The S-P Manufacturing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1947

75 N.L.R.B. 701 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of THE S-P MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, EMPLOYER
and DISTRICT 54, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN ISTS, PETI-
TIONER
Case No. 8-R-2674.-Decided December 31, 1947
Jones, Day, Cockley & Reavis, by Dlr. Bruce W. Eaken, of Cleve-
land, Ohio, for the Employer.
Messrs. Howard F. Hcvusch and Joseph Kott, of Cleveland, Ohio,
for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Cleve-
land, Ohio, on July 15, 1947, before John A. Hull, Jr., hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
-dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
At the hearing and in its brief the Employer moved to dismiss the
petition on the grounds (1) that no question concerning representa-
tion had been raised prior to the filing of the petition herein and (2)
that, inasmuch as a supervisor participated in the Petitioner's organ-
izing campaign, it is incapable of acting as the bargaining representa-
tive of the employees involved herein. For reasons stated hereinafter,
the motion to dismiss is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The S-P Manufacturing Corporation, an Ohio corporation, is en-
gaged at its Cleveland plant in the manufacture of chucks, valves, and
cylinders. During the year 1946, the Employer used at this plant
raw materials valued at more than $25,000, of which in excess of 10
percent was purchased outside the State of Ohio. During the same
period, the Employer manufactured at and distributed from this
75 N. L. R. B., No. 83.
i01
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant finished products valued at more than $50,000, of which approx-
imately 25 percent represented shipments to customers outside the
State. -
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that,
since there has been no request for recognition by the Petitioner and
consequently no refusal by the Employer to accede thereto, no question
of representation exists.' Furthermore, the Employer contends that,
under the Act as amended, a request for recognition must precede the
filing of a petition. We do not agree. It is sufficient that, as of the
date of the hearing, the petitioning union's status as a bargaining
representative is disputed and that recognition depends upon certifi-
cation by the Board.2
As an independent ground for dismissal, the Employer contends
that the Petitioner is incapable of serving as the bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees involved herein because Andrew Grasso, a
supervisor, actively participated in its organizing activities. There is
no merit in this contention, on the facts in this particular case.
Soon after the opening of the Petitioner's organizing drive, Grasso,
a supervisor, approached the Union's representative and inquired as
to his eligibility to join. When assured that he was eligible, Grasso
signed an authorization card, and secured several of these cards which
he carried in his pocket to distribute to employees who had not signed.
However, he did not give out any of the cards, nor did he pay the
initiation membership fee. On or about June 13, 1947, the Employer
and certain union representatives were invited to an informal con-
ference at the Board's office. Grasso attended this conference as a
committeeman for the Petitioner, having been elected to the committee
at an earlier union meeting which he also attended.3 Grasso was
1 The only notification the Employer received of the Petitioner's interest Ari its employees
was in a letter dated May 28, 1947, and delivered May 29, 1947, in which the Petitioner
advised the Employer that it^had successfully organized the employees and was filing a
petition with the Board The petition heiein was filed on May 28, 1947.
2 See Matter of Lebanon Shirt Company , 60 N. L R B 1297.
3 The Employer first learned of Grasso ' s pro -union activities a few days before the meet-
ing at the Board ' s office and promptly undertook to dissipate the effects of Grasso's partisan
conduct by urging him to discontinue his association with the Union.
THE S-P MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 703
informed at this time by a Board official that he was ineligible for
membership in the Union and promptly resigned therefrom.'
In Matter of Toledo Stamping cC Manu, f actwring Company,5 the
Board declined to direct an election on petition of a labor organization
whose claim to representation was based upon application cards se-
cured with the assistance of a supervisor. In that proceeding, as in
similar later cases,' the supervisor was found to have been the sponsor
of the Petitioner's membership drive and had apparently solicited a,
majority of the employees. However, in the absence of evidence that
a supervisor had solicited employees for membership in the union, the
Board has frequently found that the particular circumstances did
not warrant dismissing a petition for an election even though the
supervisor may have participated in certain union activities.' Thus,
the Board has held that mere membership of a supervisory employee
in a union,8 his election to office therein,' his attendance at a union
meeting,10 or the fact that he signed an authorization card," are not,
of themselves, sufficient grounds to warrant a dismissal of the petition.
In the instant proceeding, it is clear that Grasso took part in the
Petitioner's organizing campaign only to the extent of signing an
authorization card, carrying on his person a number of these cards,
none of which he distributed, and representing the Union on a conl-
mittee in an informal conference at the Board's regional office. He
did not solicit membership in the Union and, as soon as lie was advised
of his ineligibility by a Board representative, immediately resigned
therefrom. In view of the foregoing, we find that Grasso's actions in
no way render the Petitioner incapable of serving as the bargaining
representative of the Employer's employees.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4In a letter dated July 2, 1947 , the Petitioner advised the Board that Grasso was no
longer a member of its organization A copy of this letter was sent to Grasso but not to the
Emplover
s o5 L R B 865
0 See Matter of Rochester and Pittsburgh Coal Company, 56 N. L. R B. 1760 , where the
Boaid dismissed the petition because the iecoid showed that the supervisory employees
oiganized the union , far out-numbered the non -supervisory employees , and controlled the
afaiis of the Union See also Matter of Wells. Inc. 68 N. L R. B . 545, where the Board
held that the union did not iepiesent the will of the emplo7 ees, since its majority was pro-
cured with the open assistance of a supervisoiv employee
Matter of Sharp d Dohme, Inc , 56 N L R B 1471
Matter of California Packing Company, 59 N L R B. 941.
Matter of Charlottesville Woolen Mills, 59 N L R B 1160
10 Matter of Comfort Spring Corporation, 61 N
lottesville Woolen Mills, fn ^ 9, supra.
L R. B. 980. See also Matter of Char-
11 See Matter of Comfort Spring Corporation , fn 10 , supra.
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner and the Employer agree generally that the appro-
priate unit should comprise all production and maintenance employees
at the Employer's plant in Cleveland, Ohio, excluding office and clerical
employees and all supervisors. However, while the Employer does not
oppose the Petitioner's request for the inclusion of group leaders, it
refuses to take a definite position in this respect.
The Employer has in its employ a general foreman, a production
supervisor, an assembly and drill supervisor, and seven group lead-
ers.12 Group leaders are production men detailed, when needed, to set
up machinery and to instruct certain employees in the performance
of their duties. Some of them give out work under the supervision of
the general foreman. They do not, however, assign work on their
own initiative, and they do not make out merit ratings. The general
foreman neither seeks nor receives any information from group leaders
as to the manner in which shop employees perform their assigned
duties. It is clear from the record that the group leaders have no super-
visory authority within the meaning of the Act, as amended 13 Accord-
ingly, we shall include them in the unit.
We find that all the production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Cleveland, Ohio, plant including the group leaders, but
excluding office and clerical employees, and all supervisors, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with The S-P Manufacturing Corpo-
ration, Cleveland, 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, and subject to sections 203.61 and
203.62, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 5, among the employees in the unit 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
19 The group leader system was established by the Employer to facilitate the plocessmg
of orders through the various departments, since it was felt that a single supervisor could
not effectively cover the entire plant which is located on two floors . Each group leader
assists approximately seven employees
13 See Mdtter of Motor Rebuilders, Inc , 74 N. L. R B.'945 ; Matter of Gaswag Corpora-
tion, 74 N. L. R. B. 994; cf. Matter of Todd Galveston Dry Docks , Inc., 74 N. L. R. B. 1059.
THE S-P MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 705
or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not
they desire to be represented by District 54, International Association
of Machinists, for the purposes of collective bargaining.