Century Metalcraft Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 6, 1943

46 N.L.R.B. 803 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

N
In the Matter,of' CEIQTURY -METALCRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
MANUFACTURING DIvIsION and CENTURY METALCRAFT EMPLOYEES
WELFARE ASSOCIATION
In the Matter of CENTURY METALCRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
MANUFACTURING DIVISION and WESTERN MECHANICS LOCAL UNION
700, CASTING DIVISION, INTERNATIONAL UNION 'MINE, MILL & SMEL-
TER WORKERS, C. I. O.
Cases Nos. R-4598 and R-4599, respectively.Decided January 6,1913
Jurisdiction : castings manufacturing industry. •
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : failure
to iesolve representation,dispute by negotiations for consent elections ; election'
necessary.
Unit Appropriate for'Collective Bargaining : single or separate units comprising- ,
(1), othce,and clerical•`irorkers and (2) production and maintenance employees;
held dependent on results of elections.
Mr. Elmer H. Howlett, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Company.
Mr. Russell E. Parson's, of Los Angeles, Calif., for. the Association.
Messrs. Milton S. Tyre and Jack C. Marcotti, of Los Angeles, Calif.,
for the Union.
Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF' ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petitions duly filed by Century Metalcraft Employees Wet-
fare Association, herein called the Association, and by Western Me-
chanics Local Union 700, Casting Division, International Union Mine,
Mill & Smelter Workers, C. I. 0., herein called the -Union, alleging
that questions affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Century Metalcraft Manufacturing- Com-
pany, Manufacturing' Division, Los Angeles, California, herein called
the Company, the, National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing 1 upon due notice before Charles M. Ryan, Trial
' The Acting Regional Director issued a consolidated notice of hearing dated November
18, 1942. On, December 14, 1942, the Board issued an order consolidating the petitions
nunc pro tune as of November 18, 1942.
46 N. L. R. B., No. 88.
803
804 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Examiner. Said hearing was held at Los Angeles, California, on
November 24, 1942. The Company, the Association, and the Union'
appeared, participated, and, 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 hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Century Metalcraft Manufacturing,Company, a Delaware corpora-
tion licensed to do business in California, has a manufacturing divi-
sion in Los Angeles, California, where it is engaged in the production,
of Aluminum alloyed castings. During the fiscal year ending March
1942, the Company purchased materials for its use yalued in excess
of $100,000, 90 percent of which, although purchased from, local
dealers, originated from points outside the State of California. Dur-
ing the same period, the Company made sales of its finished products
of the value of approximately $1,500,000, about 15 percent of which
was sold to purchasers located at points outside the State of California.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Century Metalcraft Employees Welfare Association is an unaffil-
iated labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
Western Mechanics Local Union 700, Casting Division, Interna-
tional Union Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to'
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about September 8, 1941, the Association wrote to the Com-
pany'requesting recognition as the bargaining agent for all employees
exclusive of supervisory employees.,, The Company replied that before
it would accord recognition the Association, must prove that it repre-
sented a majority of the employees. On or about September 19,,1941,
the Union requested recognition from the Company as the bargaining
agent for all production employees, excluding foremen, supervisors,
office workers, drafting room employees, and timekeepers; the Com-
pany again took the position that it would not recognize. any union
CENTURY, METALCRAFT MANUFACTURING, COMPANY 805
until it demonstrated that it represented a majority of the employees
in an appropriate unit. The Association filed its petition herein on
September 11, 1941; and the Union filed its petition on May 8, 1942.
Thereafter, certain negotiations respecting consent elections were had,
which are more fully described below. The, negotiations did not
resolve the representation dispute.
Statements of the Trial Examiner, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicate that the Association and the Union each represents
a substantial number of employees in the unit alleged by each-to be
appropriate.2
We`find that questions affecting commerce have 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' Association contends that all production and maintenance em-
ployees, office, and clerical employees, timekeepers, draftsmen, and
technical employees, excluding guards and supervisors, constitute an
appropriate unit. The Union, however, would exclude office and cleri-
cal employees, timekeepers, draftsmen, and supervisory employees.
The Company takes no position with respect ,to the appropriate unit.
All parties stipulated that the term "supervisor" should include assist-
ant foremen and supervisory employees of higher rank. All parties
agreed that draftsmen, technical employees, and timekeepers were
included in the-category of office and clerical employees.
On May 11, 1942, representatives of the Company, the Association,
and the Union met with a Field Examiner of the Board, for the pur-
pose of'arranging a consent election. After, this -meeting the Associa-
tion amended its petition so as to exclude office and clerical employees. ,
It then filed a new petition requesting a unit consisting of all salaried
employees, i. e., office and clerical workers, but excluding supervisors
with the right to hire or discharge. A consent election was then agreed
upon among the parties based upon the amended petition of the
Association, which sought a unit similar to that desired by the Union.
A second consent election was agreed upon between the Company and
the Association on the unit set forth in the Association's new petition
for office and clerical 'employees. Both elections were to take place
on May 18, 1942. Before the elections were held, however, the Union
2 The Trial Examiner reported that the Association submitted 286 authorization cards
bearing apparently genuine signatures ; 151 of said signatures were the names of persons
appearing on the Company 's pay roll of November 19, 1942 Said pay roll contained 525
names. He further reported that the Union submitted 245 authorization cards bearing
apparently genuine signatures of which 121 were the signatures of persons appearing on
the Company 's pay roll of November 19, 1942. The unit sought by the Association con-,
tained 525 persons;'that sought by the Union contained 487 persons.
806 DECISIONS- OF `NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
filed a charge with the Regional OThce,'alleging that the Association
was company-dominated. The Regional Director thereupon post'-
-poned the election scheduled for the production and nhaiiitenance emL
-ployees. ' The other election was held, and the Association won by a
vote of 25 to 2, out of a total of 29 eligible employees. 'The' charge
filed by the Union was dismissed by the Regional Director on Septem=
ber 14, 1942, and thereafter the Company and the Association refused
to participate in further consent election agreements. The Associa-
tion has not attempted to bargain on behalf of'the office and clerical
employees as a separate unit, but now takes the position that a single
unit including- such employees and production and 'maintenance em-
.ployees is appropriate; as it originally contended prior to the consent
election agreements.
We have customarily excluded office and clerical employees from a
unit ' of ,production and maintenance employees, because of the obvious
functional differences between the two groups. The record shows that
the office and - clerical group, which includes ordinary, clerical em-
ployees as well as draftsmen and laboratory worker's, do not engage
in production processes, and that there is no interchange of employees
from one group to the other. On the other hand; the Association
has substantial representation among both groups, and there ,is no
history of. collective bargaining,on' behalf of any employees of the
Company. In these circumstances, we are. of the opinion that the
"office and 'cle`rical employees could function either as a separate group
or as part of a single industrial unit. Accordingly; we shall-direct
that an, election be held 'among all production and maintenance em-
ployees, including shipping clerks, receiving clerks, and machine-shop
employees, of the Company to determine whether tliey -wish to be
represented by the tAssociation, the Union, or by neither ;.and that a
second' election be held among the office and clerical employees to
determine whether or not they wish to be represented by the Associa-
tion. • Upon the results of these elections will depend .in part the
appropriate unit or units. If the office and clerical employees select a
bargaining representative other than the representative selected by
the remaining employees, they will constitute a separate and distinct
appropriate unit. If they choose the same representative as the
remaining employees, they.will be merged into a single unit with such
employees. - `
"We' find that the questions concerning representation which_ have
-arisen *can best be resolved by means of elections by secret ballot among
the employees in, the groups described below who were employed dur-
ing the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direc-
tion,of Elections herein, subject to.the limitations andi.additions set
forth in the Direction.'`
CENTURY METALCRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 807
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 Relations
'Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Century Metalcraft
Manufacturing Company, Manufacturing Division, Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, separate elections by secret ballot shall be conducted as soon
as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the. direction and supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for the Twenty-first Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board and subject to Article III, Section 10,
of said Rules and Regulations among the following groups of em-
ployees of the Company who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or
on vacation 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 who have since quit or been dis-
charged for cause:
1. All production and maintenance employees, including shipping
clerks, receiving clerks, and machine-shop employees, but excluding
office and clerical employees, timekeepers, draftsmen, technical em-
ployees, guards, assistant foremen, and all supervisory employees above
the rank of assistant foremen, to determine whether they desire to be
represented by Century Metalcraft Employees Welfare Association,
or by Western Mechanics Union 700, Casting Division, International
Union Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, affiliated with the Congress of
`Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or
by neither;
2. All office and clerical employees, timekeepers, draftsmen, and
technical employees, but excluding supervisors with the night to hire
or discharge, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented
by Century Metalcraft Employees Welfare Association for the pur,
poses of collective bargaining.
MR.-GERARD D. REU.LY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.