Manhattan Coil Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 1246 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Despite the patent functional coherence, identity, and distinctness
of these technical employees, the majority would deny them separate
representation because there are at this plant other employees in tech-
nical classifications. They do not suggest how the mere presence
at the plant of draftsmen or other technical employees who perform
work totally different from that of the employees involved impairs
the identity or feasibility of a unit of these employees. In our opinion,
there is no tenable basis for such an exaltation of form over sub-
stance. Indeed, it overlooks the Board's express recognition of the
distinctness and functional homogeneity of employees similar to those
involved here.7
Accordingly, as there is no warrant for dismissing the petition on
the basis of Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act, the Board should direct an
election in the appropriate unit.
7 Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, 81 NLRB 584 and cases cited therein In West-
inghouse Electric Corp, 74 NLRB 94 , the Board commented upon the unit placement of
time-study employees as follows :
Inasmuch as their duties and interests usually differ we have generally excluded
time-study men from units of office and clerical , technical and production employees.
(Emphasis supplied )
We perceive no basis for concluding , as apparently does the majority, that the General
Motors case ( footnote 3. supra ) has, in effect, overruled these cases.
MANHATTAN COIL CORPORATION AND/OR HOLFAST RUBBER COMPANY
and DISTRICT LODGE No. 46, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA-
CHINISTSy AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 10-RC-1754. April 93,
1950
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 Paul L. Harper,
hearing 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 [Members Houston, Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1, The Employer 1 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act. ,
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
' The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
98 NLRB No 194.
_ MANHATTAN COIL CORPORATION 1247
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.2
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all maintenance and machine shop
employees, including firemen, electricians, janitors, laborers, toolroom
clerks, tool and die makers, tool and die maker and machinist appren-
tices, machinists, pipefitters, oilers, hot patch clamp specialists, and
employees in the print, paint, and carpenter shop at the Employer's.
Atlanta, Georgia, plant, but excluding all production, office, plant
clerical, guard, and professional employees, and all supervisors. The
Intervenor contends that the appropriate unit should include all
production and maintenance employees of the plant.
The Holfast Rubber Company in the early part of 1947 was pur-
chased by the Manhattan Coil Corporation and continued its manufac-
ture of rubber products for automobiles as the Holfast Division of the
latter corporation. The operations of the Manhattan Coil Corpora-
tion-the manufacture of electrical supplies for automobiles-became
the Manhattan Division of the Manhattan Coil Corporation. Since
1939 one union had represented all the production and maintenance em-
ployees (except about six machine shop employees) of the Holfast
Rubber Company. All Manhattan production and maintenance
employees had been represented by one union since 1946.
As found by the Board in its decision of August 27, 1948, the two
divisions remained separate and functionally distinct operations, and
the same group of maintenance employees, working out of the ma-
chine shop, serviced both divisions.3 The Board accordingly, for the
resons detailed in that decision, concluded that the production
employees of each division constituted separate appropriate units,
and that the maintenance employees, under separate supervision and
serving botli divisions, possessed interests which did not appear to
be aligned to either group and thus also constituted a' separate ap-
propriate unit. Bargaining agents were elected by the employees in
each of the three units and were certified.
In August 1950 the Manhattan Coil Division was sold, its space
in the plant building was vacated, and its employees were discharged.
The position of maintenance superintendent, who had charge of the
2 The Intervenor , United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Workers of America, CIO,
urges the contract of March 15 , 1951 , between its Local Union No. 371 and the Employer
as a bar to this proceeding . This contract was effective to March 15 , 1952, with provisions
for automatic renewal unless written notice of a desire to terminate or change was given
by either party between 80 and 60 days before the contract ' s anniversary . Such notice
was given by the Intervenor on January 11, 1952. Up to January 15, 1952, when the
Petitioner demanded recognition , the Intervenor and the Employer were engaged in
negotiations to modify the agreement The Petitioner filed its petition on January 16, 1952.
We find that the petition was timely filed and that the contrast is not a bar
3 Manhattan Coll Corporation , 79 NLRB 187, wherein the Board 's findings of fact are set
forth in detail.
1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
maintenance employees under the consolidated company, was abol-
ished, and the maintenance employees came under the direction of the
plant engineer. On December 12, 1950, pursuant to a consent election,
the Intervenor was designated as bargaining representative in a unit
of maintenance employees. On March 15, 1951, however, the Inter-
venor's Local Union No. 371 entered into a contract with the Em-
ployer for a unit of all production and maintenance employees. On
January 15, 1952, when the Petitioner requested recognition as bar-
gaining representative of the maintenance employees, the Intervenor's
Local Union No. 371 and the Employer were engaged in negotiations
to modify and amend the agreement.
From the foregoing facts it thus appears that the Employer has
returned to the same operation which existed prior to 1947 when all
the production and maintenance employees with the exception of the
machinists (who were then represented by the International Associ-
ation of Machinists) were, and had been since 1939, represented by
one union; that the Board established the maintenance employees as
a separate unit on August 27, 1948, under an organizational structure
of the Employer which no longer exists; that the parties by a consent
election continued that separate unit on December 12, 1950; but that,
as shown by the contract of March 15, 1951, bargaining reverted to
the over-all basis, including both production and maintenance em-
ployees.
The Board has been reluctant to sever a maintenance group, such
as that requested by the Petitioner, in the face of a substantial history
of bargaining on a plant-wide basis 4 In this case, a long period of
bargaining-approximately 9 years-on an over-all basis was inter-
rupted by a change in the Employer's organizational structure which
warranted a finding of a separate unit of maintenance employees.
Shortly after the Employer's organization returned to, the original
operations under which there had been bargaining on a plant-wide
basis, a consent election, for a separate unit of maintenance employees
was held .5 Despite this, within a period of 3 months, bargaining re-
verted to a plant-wide basis as shown by the contract of March 15, 1951.
In view of the history of bargaining since 1939, we find that a unit of
all maintenance and machine shop employees is inappropriate.
In its brief the Petitioner stated that it was willing to represent any
other unit which the Board may find appropriate. Prior to 1947 and
since 1939 the International Association of Machinists represented a
separate unit of machine shop employees of the Holfast Rubber Com-
pany. These employees now consist of four machinists, one turret
4 United States Time Corporation , 86 NLRB 724.
5 As stated in Sperry Gyroscope Company, 94 NLRB 1724 : "It is well established that
units which parties agree to for purposes of consent elections do not necessarily set a
controlling pattern to be followed in cases decided by the Board."
LOCK JOINT PIPE COMPANY 1249
lathe operator, and one machinist helper. They are located at one end
of the building on a lower level and are under the direction of a lead
man, whom we find to be a supervisor.6 As these employees form a
clearly definable and homogeneous craft group , we find that the ma-
chine shop employees including the machinists, turret lathe operators,
and machinist helpers of the Employer at its Atlanta, Georgia, plant,
but excluding the machine shop lead man, all other employees, and
supervisors may constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have in-
dicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the
Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit
described above, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a
majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing unit to
be appropriate, and the Regional Director will issue a certification of,
results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
6 Since the position of maintenance superintendent was abolished in 1950 the lead rnan,.
machine shop (George 3lilam), has been entrusted with supervisory duties. Although he
spends approximately 75 percent of his time doing work similar to that performed by the
other machinists, he receives a rate of pay which is 35 cents an hour more, allocates the
work of the unit, "checks," and makes recommendations, on all hiring and firing in the
unit, and has represented management in the adjustment of grievances. In view of these
facts the Board finds that lead man, machine shop, is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act.
LOCK JOINT PIPE COMPANY and UNITED STONE AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Cclnse No. 17-RC-1248.
April 02, 1952
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 J. Scott, 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
98 NLRB No. 202.