John Deere Plow Works of Deere & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1943

46 N.L.R.B. 1044 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of JOHN DEERE PLOW WORKS OF DEERE & COMPANY and,
UNITED FARM EQUIPMENT AND METAL WORKERS OF AMERICA,, C., I.
O., LOCAL 150
Case No. R-4685.Decided January 13,1949 '
Jurisdiction : farm implements and ordnance manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question:
when Company in effect referred union, who had requested recognition, to
the Board ; contracts with individual employees held no bar; eligibility of
employees transferred into plant in question from other of Company's plants
and those transferred to other plants from plant in question limited to pay-
roll period preceding the date of the Direction of Election; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all production and maintenance
employes, including tool and die makers (and learners, if any), but excluding
supervisors, foremen, assistant foremen, office and clerical workers, all
salaried employees, patternmakers, and pattern maker apprentices, watchmen,
plant guards, and experimental department employes.
Mr. H. W. Pike, of Moline, Ill., for the Company.
Meyers & Meyers, by Mr. Ben Meyers, of Chicago, Ill., for the
Union.
Mr. Arthur Leff, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition and amended petition duly filed by United Farm
Equipment and Metal Workers of America, C. I. 0., Local 150,
herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of John Deere
Plow Works of Deere & Company, Moline, Illinois, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Lester Asher, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held at Moline, Illinois, on December
22, 1942. The Company 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.
46 N. L. R. B., No. 118.
1044
JOHN DEERE PLOW WORKS OF DEERE & COMPANY .1045
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
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Deere & Company, having its principal office in Moline, Illinois, is
an Illinois corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale, and dis-
tribution of farm equipment and munitions. The Company has five
plants in Moline, Illinois, and three plants in East Moline, Illinois.
Only one of its plants, John Deere Plow Works, is involved in this
proceeding. The principal raw materials used by the Company are
iron,. steel, and lumber. During the year 1941, the Company pur-
chased raw materials having a value far in excess of $1,000,000, at
least 70 percent of which was shipped to its plants from, points out-
side the State of Illinois. Duffing the same period, the total sales
of farm equipment and munitions manufactured by,the Company
were far in excess of $1,000,000, of which at least 70 percent repre-,
sented products shipped from the plants to points outside the State
of Illinois.
The Company admits that in its operations at the plant involved
in this proceeding it is engaged in' commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, C. I. 0.,
Local 150, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
M. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On November 13, 1942, the Union wrote the Company, requesting
recognition as the bargaining representative of the Company's em-
ployees. The Company, .in effect, referred the Union to the Board.
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced in evidence at the
hearing, supplemented by a statement of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing following examination by him of additional evidence
of representation, indicates that the Union represents'a substantial
number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2
1 On January 4, 1943, the parties entered into a stipulation providing for the correction
of errors in the transcript. The stipulation is hereby made a part of the record and the
transcript is hereby ordered corrected in accordance therewith.
'The statements show that the Union submitted a total of 398 membership cards.
OOf these, 370 bore apparently genuine signatures of employees appearing on the Company's
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
- The Company has 'individual' contracts -with a number of its
employees. The Company, while expressing its belief that • these
contracts are valid and binding upon the parties thereto and that -
consequently it has no power to cancel them, concedes that they do,
not constitute a bar to the, certification of representation for collective
bargaining. We have consistently held that such contracts do not
constitute a bar,3 and we so find in this `proceeding.
We find. that a question affecting commerce' has 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 only unit issue presented by this proceeding concerns the inclu-
sion or exclusion of a group of hourly paid employees working in, the
-experimental department.
The Union requested a unit consisting of all production and main-
tenance'einployees, including tool and die makers (and learners); if
'any,'but excluding supervisors, foremen, assistant foremen, office' and
clerical workers, all salaried employees, pattern makers and pattern-
maker apprentices, ,watchmen; and experimental department em-
ployees; At the hearing-both parties agreed that plant guards should
,also be excluded from the unit.
The Company has no objection to the unit sought by the Union,
except that it•contends that the hourly paid employees of its experi-
mental department,should be included. It agrees to the exclusion of
its salaried employees in that department.
It appears that the Company maintains at 'its plant,' separately-
'from its ,production' units, and managed by its own supervisor, a sec-
tion ,known as its experimental department. Unlike the production,
departments where the employees are engaged in' the constant pro-
duction and assembly of the same parts, the function of the experi-
mental department, as its name implies; i's to do experimental work
in developing, improving, and perfecting machines for possible future
production. Employed in this department'are designers and drafts-
men, of inventive, ability, who are compensated upon a salary basis.
There are also employed in this', department a number of skilled
,craftsmen, such as machinists, welders, and blacksmiths. , The, latter,
,as distinguished from employees in the production departments, most
of whom are paid principally' upon a piece-work basis, are com-
December 7, 1942, pay roll. The pay roll showed a total of 963 employees within the-
unit hereinafter found appropriate . Except for 24 cards which were undated and 7 which,
were dated prior to June 1, 1942, all of the cards were dated during the months of August
through December 1942. .
8 See Matter of John Deere Harvester Works of Deere it Company and Internataonat
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft it Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0.,
44 N. L. R. B. 335, where the Board so -held in a proceeding involving different plants of
the same company and substantially identical individual contracts.
JOHN DEERE PLOW WORKS OF DEERE & COMPANY 01047
pensated solely on an hourly rate. Although the earnings of the
experimental employees are not 'necessarily higher jthan those , of
employees of like` skill engaged' in -the production departments, their
'work is less arduous, and conducted under less, pressure and more-
favorable working conditions. Production employees'seem to regard-
a transfer to the experimental department as a promotion. ,
In proceedings involving other plants of the Company; we have
'heretofore • held that experimental` employees; similarly situated,
should, as requested by the Union, be 'excluded `from the appropriate-
unit.4 Under all the circumstances of this case,, and on the basis of
our prior determination, we are of • the' opinion', that A he employees
in the experimental department of ,'the - plant here involved-, should-
also be excluded from the appropriate .unit, and we so find. • I
We, therefore, find that, all production 'and maintenance employees
in the John Deere Plow Works of 'the. Company, including tool and! '
die makers (and learners), if any, but excluding supervisors, fore-
men, assistant' foremen, office and, clerical workers,' all salaried em-
ployees, pattern makers, and pattern-maker apprentices, watchmen,
plant guards, and experimental department employees, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the,
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.,
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Company has a number of employees on its Plow Works pay
roll who were transferred to the Plow Works from other Deere &
Company, plants and who have a limited right to return to, their
original plants should their services be required there. These. em-
ployees are carried on the Plow Works pay roll without any designa-
tion different from any other employee oii• that pay roll. There are
also a number of employees who were transferred'from'the Plow Works
-to