The Broderick Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 926 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of their operations and labor policies by the parent corporation
through the district manager, that the two corporations constitute a
single employer within the meaning of the Act.4
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All sales persons, tailors, porters, stockmen, and cashiers at the
Miami, Florida, stores of the Employer, excluding managers, assistant
managers, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and super-
visors.-'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
'No contention to the contrary was made at the hearing in this case. See American
Relay and Controls , Inc., 81 NLRB 178.
6 Except for the exclusion of assistant managers , the above unit description conforms
to that sought by the Petitioner . The Employer made no objection to the unit sought by
the Petitioner.
The record shows that the store manager has authority to hire and discharge employees,
but that he usually consults the assistant manager before exercising this authority ; that
the assistant manager has authority to discipline employees and effectively to recommend
changes in their status ; that he acts for the store manager in his absence. In view of
the foregoing , and upon the entire record , we find that the assistant manager is a
supervisor and may not be included in the unit.
THE BRODERICK COMPANY (HEADER-PRESS DIVISION) and UNITED
STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 35-RC-
495. December 29, 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 William G. Wilkerson, hear-
ing 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: "
1 The request of the Petitioner and the Employer for oral argument is hereby denied
because the record and the briefs , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties.
97 NLRB No. 117.
THE -BRODERICK COMPANY 927
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. A question affecting commerce exists 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 appropriate unit :
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of steel forgings. Its
plant is composed of two divisions, the forging division and the
Header-Press division, the latter alone being involved in this pro-
ceeding. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees in department
No. 4 of the Header-Press division. Department No. 4 is commonly
called the machine shop. Its functions include the production and
repair of tools and dies, the repair of production machinery in the
Header-Press division and the heavy machine repair in the forging
division, and the maintenance of all other equipment except for elec-
trical work. This department is under the direct supervision of a
general foreman and two assistant foremen. Employed in department
No. 4 are, among others, all employees working on dies or parts of
dies, a unit for which the Intervenor 2 had been certified by the
Board,3 which unit at present includes three machinists I, four lathe-
men, one surface grinder, seven tool assemblers, two boring mill op-
erators, one planerman, and one crib utility man. Department No. 4
also includes the following employees who are at present included in
a plant-wide production and maintenance unit for which the Peti-
tioner has been the recognized collective bargaining representative for
many years : One machinist I, five machinists II, two welders, three
machine repair millwrights, three machine repair helpers, one black-
smith, and one department laborer.
The Intervenor contends that the unit petitioned for, embracing all
employees in department No. 4, is inappropriate because it includes
some employees for whom the Petitioner is already recognized, to-
gether with those employees-the tool and die' employees-who have
been established in a separate unit represented by the Intervenor.
The Employer contends that all the employees in department No. 4
should be in the production and maintenance unit, and alternatively
agrees to the unit which the Petitioner requests. -
It is clear that the Petitioner in this case is seeking a machine shop
unit of a type which the Board has frequently found to be appro-
priate as a functionally distinct departmental group with a substantial
nucleus of skilled workers.4 It is also clear, as the Petitioner and
2 Muncie Die Sinkers' Lodge No. 170 of the International Die Sinkers ' Conference.
s 85 NLRB 708. ) T
4 Oregon-Portland Cement Co ., 92 NLRB 695.
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Employer indicate in their respective briefs, that the instant
petition has as its real purpose securing a reconsideration, by the
Board of its earlier decision that a unit of "all employees working
on dies or parts of dies" is appropriate . In finding that unit appro-
priate the Board said "there is nothing in the record to indicate that
the employees sought herein differ substantially from the usual group
of die makers and machinists to whom the Board has customarily
accorded the opportunity of separate representation ." 5 The record
in the present proceeding does not show that this situation has changed
since that decision , or that there is any more reason now than there
was at that time to find that unit inappropriate.'
Under different circumstances , therefore , the Board would order
an election among the employees in both units to determine their
preference in the matter . However, the employees in department No.
4 who are not now included in the Intervenor 's unit are currently
represented by the Petitioner , the Employer does not question the
representative status of the Petitioner for such employees , and the
Intervenor does not claim to represent them. We therefore find that no
question of representation exists regarding these employees, and we
accordingly dismiss the petition as to them.
On the other hand, both the "Petitioner and the Intervenor make
an adequate claim to represent those employees in the unit designated
as those working on dies or parts of dies. We shall, therefore , direct
an election among the employees in the following unit, which we
hereby find to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining :
All employees working on dies or parts of dies ' in the Header-
Press division of the Broderick Company, Muncie, Indiana, excluding
office and clerical employees , professional employees, and guards and
supervisors $ as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
5 See also the Duff-Norton Manufacturing Company, 68 NLRB 46
e The Employer's general manager testified, and the Petitioner's brief appears to assume,
that the operations involved remain substantially unchanged since the prior determination.
4 The Petitioner and Employer express uncertainty as to whether some job classifications
are included or excluded, particularly the die welder, the blacksmith, the tool assemblers, and
the planermen. We find that the tool assemblers and the planermen do actually work with
machines on dies, and we therefore include them in the unit. Neither the blacksmith nor
the welder, however, do any machine work on dies, and we therefore exclude them As to
the other classifications of jobs included in the unit, after examining the entire record, we
agree with the present arrangement of the parties and include therein the crib utility man,
three machinists I (but excluding Paul Lackey, who does not work on dies), the lathemen,
the surface grinder, and the boring mill operators.
8 The Intervenor, although it took no position on the question, requested the Board to rule
on whether or not Albert G. Harvey is a supervisor . Harvey is classified as a machinist I
working group leader. Although he "runs the second shift ," he has no authority to recoin-
mend hiring or discharge, receives instructions from the day shift foreman as to the work to
be done on his shift , and he uses his own discretion only in emergencies . We agree with
the Employer and the Petitioner, and include him in the unit.