American Propeller Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1944

56 N.L.R.B. 1460 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of AMERICAN PROPELLER CORPORATION and MECHANICS
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA (CUA), LOCAL 4
Case No. 8-R-1494.-Decided June 16, 1944
Mr. John J. Grealis, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company.
Mr. George Pilkiewicz, of Toledo, Ohio, for the MESA.
Messrs: David C. Guberman, Randolph Gray, and William Busch
mann, of Toledo, Ohio, for the CIO.
Mr. William C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Mechanics Educational Society of
America (CUA), Local" 4, herein called the MESA, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of American Propeller Corporation, Toledo, Ohio,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before James C.
Paradise, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Toledo, Ohio,
on May 11, 1944. The Company, the MESA, and International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (CIO) and Local 12, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (CIO), herein collectively
called the CIO and sometimes referred to as the UAW and Local 12,
respectively, appeared and participated. All parties were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,'
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, and to file briefs with
the Board. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling upon the motion
made by the CIO to dismiss'the petition on the ground that the unit
sought by the MESA is inappropriate. For reasons set forth in
Section III, infra, we hereby grant the motion. The Trial Ex-
aminer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. - , ,
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
56 N. L. R. B., No. 261.
1460
AMERICAN PROPELLER CORPORATION
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
1461
• American Propeller Corporation, ipcorporated in New York, is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Aviation C()rporatlon,`a Delaware cor-
poration. - The Company's principal office and plant are located in
Toledo, Ohio, where it is engaged in the manufacture of airplane
propeller blades. During the calendar year 1943, the Company pur-
chased in excess of $500,000 worth of raw materials, a substantial por-
tion of which was shipped to its plant from points outside the State
of Ohio. During the same period,'the Company manufactured fin-
ished products valued in excess of $1,000,000, a substantial majority
of which was shipped to points outside the State of Ohio.
The 'Company admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Mechanics Educational Society of America (CUA), Local 4, is a
labor organization affiliated with the Confederated Unions of America,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers , of America, is a labor organization af-
filiated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
Local 12, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, is a labor organization affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees
of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
A. Contentions of the parties
The MESA contends that all employees of the Company employed
in Department 9 constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. ^ The
CIO argues that the history of collective bargaining among the Com-
pany's employees on an industrial basis militates against the estab-,
lishment of 'the unit sought by, the MESA.
B. History of collective bargaining
On October 9, 1942, the Board, pursuant to the results of elections
which it directed in a representation proceeding,' found that "all pro-
Matter of American Propeller Corporation, Toledo, Ohio , et al., 43 N. L . R. B. 518.
In the cited case, the Board directed that separate elections be conducted among the
following groups of employees :
(1) All maintenance mechanics , maintenance machinists , tool and die makers, tool
grinders , and tool inspectors employed in Department 9 of the Company , excluding all
1462 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
duction and maintenance employees of the Company, including main-
tenance mechanics, maintenance machinists, tool and die makers, tool
grinders, and tool inspectors employed in Department 9, but excluding
office employees, timekeepers, counters and checkers, watchmen, time-,
study employees, tool design employees, employees of the engineering
and drafting department and the engineering and- experimental de-
partment, plant engineers, employees of the medical department, the
production follow-up staff, and the planning staff, foremen, assistant
foremen, and other supervisory employees," constituted an appro-
priate bdrgaining,unit, and certified the UAW as their'exclusive bar-
gaining representative.2 Thereafter, on November 25, 1942, the Com-
pany and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (CIO), Local No. 27,
herein called Local 27, entered into a' collective bargaining contract
covering the employees in the unit for which the UAW was the certi-
fied representative. This contract is still in effect. ' In February
1944, Local 27, which was at that time an amalgamated local of the
UAW, voted to transfer jurisdiction over the Company's employees
to Local 12. The president of Local 27 testified at the hearing in the
instant proceeding that his organization no longer has any interest
in the employees of the'Company. '
C. Functional considerations
The, Company's plant consists of'a single floor on which all of its
,operations are conducted. The various production departments of
the plant form a single production line. The tool and -die division,
the inspection division, the machine repair division, and the gauge
and scale division, which constitute Department 9, are located on the
plant's floor adjacent to the production line. The tool and die
division adjoins the inspection division but is separated from the
other two divisions of 'Department 9, which also adjoin one another,
by the width of the plant or approximately 360 feet. None 'of the
various departments in the plant is separated from the others by
walls or partitions. Department 9 employs tool and die makers,
supervisory employees , to determine whether they desire to be represented by the MESA,
the UAW, or neither ;
(2) All remaining production and maintenance employees of the Company , excluding
office employees , timekeepers , counters and checkers , watchmen, time-study employees, tool
design employees , employees of the engineering and drafting department and the engi-
neering and experimental department , plant engineers , employees of the medical depart-
ment, the production follow-up staff, and the planning staff, foremen , assistant foremen,
and other supervisory employees to determine whether or not they desired to be represented
by the UAW. '
In its Decision in that case, the Board made no final determination of the appropriate
unit but said, "Upon the results of these elections will depend in part our determination
of the appropriate unit or units."
"
•
2 44 N . L. R. B. 1004.
AMERICAN PROPELLER CORPORATION 1463
machine repairmen , arbor grinders , hob grinders , toolroom learners,
tool inspectors , lathe operators , cutter grinders , welders, precision
scale repairmen , and toolroom machinists . Of these approximately
125 employees , only 15 are highly skilled tool and die makers; the
rest are merely specialists or learners and helpers . Two of the tool
and die makers are permanently stationed in Department 40, which
is one of the production departments . The machine repairmen and
the precision scale repairmen spend the greater portion of their work-
ing time in the production departments repairing , machinery and
inspecting and maintaining precision instruments . Many of the other
employees in Department 9 also spend part of their working time in
the production departments . From the record, it also appears that
employees are frequently transferred from production departments
to Department 9 in order to promote full utilization of available
manpower. The wages received by the majority of the employees in
Department 9 are comparable to those paid the Company 's production
and maintenance employees in other departments. -
From the foregoing facts, particularly the Board 's earlier establish-
ment of a larger bargaining unit, including employees of Department
9. the history of collective bargaining based upon that unit , and the
apparent community of interests existing between the employees
sought to be represented by the MESA and the employees engaged
in other departments of the Company , we are of the opinion and
find that a unit, restricted in scope to Department 9, is inappropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since, as stated above in Section III, the bargaining unit sought
to be established by the MESA is inappropriate for collective bar-
gaining purposes , we find that no question affecting commerce has
arisen concerning the representation of the employees of the Company
in an appropriate bargaining unit.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investiga-
tion and certification of representatives of the employees of American
Propeller Corporation , Toledo, Ohio, filed by Mechanics Educational
Society of America (CUA),, Local 4,- be, and it hereby is, dismissed.