Virginia; and Rossford
and East Toledo, Ohio, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The production and maintenance employees of the Company, in-
cluding watchmen, janitors, firemen, power employees, truck drivers,
and subforemen, and excluding window-glass cutters, supervisory
employees, timekeepers, and clerical employees not directly con-
nected with production, at its plants situated in Shreveport, Loui-
siana ; Ottawa, Illinois ; Charleston and Parkersburg, West Virginia ;
and Rossford and East Toledo, Ohio, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Federation of Flat Glass Workers of
America has been designated and selected by a majority of the pro-
duction and maintenance employees of Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass
1480 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company, Toledo; Ohio, including watchmen, janitors, firemen,
power employees, truck drivers, and,subforemen, and excluding win-
dow-glass cutters, supervisory employees, timekeepers, and clerical
employees not directly connected with production, at its plants situ-
ated in Shreveport, Louisiana ; Ottawa, Illinois ; Charleston and
Parkersburg, West Virginia; and Rossford and East Toledo, Ohio,
as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, Federation of Flat Glass
Workers of America is the exclusive representative of all such em-
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of em-
ployment.
MR. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMITH took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Certification of Representatives.