Swartzbaugh Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 538 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of SWARTZBAUGII MFG. Co., EMPLOYER and METAL POL-
ISIIERS, BUFFERS, PLATERS AND HELPERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
LOCAL No. 2 (AFL), PETITIONER
Case No. 8-R-2378.-Decided April 24, 194
Mr. H. W.. Eschedor, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Employer.
Mr. Robert A. Wilson, of Washington,-D. C., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Lowell Goerlich, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Intervenor.
Mr. Philip Licari, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Toledo,
Ohio, on November 6, 1946, before John R. Hull, hearing officer. The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. The Intervenor moved to dismiss the
petition on the grounds that, (1) an existing contract between it and
the Employer is a bar to a present determination of representatives;
'(2) supervisory employees participated in the organization of the',
employees sought by the Petitioner; and (3) the unit sought is in-
appropriate. For the reasons stated in Sections III and IV, infra,
the motion is denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board ,makes the following:
FIN DINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Swartzbaugh Mfg. Co., an Ohio corporation, is engaged at Toledo,
Ohio, in, the manufacture of electrical appliances and hospital food
service equipment. During the past 12 months, the Employer pro-
duced finished goods valued in excess of $3,000,000, of which approxi-
mately 80 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Ohio.
During the same period,, the Employer purchased raw materials
valued in excess of $600,000, of which approximately 50 percent was
received from sources outside the State of Ohio.
73 N. L. R . B, No. 107. .
538 '
SWARTZBAUGH MFG. CO. 539
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of, the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.-
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, herein called-the Intervenor, is a
labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATI0,N
On or about July 31, 1946, the Petitioner requested recognition of
the Employer as the bargaining representative of certain of its em-
ployees. The Employer refused to grant such recognition until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board. -
The-Employer and the Intervenor contend that the present collec-
-tive bargaining agreement dated May 3, 1946, and automatically re-
newable from year to year, constitutes 'a bar to,thls proceeding. How-
ever, inasmuch as this agreement may be terminated in less than 1
mouth, we find that it does not bar a determination of representatives
within the next thirty (30) days pursuant to our usual Direction of
Election.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.2
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OP REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all the Employer's employees of the
polishing aii`d plating departments located in the "factories building
plant" in Toledo, Ohio, -excluding the shop foreman.3 - The Employer
and the Intervenor contend that such a unit is inappropriate because
of the existing plant-wide production and maintenance unit, which
included the employees sought by the Petitioner.
' See Matter of Ellis Canning Company, 67 N. L R B 384, and Matter of The Olivcr
Coo p, 72 N L R B 841 -
The Intervenor contends that an alleged supervisory employee, Eugene Ryzmeek, solic-
ited designation cards among the employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner, and, there-
fore, the petition should be dismissed on the ground that supervisory employees assisted in
its organizational efforts. The record reveals that Ryzmeck is an experieiiced hourly paid
eniplo3 ee who, on occasion, substitutes as foreman'of his` department on the day shift and
also assists other less-skilled employees It is clear, however, that he has no supervisory
authority within the ineaning of the Board's definition thereof Accordingly, we find tins
contention to be without merit I I
3The Petitioner, in effect, desires at unit of all polishers, plater, and buffeis on a craft
basis
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer has 2 departments, in which it performs all its polish-
ing and plating operations , namely, Department 66 and Department
18.4 Department 18 is the smaller of the 2 and is located in the Enn-
ployer's main plant. Department 66, on the other hand , has approxi-
mately 17 employees and is located in a building identified as the
``factories building" which is about 2 miles distant from the main
plant. The employees in- these-2' -departments are solely engaged in
polishing, plating, grinding, and related operations. They are,under
separate supervision , and there is no interchange of employees between
these and other departments in the plant . These employees comprise
a well-recognized craft group, who, the Board has held, may form a
separate approporiate unit.'
The Employer for a long time prior to 1921 had an established
polishing and plating department , the employees of which had always
been represented by the Petitioner . The record reveals that because
of a disagreement between the Employer and the Petitioner herein, this
department was discontinued and was not reestablished until 1941. At
that time, the Employer employed 3 polishers and the Petitioner, upon
request, was recognized by the Employer as their bargaining represen
tative. Some time in 1942, the Employer reduced, its force in the
polishing, department to I employee , who only worked, part time as a
polisher . It.appears that in view of this-reduction the Petitioner was
no longer interested in continuing its representative status as to the
part -time employee. In October 1942, as a result of a consent election
conducted under the auspices of the Board , the Intervenor was certified
as the bargaining representative of all the production and maintenance
employees in a plant -wide unit. In 1944, the Employer and the
Intervenor entered into a collective bargaining agreement , which in-
eluded provisions for wage rates for the metal polishers . On May 3,
1946, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into a new contract,
providing not only for wage rates for_the,metal .,polishers but also for
the kgrinders,. At the time of the execution ' of this last contract, there
were only 2 polishers and 1 grinder employed at the plant . However,
since that time the number of polishers , buffers, platers , and grinders
and their helpers in the employ of the Employer have more than quad-
rupled; there are now about 20 such employees . It further , appears
that the Employer intends , in the near future, to engage in polishing
and plating operations on products of other manufacturers as well as
The Petitioner seeks to exclude from the unit employees in Department 18, on, the
ground that , contrary to the Employer 's contention , there is only one employee in this de-
partment , who is eng.aged part time ins polishing operations The,record shows , however,
that,there are two,polishers and one grinder presently employed in Department 18 .
5 See Matter of The Scott & Fetzer Co., 66 N L R B 469 ; Matter of Balcrank, Inc.,
66 N L R B 600 ; Matter of Dasclier Manufacturing Company, 63 N L . R B 777 , Matter
of Johnson Motors , 63 N L R. B. 802
SWARTZBAUGH MFG. CO. -541
its own; consequently it is considering approximately to double itsk7l
present force in the unit sought by the Petitioner. -
Although It is true that the Employer and the Intervenor have niain-
tained contractual relations since 1944 for all of the Employer's pro-
duction and maintenance workers, including polishers and grinders,
it is clear-that this bargaining history was based upon a consent'election
aihd not upon aii-y^-Board',,determination as to the appropriate unit.
Moreover; and most important, at the time the consent election was held
there was not then employed a representative group of the employees
presently sought by the Petitioner. It is, therefore, our opinion that
1 his recent bargaining history is not controlling in passing on the
propriety of a separate unit for the employees involved herein 6
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the employees sought by
the Petitioner are a well-recognized craft group. When, as indicated
,,by the earlier bargaining history, a representative number of the em-
ployees in the unit sought by the Petitioner have been employed, they
have been bargained for in a group separate from the other employees
in the, plant; a representative number of these employees have never
been included in the unit covering the other production and mainte-
nitnce"employees in the plant.' They have not had an opportunity to
demonstrate in a Board election whether or not they desired separate
representation or representation as part of a larger group -s
Accordingly, we shall direct an election among all polishers, buffers,
platers, and helpers of the Employer employed in its Departments 66
and 18, excluding foremen and all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action.
We shall make no determination of the appropriate unit at this
time. Such determination will depend, in part, upon the results of the
election: If The employees in -the voting group select the Petitioner,
they will be taken to have indicated a desire to constitute a separate
bargaining unit; if they choose the Intervenor, they will be taken to
have indicated a desire to remain part of the existing production and
maintenance unit.
DIRECTION OF, ELECTION 9
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with ' Swartzbaugh Mfg. Co., Toledo,
See Matte,, of Remington Rand; Inc, Pi opener Division, 62 N L R. B 1419 ; and
Matter of-The•American"Fork & Hoe Company, 72 N L R B 1025
See Matter of Ptittsburgh Stopjier Company, 71 N L. R. B 1416; Matter of St. Johns
River Skipbuildmq Company, 59 N L R B 415
8 See Matter of The Ameican Fork & Hoe Company, supra.
9 Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval
thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.
8
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible,
but not later than thirty (30) 'days from the date of this Direction,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Eighth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the
employees in the voting group found appropriate in Section IV. above,
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
teiilporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of
the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but
'excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the
election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Metal;
Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union Local No.
,2 (AFL), or by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (CIO), for the purposes
of collective bargaining, or by neither.
I
0