Precision Manufacturing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 4, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 438 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

11
I
In the Matter of PRECISION MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS ( A. F. OF' L)
Case No. R-5076.-Decided May 4, 1943
Mr. Edward Geremia, of Fall River , Mass., and Hinckley, Allen;-
Tillinghast & Wheeler , by Mr. Isadore Paisner, of Providence, R. I.,
for the Company.
Mr. Edward V. McDonough , of Providence , R. I., for the I. A. M.
Mr. Richard Linsley, of Boston, Mass., for the U. E.
Mr. Robert Silagi, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS,
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Association of Ma
chinsts, (A. F. of L), herein called-the I. A. M., alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Precisi6n Manufacturing Corporation, Fall River,
Massachusetts, herein called the Company, the National Labor- Rela-
tions Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice'be-
fore Robert E. Greene, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Fall--
River, Massachusetts, on March 29, 1943. The Company, the I. A. M.,
and the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America,
herein called the U. E., appeared and participated. All parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
At the hearing the Company moved for a continuance of the:,
hearing until such time as it has received permission from the Navy
Department to reveal certain statistical information as to its, proposed
production and the number of its employees. The Trial Examiner
denied the motion. The Company then moved the Board to withhold
its Decision and Direction of Elections until the Navy Department
permitted the release of this information which the Company deemed
essential for a proper presentation of its case. For reasons appearing-
49 N. L. R. B., No. 58.
438 '
PRECISION MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 439
in Section V, infra, the motion is hereby denied: The Trial Examiner's
rulings- made- at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. On April 12, 1943; the Company and the I. A. M.
filed,briefs which the Board has -considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
- Precision Manufacturing Corporation, a subsidiary of Excel Foun-
dry & Machine Co., Inc., is a Delaware corporation maintaining its
office and principal place of business in Fall River, Massachusetts. The
Company operates a plant at which it is engaged primarily in the
assembling of items of naval' ordnance. Except for certain rights
and property owned by the Company, the plant is Government owned,
and the Company operates the plant for the Navy Department under
a fixed fee contract. During the first.6 months of 1942, the Company
received iron, steel, copper, brass, bronze, lead, and other metals valued
at $8,256.51. Of this material, $24,676.95 worth was used at -the Fall
River plant and the balance was shipped to unaffiliated plants through-
out-the United States which act as subcontractors for the Company
in the manufacture of parts ultimately destined to be assembled by
the Company. Approximately 95 percent of the foregoing material
was purchased and received from points outside of the, Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. All of the Company's product is manufactured for
the Navy Department.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act. •
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.' ,
United 'Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
admittin'g to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION ' ^'"•
The parties stipulate that a'•question concerning representation exists
and that, by letter, dated January-25, 1943, the Company' advised the
T.A. M. that it desired to,habe,such questibn`decided'by,the Board. .
A,.statement, of',the,Regional Director;'introduced' into evidence 'at
440 DElOI,SIONS'.OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the hearing,. indicates that both unions represent a substantial -number
of-employees in the unit alleged , to be appriproate 1
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 UNITS
The parties agree, and we find, that the following may be an appro-
priate bargaining unit : all employees of the Company, including the
production,' inspection, receiving, and shipping, and stores and .cribs
departments, but excluding executive; personnel department employees,
treasury department employees, administrative employees, central file
employees; mail and messenger employees, accounting employees, time-
keepers; supervisors, foremen 'group leaders,' procurement department
employees, engineering and drafting, employees, plant security em-
ployees, plant engineering employees; planning, and forecasting em-
ployees, supplies department employees, senior tool inspectors, senior
production inspectors, and clerical employees. A dispute exists with
respect to only three categories, production clerical employees, first-
piece' inspectors, and maintenance employees.
Production clerical employees: The parties agree that office cleri-
cal employees are to be excluded. The Company and the I. A. M.
desire to exclude production clericals, whereas the U.' E. desires
their :inclusion. 'These employees include typists, stenographers,
bookkeepers; ,etc. They are segregated in rooms of their own in the
plant and do not come into contact with the production workers.
The hours 'of both office and production clerical employees are the
same, and are, different from the hours of production employees:
All clerical employees are paid on a salary basis as distinguished
from the hourly basis for' production employees. Accordingly, we
shall' exclude production clerical employees from the unit. -
'F,irst-piece inspectors: Both unions wish to include, and the Com-
pany' seeks to exclude, first-piece inspectors. The record shows that
these. employees receive a substantially" higher wage rate than do
ordinary inspectors ; . that. their, duties , require greater, knowledge
and "skill" than are exe 'rcised by ordinary inspectors ; and that they.
are considered 'on' a par with senior production ' and senior tool
0
The Regional ' Director reported that the I. A: M. submitted 213 cards dated as follows:
119 in 7942 , 61 in 1943, and 33 undated ; that 200 cards bore apparently genuine original
signatures ; that the names of 121 persons whose names appeared on the cards were listed
on the cthpany 's pa 'roll of February 6, ,1943, - which"contained the names of 418 persons
.1n;the alleged unit comprising both ,production and maintenance employees.'.
The U. E. submitted ,173 cards , all of which bore apparently genuine original signatures;
persona ,- whose names appeared , on the, cards were listed on'the Company,'s pay roll ofFeb6
and"they"were dated ' as' follows : 4 in 1942 ,' 165 in 1943;'and 4 ' undat4. The names of 114
ruary 6, 1943 , which contained the names of 418 persons in the alleged appropriate unit.
PRECISION MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 441
inspectors, who'are excluded from the unit-by agreement. Although
the first-piece inspectors appear to have less supervisory authority
than the senior production and senior tool inspectors, we thinly ' that
their' interest's are more closely identified with these of the latter
group and we shall, accordingly, exclude them from the unit.
.Maintenance employees: The Company and the` I. A. M, desire
the' inclusion, of the maintenance employees. The U. E. ,desires their
exclusion on the ground that 'it did not 'make any organizational
drive among them.2 A field organizer for the U. E. testified, that
the U. E.'s policy is to organize only the production workcrs.'of the
Company. It appears that the maintenance employees were origi-
nally hired, through the A. F. of L. Building Trades Council in
Fall River, and the U. E., not wishing to engage in a jurisdictional
dispute, has made no effort to organize them. However,, the * field
organizer admitted that,the U. E. would not' object' to organizing
maintenance employees if they were not A. F. of L. 'members. He
further stated that the U. E. would have no objection to a'.separate
election for maintenance employees, in which case the U. E. would
not care to appear on the ballot.
The. Company and the I: A. A contend • that the maintenance
employees should be included in the same unit as production em-
ployees., We are of the opinion that they might appropriately be
so included. It is evident, however, that they could also function
effectively as a separate bargaining unit: Accordingly, we shall
direct that the question ,concerning representation which has arisen
shall be resolved by two elections by secret ballot among (a) the
employees in the Company's maintenance department, excluding
supervisory employees, to determine whether or not those eligible to
vote desire to be represented, - for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, by the I. A. M., and among (b) all the production employees,
to determine whether those eligible to vote' desire to be represented,
for' the' purposes of collective bargaining, by the I. A .M., 'or by the
U., E., or by neither. `
Upon the result of these elections will depend in part the appropriate
unit or units. If the employees in the maintenance department select the
same bargaining representative as the one chosen by the remaining
employees, they will be merged into a single unit with such employees.
If- no union receives a majority of` the votes cast by the maintenance
employees, we `shall"dismiss the petition with respect to them.
'2 The Trial Examiner , stated for the record that there were 52 names on the maintenance
department pay roll of. February' 6, 1343. ' Of, these employees , 14 had'aigned 'I. A.'M. cards
and r none ; had signed U. E. cards.,,
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Company alleges that certain statistical data, which it is pre-
vented from disclosing by U. S. Navy order, is so inextricably bound
up with its case that it is unable to make its position clear until such
time as the information may be released. From 'a letter dated February
26, 1943,, sent to the Regional Office of the Board and introduced in
evidence at the hearing it is apparent that the Company has reference
to the problem of the expanding unit.
-During the summer of 1942 the U. E., the present intervenor, filed
a petition ,requesting certification in the same unit now being sought.
As the result of the Company's allegations that it expected to expand
its production department from 130 employees to 2,000 employees
when it got into full production, the petition was dismissed. On
January 30, 1943, the I. A. M. filed the petition in the instant case.
The Company now repeats its contention that no election should be
directed at this time, on the ground that a certification would bq, pre-
mature, in that a large number of employees who are expected to be
employed would have no voice in the choice of their representatives.
In support of its argument, advanced in its letter of February 26, 1943,
the Company prepared a chart which was introduced into evidence,
showing that it employed, at the time of the hearing, approximately
one-fourth-of its expected full complement of employees. The chart
indicated that about one-third of the full complement would be em-
ployed by April 30, 1943, but that the ultimate total would not be
reached until the very end of 1943. The letter also contained the
'following statement :
At the present time, the growth .in the number of this Com-
pany's employees has not been as rapid as was anticipated last
summer, * * * , I
It now appears that the plant is in actual production and that there
is a substantial number of 'employees presently on, the pay , roll, includ-
ing employees in substantially ,all the categories which the Company
expects ultimately to employ. We do not believe that the large number
of 'employees now working at the plant should be deprived , simply
Because `the' Company intends to expand its working , staff, of their
right at`'the' preSent time to bargain collectively with the Company,11
as provided ' in the Act. We shall accordingly proceed with an imme-
diate determination Hof 'repre`sentati' es. 1
Since the Company's plant expansion may triple the number of pro-
duction employees within ., a comparatively short time,. we. shall not,
in the event a • collective bargaining representative is ` certified ' as- the
result of this proceeding , adhere to our usual rule of refusing to
PRECISION MMANUFACTUR'ING CORPORATION 443-
entertain a petition for investigation and certification of representa-
tives within 1 year after we have issued a certification. We shall,
instead, entertain a new petition for an investigation and certification
of representatives at any time following issuance of certification in-
this proceeding, provided we are satisfied, under all the circumstances
then shown (including proof that there has been a substantial increase
in the number of employees of the Company and that the petitioner
represents a substantial number of employees) that a question con-
cerning representation affecting commerce has arisen.3
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which-
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the two groups described above who were employed: during
the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction
of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth
in the' Direction.
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 Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations=Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIREoTm that, -as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes'of collective bargaining with Precision Manu-
facturing Corporation, Fall River, Massachusetts, separate elections
by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than thirty (30) clays from the date of this Direction, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Re-
gion, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations
Board, and subject to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among the following groups of employees 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 em-
ployees who have since quit or been discharged for cause:
1. All employees of the Company, including the production, inspec-
tion, receiving and shipping, and stores and cribs departments, but
excluding executive, personnel department employees, treasury de-
partment employees, administrative employees, central file employees,
3 See Matter of Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. and International Association of Ma-
chinists , Local 804 ( A F. of L ), 38 N L . R B 404.
I
11
444 DEICQSIONS OF NAI1ONAL LABOR ^ RELATIONS BOARD
mails and messenger 'employees, accounting employees, timekeepers;
supervisors, foremen group leaders, procurement department em-
ployees, engineering and drafting employees, plant security employees,
.plant engineering employees, planning and, forecasting employees,
supplies department employees, senior tool inspectors, senior produc-
tion inspectors, clerical employees, production clerical employees, and.
first-piece inspectors, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented by International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, or by United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers of America,- affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither;
2. All the employees in the Company's maintenance department,
excluding supervisory employees, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented by International Association of Machinists,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of
collective bargaining.