Hart-Carter Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 115 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of HART - CARTER COMPANY , EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL MOLDERS AND FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA, LOCAL 178, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 13-B-4097.-Decided June 13,'1947
Messrs. L. A. Phelps and Glen Coxon, both of Chicago, Ill., for the
Employer.
Mr. George Gratz, of Milwaukee, Wis., and Mr. David H. Rath,
of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Mr. William Lorenz, of Chicago, Ill., all
for the Petitioner.
Meyers, Meyers & Rothstein, by Mr. Irving Meyers, of Chicago,
Ill., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Martin Sacks, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Chicago,
Illinois, on February 28, 1947, before Gustaf B. Erickson, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing the
Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit
sought is inappropriate. The hearing officer referred the motion to
the Board for ruling thereon. For reasons appearing hereinafter,
the motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Hart-Carter Company, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture of grain handling equipment at its plant in Peoria,
Illinois. During the past year the Employer purchased raw materials
valued in excess of $300,000 from points outside the State of Illinois.
During the same period it sold finished products valued in excess
of $800,000, of which more than 50 percent represented shipments to
points outside the State.
74 N. L. R. B., No. 28. 115
116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.
United Farm. Equipment and Metal Workers, Local 154, herein
called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees
of the Employer.
M. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its foundry employees until the Peti-
tioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all production employees
in the Employer's foundry. The Intervenor opposes the establish-
ment of a separate unit of foundry employees, contending that the
appropriate unit should consist of all production and maintenance
employees, including the employees herein sought by the Petitioner.
The Employer takes a neutral position with respect to the unit issue.
Collective bargaining affecting these operations dates back to 1937.
At that time, the Employer entered into a closed-shop agreement with
the H-C Foundry Employees Association for the approximately 75
foundry employees at the plant. The Association continued as the
exclusive bargaining representative of these employees until June
1942, when, due to a change in the plant's operations, the foundry was
discontinued. Although approximately 12 molders remained at the
Employer's plant, only half of them continued to perform duties
related to the molders' craft. In January 1943, following a Board
conducted election held pursuant to a consent election agreement to
which the Intervenor and the Employer were parties, the Intervenor
1 At the time of the hearing , the Employer and the Intervenor were, as appears herein-
after , in contractual relationship with respect to all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer , including the foundry employees sought by Petitioner herein.
However, no contractual bar is urged in this proceeding.
HART-CARTER COMPANY 117
was designated as the bargaining representative of all production and
maintenance employees of the plant. In October 1943, the foundry
was re-opened with a small number of employees whose number has
increased to approximately 33 at the time of its hearing. The execu-
tion of a written contract was delayed until 1945 pending the outcome
of proceedings before the War Labor Board. In May 1945, after
the issuance of a War Labor Board Directive,2 the Intervenor and
the Employer entered into a maintenance-of-membership agreement
covering the plant-wide unit .3 A second maintenance-of-membership
agreement, covering the same unit was executed in March 1946, and
was to continue in effect until September 30, 1946, and from year to
year thereafter, unless either party gave timely notice of intention
to change or terminate the agreement. No representative of the foun-
dry participated in the negotiation of either of these 2 contracts, and
aside from the coverage of the foundry job classifications in the wage
schedules, there was no special provision made for the foundry em-
ployees in either contract. Commencing in September 1946, a series
of 10 meetings was held between the Intervenor and the Employer
for the purpose of supplementing the contract of March 1946. One of
these meetings was attended by a representative of the foundry. As
a result of these meetings, a supplemental agreement was executed on
December 4, 1946, which provided for certain changes in the terms
and conditions of employment, restated the maintenance-of -member-
ship clause and added a 15-day escape clause. During the period of
negotiations for the supplemental agreement, the foundry men sought
representation by the Petitioner and the instant petition was filed on
November 25, 1946. Thereafter, during the escape period of Decem-
ber 4 to December 19, all but 3 of the approximately 17 foundry men
who were members of the Intervenor resigned from that organization.
The foundry of the Employer's plant, in which grain handling
machinery is manufactured, is located in one of three adjoining build-
ings. The employee complement of the foundry contains job classi-
fications such as journeyman molder, molder, core maker, grinder,
and cupola tender, all of which classifications have long been recog-
nized by the Board as requiring a substantial degree of skill .4 The
foundry men work under separate supervision and punch a separate
I The War Labor Board Directive, dated January 22 , 1945, contained an escape provi-
vision and a maintenance-of-membership clause. The Directive was published to the em-
ployees, including the foundry men, before the execution of the contract incorporating the
terms of the Directive.
' The Intervenor contends that, during the interval between the opening of the foundry
in October 1943 and the signing of the first contract in May 1945, it functioned as the rep-
resentative of the production and maintenance employees , including the foundry employees.
4 Matter of Magnus Metal Division of National Lead Company, 66 N. L. It. B. 496.
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time clock. There is no interchange between the employees in the
foundry and the other employees in the plant.
It is apparent that the Employer's foundry employees constitute
an apprenticeable and well-defined craft, and that separate bargain-
ing for similar craft groups exists in similar industries .,, Moreover,
it is clear that the Employer's foundry men have never had the oppor-
tunity to demonstrate, in a Board election , whether or not they desire
separate representation. We would grant them that opportunity as
a matter of course 6 upon the facts in the instant case , were it not for
the collective bargaining history which included the foundry men in
a plant-wide grouping. However, although we have here the circum-
stance that bargaining on a more comprehensive basis has existed for
sometime , such bargaining is not predicated on any prior Board de-
termination.
Moreover, and particularly important in this case, it appears that
the foundry men had been represented and bargained for during a
period of 5 years, from 1937 to 1942, as a separate unit, and that the
election which formed the basis for the plant-wide bargaining which
followed was held at a time when there was no foundry in the plant.
In the light of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the bargain-
ing history is not sufficient, in itself, to deny the employees in this
craft group the opportunity of deciding at the present time whether
they desire to continue to be represented as part of the plant-wide
unit, or whether they desire to bargain as a separate unit. We shall,
therefore, not make any final unit determination at this time, but
shall be guided, in part, by the desires of the employees as expressed
in the election directed hereinafter. If, at such election, the em-
ployees of the voting group set forth below select the Petitioner, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a, separate
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining; but if, at such election,
they select the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to be bargained for as part of the existing unit of production
and maintenance employees.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election by secret ballot among all
production employees of the Employer's foundry, excluding office and
clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively to recommend such action, sub-
ject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
See Matter of Eclipse Lawn Mower Co., 73 N. L. R. B. 258; Matter of Food Machinery
Corporation, 72 N. L. R. B. 483, and cases cited therein.
6 See Matter of The Jaeger Machine Company, 67 N. L. R. B . 683; Matter of Electrio
Household Utilities Corporation, 64 N. L. R. B. 1181.
HART-CARTER COMPANY
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 7
119
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Hart-Carter Company, Chi-
cago, Illinois , an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early
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 Thirteenth Region , acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and
203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 4, among the employees in the voting group set forth in Section
IV, above, 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 employees who have since quit or been discharged
for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date
of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by
International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America,
Local 178, AFL, or by United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers,
Local 154, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
7 Any participant in the election herein may , upon its prompt request to , and approval
thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.