The Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 765 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

THE CLEVELAND GRAPHITE BRONZE COMPANY 765
adoption . Blank checks with the Employer 's name iiuprinted thereon
are furnished by the Chicago offices for salary payments . Insurance
carried by the cafeteria is contracted for at Chicago where workmen's
compensation insurance is also carried to cover the cafeteria's em-
ployees . Social security payments and income taxes withheld from
earnings of cafeteria employees are handled at Chicago . And, finally,
profits derived from the cafeteria 's operation are transferred to the
Employer at Chicago . We conclude from these circumstances that the
cafeteria herein involved is an integral part of the Employer's multi-
state business . For this reason; and because of its relation to the
Du Pont interstate and national defense operations as hereinbefore
described ,6 we find that the Employer is engaged in interstate com-
merce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
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.
4. In accord with the agreement of the parties we find that all
employees of Joseph Christensen and Blanche Christensen d/b/a
Progressive Cafeterias employed at their cafeteria designated as Unit
Number 31 at the Indiana Ordnance Works, Charleston , Indiana,
operated by E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company , excluding
guards , professional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
5 Nationwide Food Service; Inc., 95 NLRB No. 141 ; The Borden Company, Southern
Division, 91 NLRB 628.
Fairchild Cafeteria, supra.
THE CLEVELAND GRAPHITE BRONZE COMPANY 1 and UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONERS
THE CLEVELAND GRAPHITE BRONZE COMPANY and MECHANICS
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, PETITIONERS . Cases Nos. 9-RC-
15 47 and 9-KC-1548. August t 5, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was -held before
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
100 NLRB No. 129.
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bernard Mare, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three- member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.3
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.
On December 12, 1951, the Employer and the UMW executed a
contract recognizing the UMW as exclusive bargaining representative
of the Employer's production and maintenance employees. This
contract, which is effective until December 12, 1952, is urged as a bar
to the petition. The Petitioners contend that the contract is not a
bar because of expansion of the employee complement in the pro-
posed unit.
The Employer, an Ohio corporation engaged in the manufacture
of industrial bearings, bushings, and other precision products, com-
menced production operations at its Caldwell, Ohio, plant in No-
vember 1951. The Caldwell plant, which is alone involved in this
case, produces bushings, bearings, and washers. In the latter part
of November 1951, the UMW notified the Employer that it represented
the majority of employees at the Caldwell plant. The Employer
found that 18 of its 33 employees then employed had designated
the UMW as their bargaining agent, and on December 12,1951, entered
into a collective-bargaining agreement with the UMW. Subsequently
the Employer transferred to the Caldwell plant certain operations
formerly performed at another plant in Cleveland, Ohio.
At the time of the hearing, April 29, 1952, the Employer employed
approximately 180 persons in the proposed unit, and expected to have
approximately 260 or 270 production and maintenance employees by
the end of 1952. Moreover, the number of job classifications, as well
as the number of machines at the plant, had more than doubled, and
production had increased approximately tenfold over the December
1951 level. Although the Employer stated that at the time it signed
S The Employer moved to dismiss the petitions on the ground that its contract with the
United Construction Workers, United Mine Workers of America ( herein called UMW),
is a bar to the holding of an election . This motion is denied for the reasons set forth
hereinafter.
3 International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers Union, AFL,
(herein called Blacksmiths ) was permitted to intervene on the basis of its showing of
interest . UMW was permitted to intervene on the basis of a contract with the Employer
covering employees in the proposed bargaining unit.
-THE CLEVELAND GRAPEITE, BRONZE COMPANY 767
the contract it had canceled its original plans to employ approximately
450 persons, the record indicates that some expansion was contem-
plated in December 1951.
It is thus clear that the agreement urged in bar was executed at
a time when the Employer had not yet recruited a representative
complement of employees. Indeed, it had hired less than 20 percent
of the present complement of employees and had filled less than half
the present number of job classifications. In these circumstances,
we find, in accordance with well-established Board policy, that the
contract does not constitute a bar to the present proceeding.4
We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. All parties to this proceeding agree that a unit of production
and maintenance employees is appropriate. However, the parties
are in disagreement over the unit placement of the timekeepers and
the shipping and receiving lead man, all of whom are presently in the
bargaining unit. The United Steelworkers of America, CIO, would
exclude them from the unit, while the other parties would include
them.
In view of our disposition of this issue, it becomes unnecessary to,
and we do not, pass upon the Petitioners' other contentions that the
contract is not a bar because it contains illegal checkoff and union-
security clauses.
The timekeepers make order number entries and hour entries for
each production operation, compute each operator's production, and
record the actual hours worked by the operators. Like the produc-
tion employees, they are hourly paid, whereas the office clerical em-
ployees are paid on a salary basis. They spend approximately 90
percent of their time on the production floor, in close association with
production employees. The duties of the timekeepers appear to be
essentially similar to those of employees whom we have customarily
found to be factory clerical employees.' We shall, therefore, include
them in the unit.
The lead man follows a work schedule given him by his supervisor
and directs the shipping and receiving employees in the performance
of their duties, such as loading or unloading and locating certain
materials. The record shows that he spends between 15 and 20 per-
cent of his time directing other employees, but that he is otherwise
engaged in manual labor. The lead man is paid 10 cents per hour
more than the other warehouse employees. He is not authorized to
4 Ball Brothers Company of California, Inc., 80 NLRB 1316; Dazey Corporation, 77
NLRB 408. Cf. H. Mvehl.tein and Co., 93 NLRB 1273; Corning (class Works, 93 NLRB
775.
5 Chase Aircraft Company, Inc., 91 NLRB 288.
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hire or fire or effectively to recommend such action. The record does
not permit a finding that the lead man responsibly directs the work
of the warehouse employees in a manner which requires the use of
independent judgment. We are satisfied on the record as a whole
that the lead man does not possess supervisory authority within the
meaning of the Act, and we shall, therefore, include him in the unit .6
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining : All pro-
duction and maintenance employees, including timekeepers and the
shipping and receiving lead man but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
5. The Employer expects to increase the number of its employees
from approximately 180, the number employed at the time of the
hearing, April 29, 1952, to approximately 270 employees by the end
of the year. It also expects to add 3 new job classifications to its
present number of 19. As the record discloses that the present com-
plement is a representative and substantial segment of the working
force ultimately to be employed, we shall direct that an election be
conducted within the customary period.7
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
George R. Knight, et al., d/b /a Geo. Knight C Co., 93 NLRB 1193.
* Foremost Dairies, Inc., 86 NLRB 585; Harneschfeger Corporation, 86 NLRB 825.
NATIONAL CYLINDER GAS COMPANY and WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION
WORKERS UNION LOCAL 688, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD Or TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND' HELPERS OF AMERICA,
AFL,' PETITIONER . Case No. 14-RC-1830. August 06,1050
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry G. Carlson,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2
i The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
s Locals 2 , 2a, and 2b of the International Union of Operating Engineers were permitted
to intervene on the basis of their contractual interest . The Petitioner objects to such in-
tervention on the ground that the employees involved herein are not within the Inter-
venor's jurisdiction . As indicated infra, the Intervenors take the position that their
contract covers one of these employees . We therefore find that the Intervenors' have a
colorable claim to representation sufficient to justify their intervention.
100 NLRB No. 130.