Roberts & Manders Stove Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1939

16 N.L.R.B. 943 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of ROBERTS & MANDERS STOVE CO., HATBORO FOUNDRY
Co. and INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS ' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
Case No. R-1444.-Decided October 31, 1939
Stove and Foundry Industry-Investigation of Representatives: no question
concerning representation : petition for, dismissed-Unit Appropriate for Collec-
tive Bargaining : unit composed of foundry employees, found not to be appro-
priate : divergent views of Board members : (1) (Smith concurring) bargaining
relations for considerable period of time carried on by employees of stove and
foundry plants together; separate bargaining unit of foundry employees inap-
propriate; (2) (Leiserson concurring) prior and existing contracts and previous
election established unit consisting of employees of stove and foundry plants ;
Board not authorized to change unit and establish two election units; (3)
(Madden dissenting ) foundry employees in other plants frequently represented
by I. M. U. though other employees of employer represented by different or no
union ; foundry employees should be permitted to vote whether they desire
separate unit or merge with stove-factory employees.
Mr. Jack Davis, for the Board.
Hepburn d Norris by Mr. W. B. Lex and Mr. Anthony G. Felix,
Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Companies.
'Syme & Simons by Mr. Benj. R. Simons and Mr. Maurice Abrams,
of Phildelphia, Pa., for the I. M. U.
Mr. M. H. Goldstein, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the S. W. O. C.
Mr. Herbert B. Galton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 2, 1939, International Molders' Union of North America,"
herein called the I. M. U., filed with the Regional Director for the
Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) a petition alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the represen-
tation of employees in the foundry of Roberts & Mander Stove Co.2
"Although the petition was signed by International Molders' Union of North America, it
is clear that Local No. 200 of the International Molders' Union of North America desires
certification.
2 Incorrectly designated "Roberts & Manders Sto a Co." In the formal papers.
16 N. L. R. B., No. 78.
943
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Hatboro Foundry. Co., Hatboro, Pennsylvania, herein called
the Companies, and requesting an investigation and certification of
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat.- 449, herein called the Act. . On June 29,
1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, and Article III, Section
3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice.
On July 11, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Companies, upon the
I. M. U., and upon Steel Workers Organizing Committee and Hat-
boro Lodge No. 1839, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and
Tin Workers of North America, herein called the S. W. O. C."
Pursuant to amended notice, a hearing was held on July 26, 27,
and 28, 1939, at Hatboro, Pennsylvania, before James C.. Paradise;
the Trial Examiner dilly designated by the Board. The Board, the
Companies, the I. M. U., and the S. W. O. C. were represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity, to be
heard, ,to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the inception
of the hearing, counsel for the S. W. O. C. moved to consolidate the
instant case with a complaint case filed by the S. W. O. C. against
the Companies.4 The Trial Examiner reserved ruling. on this mo-
tion, which we hereby deny. The Trial Examiner also denied the
S. W. O. C.'s motions for continuance. At the conclusion of the
hearing, counsel for the S. W. O. C. moved to dismiss the petition.
The Trial Examiner reserved ruling. on this motion, which we hereby
grant in accordance with the Decision and Order hereinafter set
forth. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made
several rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence. The Board has reviewed these - rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds no prejudicial errors were committed. These
rulings are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to requests therefor by the S. W. O. C. and the I. M. U.
and notices to- all parties, a hearing for the purpose of oral argu-
ment, was held before the'.Board-at Washington, D. C., on September
3 For the purposes of this Decision , Steel workers Organizing -' Committee and Hatboro
Lodge No. 1839, Amalgamated Association of Iron; Steel and Tin worker's of•North America
are considered a% the same labor organization..
4On July.20, 1939, the S. W. O. C. filed a charge (Case No. IT-C-694) "that the Com-
panies had engaged and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of'Sec-
tion 8 ( 1), (2), (3), and ( 5) of the Act . On August 2, 1939 , the Regional Director refused
to issue a complaint, and on October 3, 1939, the Board sustained the Regional Director in
his refusal.
ROBERTS & MANDERS STOVE COMPANY 945
21, 1939. The I. M. U. and the S. W. O. C. were represented by
counsel and participated in the argument. The I. M. U. also filed a
brief with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
Roberts & Mander Stove Co., herein called the Stove Company, and
Hatboro Foundry Co., herein called the Foundry Company, are cor-
porations organized under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania.
The Foundry Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Stove
Company. The office and principal place of business of the Com-
panies are located at Hatboro, Pennsylvania. The Stove Company is
engaged in the business of manufacturing gas and electric ranges,
while the Foundry Company manufactures iron castings for the Stove
Company.
The materials used by the Stove Company consist of sheet steel,
brass fittings, enamel, wrought iron castings, and miscellaneous parts.
Eighty per cent of these materials are obtained by the Stove Company
in Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, New York, Ohio, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin. The Foundry Company's materials consist of pig iron,
scrap iron, coke, and sand. Eighty-five per cent of these materials are
purchased and transported from Alabama, New Jersey, and New
York.
During the Companies' last fiscal year, the Stove Company manu-
factured 45,271 ranges of a value of $1,971,028.28, and the Foundry
Company produced 1,488 net tons of castings of a value of $182,600.17.
The Foundry Company manufactures and delivers all its finished
products to its parent company, the Stove Company, which sells and
ships approximately 76 per cent of its finished products to customers
located outside the State of Pennsylvania.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Molders' Union of North America , Local No. 200, is
a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership all employees of the Foundry Company
excluding supervisory and clerical employees.
Hatboro Lodge No. 1839 , Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel
and Tin Workers of North America, is a, labor organization affiliated
with the Steel Workers Organizing Committee and with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations . As stated above, this organization is
herein called the S. W. O. C. It admits to membership all employees
of the Foundry and Stove Companies , excluding supervisory and
clerical workers.
946 DECISIONSI OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Foundry Company normally employs about 90 workers; the
Stove Company, approximately 635. The I. M. U. contends that all
employees of the Foundry Company except supervisory and clerical
employees constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. The S. W. O. C.
claims that all employees of both Companies employed in production,
maintenance, experimental, and stockroom departments, except fore-
men, exclusively supervisory employees, office employees, efficiency ex-
perts or production planners, and employees of the home economics
division, constitute a single appropriate unit. The Companies made
no contention as to the unit.
For the reasons set forth in the separate opinions below, we find
that the unit sought to be established by the I. M. U., consisting of the
Foundry employees alone, is not an appropriate unit for purposes of
collective bargaining.
IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the I. M. U.
is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, we find that
no question has been raised concerning the representation of employees
in an appropriate bargaining unit.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSION OF LAW
No question concerning the representation of employees at the
Roberts & Mander Stove Co. and the Hatboro Foundry Co. in a unit
which is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining has
arisen within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of
law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the peti-
tion for investigation and certification filed by International Molders'
Union of North America be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Separate concurring opinion of MR. EDWIN S. SMITH :
The Companies are two separate corporations, but have a single
management. The offices of the Companies are together. The Com-
panies' plants are located in separate buildings which are adjacent to
each other and are surrounded by a common fence. There is one
general superintendent over both plants and one purchasing agent for
both. A few laborers from i he stove plant go to the foundry for a
ROBERTS & MANDERS STOVE COMPANY 947
short period daily to help the bench molders shift weights. Some of
the maintenance men, janitors, and watchmen who appear on the
Stove Company's pay roll work also in the foundry. Although the
pattern makers work in the foundry, they also are listed on the pay
roll of the Stove Company. Except for these employees, clerical
employees, and the common management employees, however, there
is no interchange of employees between the two plants or common use
of employees by them.
Prior to 1937, there was no labor organization among the employees
in either the stove or the foundry plants. In the spring of 1937 the
R. & M. Employees Collective Bargaining Association was formed
by certain employees and admitted to membership all employees of
the Companies. In May 1937 this organization was taken over by
United Stove Workers of Hatboro, herein called the United, an un-
affiliated labor organization. Thereafter, on May 25, 1937, the United
entered into a contract with the Companies by which it was recognized
as the exclusive collective bargaining agent of the employees of both
Companies. The bargaining negotiations which took place under
this contract between the United and the Companies applied to the
employees of both Companies.
The S. W. O. C. local was granted its charter on May 27, 1937. On
June 16, 1937, the S. W. O. C. entered into an agreement with the
Companies for the holding of a consent election by the Board's
Regional Office among the employees in the unit for which the S. W.
O. C. now contends. Of the 732 employees eligible to vote in the
election thus held, 702 cast valid ballots, of which 386 were in favor
of the S. W. O. C. Thereafter, the United went out of existence.
. .Following the consent election, because of the Companies' alleged
refusal to enter into contractual relations with it, the S. W. O. C.
called a sit-down strike which lasted for about 7 weeks. Foundry as
well as Stove Company employees participated in this strike. On
August 14, 1937, the S. W. O. C. and the Companies entered into a
contract by which the Companies recognized the S. W. O. C. as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of their employees for
a period expiring on June 23, 1938. The contract also contained a
clause which granted a wage increase to employees of both
Companies.
On January 23, 1938, the I. M. U. held its first organizational
meeting of Foundry Company employees and continued to organize
them thereafter. ' On February 4, 1938, the S. W. O. C. called a sec-
ond sit-down strike demanding a closed shop and a renewal of the
former contract, some of the provisions of which, by its terms, were
to expire on February 28, 1938. Employees of both Companies also
participated in this strike.
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On February 11, 1938, the I. M. U. wrote a letter to the Companies
requesting recognition as exclusive representative for the Foundry
Company employees at -the expiration of the S. W. O. C. contract.
However, on March 10, 1938, the S. W. O. C. and the respondent
entered into a new contract, substantially the same as the 1937 con-
tract between them, which was to continue in effect until March 1,
1939, and thereafter, subject to termination after said date by either
party's giving 60 days' written notice. On. March 16, 1938, the
I. M. U. sent another letter to the Companies demanding recognition
as exclusive bargaining agent for the Foundry Company employees.
The Companies' attorneys answered that the Companies were unable
to recognize the I. M. U. because they were under contractual rela-
tions with the S. W. O. C. Thereafter, the negotiations between the
S. W. O. C. and the Companies relating to the renewal or change of
the 1938 contract involved employees of both plants.
It thus appears that prior to the entrance of the I. M. U. on the
scene the Companies entered into two contracts, one with the United
and one with the S. W. O. C., both covering employees of the Foundry
Company as well as those of the Stove Company. It is clear that,
over a considerable period of time, employees of both Companies have
together bargained collectively with the Companies. The negoti-
ations that have taken place and the contracts that have been entered
into between the Companies and the labor organizations representing
their employees have been participated in and have inured to the
benefit of the'employees -of both ,Companies. Collective. bargaining
on such a basis has been carried on by the employees under the aegis
both of an unaffiliated labor organization and the S. W. O. C. It was
not until January 1938 that the I. M. U. sought to organize the
foundry employees in a separate unit. Under these circumstances,
and in the light of considerations which I have set forth in my
dissenting opinion in the Allis-Chalmers case-' and elsewhere, I am
of the opinion that the separate bargaining unit sought to be,estab-
lished by the I. M. U. is not appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
Separate concurring opinion of Mr. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON :
Collective bargaining between the employees involved in this case
and their employer dates from 1937. Since that time both an unaffili-
ated labor organization and a C. I. O. organization have represented
the employees for collective bargaining purposes. On May 25, 1937,
the United Stove Workers of Hatboro, an unaffiliated labor organiza-
tion, entered into a contract with the Companies by which this union
5 Matter of Allis - Chalmers Manufacturing Company and International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, Local $48, 4 N. L . R. B. 159, 175.
ROBERTS & :HANDERS STOVE COMPANY 949'
was recognized as the exclusive collective bargaining agent of a unit
consisting of all the employees of both companies. Subsequently an
election was ' held pursuant to a consent agreement in which all the
employees covered by the contract were voted as one bargaining unit.
The election resulted in a majority for the Steel Workers Organizing
Committee, affiliated with the C. I. O.. Thereafter, in August 1937,
the Companies entered into an agreement with the S. W. O. C. recog-
nizing it as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the
same unit. This contract was renewed and is still in effect.
I am of the opinion that a bargaining unit thus established and
maintained by contracts with both an unaffiliated and a C. I. O.
organization may not be changed by the Board. In the election
which resulted in the selection of the present representative the vote
was taken on the basis of the contractual unit. If another election
is held the voting should be on the same basis. I do not think that
the Board is authorized to change the unit and create two election
districts where one has been established and maintained by a suc-
cession of contracts and a previous election.
CHAIRMAN MADDEN, dissenting :
The past history of collective bargaining in plants, as evidenced
by. collective bargaining agreements, is a factor entitled to great
weight in the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.
However, there are other important factors which must enter into a
consideration of the composition of an appropriate bargaining unit.
These factors include, for instance, the history of collective bargain-
ing throughout the industry as a whole as well as the structure of
various labor organizations which admit to membership the em-
ployees in question.
Employees in foundries are frequently represented by the Inter-
national Molders' Union, though other employees of the same em-
ployer in other parts of its operations are represented by some other
union, or by no union.e I am of the opinion that the employees of
the Foundry Company should be given the opportunity to determine
by secret ballot whether they wish to bargain collectively through
the I. M. U. as a separate unit, or whether they wish to merge with
6 See Matter of Ohio Foundry Company and International Molders ' Union of North
America, Local No. 218, and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel , d Tin Workers of
North America, Local No. 1596, 3 N. L. R. B. 701; Matter of Combustion Engineering Com-
pany, Inc. and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, for and in behalf of Amalgamated
Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America , 5 N. L. R. B. 344 ; Matter of
National Sewing Machine Company and International Association of Machinists , Interna-
tional Molders Union, and Metal Polishers International Union, 5 N. L. R. B. 372 ; Matter
of Cutler-Hammer, Incorporated and Local No. 278, International Union , U. A. W. A.,
affiliated with the C . I. 0., 7 N. L. R. B. 471.
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the employees of the Stove Company. My further reasons for. this
conclusion are similar to those expressed in my dissenting opinions
in Matter of American Can Company 7 and Matter of Milton Bradley
Company.8
13 N. L. R. B. 1252.
815 N. L. R. B. 938.