Saunders Tool and Die Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 10, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 263 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

SAUNDERS TOOL AND DIE COMPANY 263
SAUNDERS TOOL AND DIE COMPANY and DISTRICT No. 108, INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACKNISTS , PETITIONER . Case No.13-RC-
2949. November 10, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Rush F. Hall, 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, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer .2
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Aurora, Illinois, plant, excluding office
and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act. The Employer contends that the pro-
posed unit is inappropriate because it includes seasonal employees
with year-round employees.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of plastic toys. Its
business is seasonal in nature. Generally, the operating season begins
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's motion to dismiss this
proceeding on the following grounds: (1) The 1952 operating season at the Employer's
plant is almost finished, and there is a substantial turnover among employees from
season to season ; ( 2) the Petitioner failed to present evidence of its own in support
of its proposed unit; and ( 3) no evidence of the Petitioner 's compliance with the filing
requirements of the Act was made part of the record.
The Employer 's motion to dismiss is hereby denied . For the reasons appearing in
paragraph numbered 5 below, we find no merit in the Employer 's first contention. The
Employer 's second contention , in our opinion, misconceives the nature of representation
proceedings . Such proceedings are not adversary, but are designed merely to ascertain
whether or not a question concerning representation exists. It is immaterial which party
presents the factual material for the record . It is only necessary that there be a full
and complete record , so that the Board will be in a position to decide all the issues
involved in the proceeding . United States Pipe & Foundry Company, 87 NLRB 115.
Such a record exists in this case . With respect to the Employer 's third contention, the
Board has repeatedly held that the fact of compliance by a labor organization is a matter
for administrative determination . Moreover , we are administratively satisfied that the
Petitioner is in compliance.
2 The Petitioner has waived any right to object to any election which may be directed
in the instant proceeding on the basis of any of the acts alleged as unfair labor practices
in Case No. 13-CA-1202.
101 NLRB No. 79.
264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about the first of April and extends through November. At the peak
of the season, approximately 250 production and maintenance work-
ers are employed. When the production season is over, all nonsuper-
visory employees are laid off with the exception of 5 employees in the
injection molding department, who engage in miscellaneous mold-
ing work during the offseason,3 and such of the Employer's approxi-
mately 6 tool and die makers as are needed for retooling work during
the closed season .4
Most of those engaged in production work during the active season
are local housewives, among whom, according to the Employer, there
is "quite a turn-over" during the season b Other employees hired for
production work live outside the State of Illinois and spend "a month
or two" at the Employer's plant during the period under discussion.
All production workers, however, including those employed on a
year-round basis, work at various steps in the integrated production
process carried on by the Employer. In the injection molding depart-
ment and in the toolroom, the only departments employing nonsuper-
visory employees who are regarded as year-round employees by the
Employer, seasonal employees work the same hours as year-round
employees, receive comparable wages, exercise the same skills, and
perform the same work under the same supervision. All the produc-
tion and maintenance employees are hourly paid and work under the
same ultimate supervision. It does not appear that the Employer
makes any distinction between seasonal employees and the year-
round employees in the benefits and privileges they enjoy.
Layoffs among the seasonal employees commence about the end of
November, and all such employees are laid off by mid-December.
Every one of the seasonal employees laid off at the close of an operating
season is offered reemployment at the beginning of the following
season by "telephone and then by letter." Between 25 percent and 30
percent of the seasonal employees thus solicited during the past 7
years returned to work for the Employer.
On the basis of all the foregoing, and the entire record, we find that
the Employer's seasonal employees and year-round employees have a
sufficient community of interest to constitute an appropriate bargain-
ing unit .6
6 This work is contracted by the Employer for the purpose of retaining these 5 "key"
individuals in its employ- on a year-round basis. As of the date of the hearing held on
October 10, 1952, approximately 36 employees were at work in the injection molding
department.
It does not appear that all the Employer's tool and die makers are regularly employed
throughout the year.
5 Some of these women work on a part-time basis , as do employees in the toolroom who
are considered by the Employer to be permanent employees.
6 Gerber Products Company, 93 NLRB 1668 ; The Borden Company, 89 NLRB 227;
Arkport Dairies, Inc , 86 NLRB 319; California Spray-Chemical Corp., 86 NLRB 453;
Wm. P. McDonald Corporation , 83 NLRB 427 . Cf. such cases relied upon by the Employer
SAUNDERS TOOL AND DIE COMPANY 265
The parties agree, and we find, that the plant superintendent and the
night superintendent are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
We shall therefore exclude them. The Employer would also exclude
as supervisors the following individuals, all of whom the Petitioner
would include in the unit :
Frank Shepherd is in charge of the injection molding department,
which operates on a three-shift basis. Besides receiving more money
than the employees under him, Shepherd has the right to hire and
discharge employees in his department. We find that Frank Shepherd
is a supervisor and shall exclude him from the unit.
Charles Bamford, Peter Erath, and John DeRonco are assistants
of Shepherd, each in charge of a different shift. They assign work to,
and direct the activity of, the employees in the injection molding
department. Their recommendations concerning discharges, layoffs,
and suspensions are given considerable weight. Under these circum-
stances, we find that Ransford, Erath, and DeRonco are supervisors,
whom we shall exclude.
Orman Rogers is the superintendent of the punch press department.
He assigns work to the employees in his department and directs those
employees in the performance of their work. He has the authority
to discharge employees, and has exercised that authority. Accord-
ingly, we find that Orman Rogers is a supervisor and shall exclude
him.
Perry Cratty, William Biever, Maxine Durham, and Frank Vite
oversee the assembly line and keep it running. At the time of the
hearing, approximately 160 employees were engaged in assembly
work. Cratty, Biever, and Durham are assigned to the morning shift,
and Vite directs the night shift. Cratty, Biever, and Vite are paid
more than the assembly workers. Cratty has authority to discharge
employees. The others under discussion may make recommendations
with respect to the discharge, suspension, and layoff of employees.
Their recommendations carry considerable weight. Under these cir-
cumstances, we find that Cratty, Biever, Durham, and Vite are super-
visors. We shall therefore exclude them.
Robert Morrill is employed in the toolroom, where about six em-
ployees are normally employed on a part-time basis. He lays out
the work for these employees and, when there is not work enough
for all of them, decides which of them is to perform the work available.
His recommendations as to the hiring of employees are adopted by
the Employer. He has the authority to recommend the discharge,
layoff, and suspensions of employees. Although it appears that Mor-
as Bear Creek Orchards, 87 NLRB 1348 , and The St . Mary's Packing Company , 72 NLRB
596, in which the Board, holding units of nonseasonal employees alone to be appropriate,
relied in part on the fact that no labor organization sought to represent the seasonal and
nonseasonal employees in the same unit.
266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rill has not yet exercised this authority, the Employer's vice president
testified that Morrill's recommendations along these lines would be
given very serious consideration. We find that Morrill is a supervisor
and shall therefore exclude him from the unit.
Jerry Smith is in charge of the shipping department, where two
other workers are normally employed. Smith assigns work to these
employees and has the authority to make recommendations to the plant
superintendent concerning their discharge, layoff , and suspension.
In the single instance where such a recommendation was made by
Smith, it was followed by the Employer. In these circumstances, we
find that Smith is a supervisor and shall exclude him.
Theodore Wagner is in charge of the stockroom ,7 and assigns work
to, and directs the activity of, the four employees there employed. He
is paid more than those who work under his direction, and he possesses
the authority to recommend the discharge, suspension, and recall of
those employees; his recommendations have been followed by the
Employer in practically every instance. Accordingly, we find that
Theodore Wagner is a supervisor, whom we shall exclude.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Aurora, Illinois, plant, including seasonal employees,
but excluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed or,
in any event, that the holding of any election should be deferred until
its 1953 season , mainly because its production activity for 1952 is
almost at an end, and not more than 30 percent of those employed at
the close of the season can be expected to return to work for the 1953
season. We do not agree with the Employer's position. Although
this year's operations are drawing to a close, it appears that at the
time of the hearing there were approximately 205 production and
maintenance employees in the employ of the Employer, and that about
this same number of employees will continue to be employed by the
Employer at least until November 30 .11 Moreover, as indicated above,
some of the employees in the unit herein found appropriate are em-
ployed by the Employer on a year-round basis. Under all the circum-
stances , we find that, notwithstanding the approaching seasonal shut-
down by the Employer, and the lack of substantial identity in the
' Although the individual in charge of the stockroom is referred to in the record as
Theodore Williams, it appears that his correct name is Theodore Wagner.
s As appears above, during the height of its seasonal activity, the Employer employs
.bout 250 employees.
KENROSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 267
Employer's complement from season to season,9 the policies of the
Act will best be effectuated by the direction of an immediate election.-
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
9In cases such as this, the Board does not condition the holding of elections upon a
showing that there is substantial identity in the employee complement from season to
season . Were we to agree with the Employer 's reasoning , we would be precluded from
conducting an election in any seasonal industry where, as is often the case , there is a high
rate of turnover from season to season.
10 Cf. Franklin County Sugar Company, 97 NLRB 936 ; California Spray-Chemical Corp.,
supra ; Cain Canning Company , 81 NLRB 213 . The cases relied upon by the Employer in
this connection contain facts which are decisively distinguishable from those herein.
kENROSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 5-RC-1130. No-
vember 10, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis S. Wallerstein, 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 Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following reasons:
The Employer and Intervenor (International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL) on July 1, 1950, entered into a collective bar-
gaining contract covering employees at the Employer's two Roanoke,
Virginia, plants involved herein. By its terms the contract was to
be effective "July 1, 1950 for a period of two (2) years and .. .
terminate on Sept. 30, 1952," subject to a 30-day automatic renewal
clause. This contract also contained an unlawful union-security
clause.' On July 18, 1952, the contracting parties entered into a
1 The union-security clause was as follows : "... It is agreed that during the period
of this agreement or any renewal or extension thereof , the Employer will employ none
but members in good standing of the Union and will not retain in its employ any workers
declared by the Union not to be members thereof in good standing.
In the event the employer shall require additional workers , the Employer shall have the
right to engage such workers in the open market . Such workers need not necessarily be
members of the Union when hired but must become members in good standing after the
respective trial period hereinafter referred to."
101 NLRB No. 71.