Thompson Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 548 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of TAOMrsoN PRODUCTS , INC., EMPLOYER and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL.
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 300 (UAW-CIO), PE-
TITIONER
Case No. 8-P-2509.-Decided April 24, 1947
Stanley d Smoyer, by Messrs. Harry E. 87noyer and Eugene B.
Schwartz, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Employer.
Messrs. William K. Thomas and Michael Chesik, of Cleveland, Ohio,
for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Cleve-
land, Ohio, on February 28, 1947, before Richard C. Swander, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer's mo-
tion to dismiss is denied for reasons hereinafter stated. The Petition-
er's motion to enlarge the record, filed subsequent to the hearing, is de-
nied as seeking to add evidence of a cumulative nature to that already
in the record. The Employer's request for oral argument is denied
inasmuch as we are of the opinion that the record and the briefs filed
since the hearing adequately present the issues and positions of the
parties. - I
Upon the entire-record in the case, the: National-Labor Relations
Board makes 'tile following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIE EMPLOYER
Thompson Products, Inc., an Ohio corporation engaged in the manu-,
facture of automotive and aircraft parts, operates plants in various
sections of the United States, including two plants, the only ones
involved in the proceeding, located at Cleveland and Euclid, Ohio, re-
spectively. The Employer annually purchases for its Ohio operations
73 N. L. R. B., No. 149.
548
THOMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. 549
more than $500,000 worth 'of raw materials, of which approximately
50 percent is obtained from,, sources outside the State of Ohio. It
annually produces finished products valued at more than $1,000,000,
of which in excess of 50 percent is shipped to out-of-State-purchasers.
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 affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer. -
III. TILE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of certain employees of the Employer until
the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in ari appropriate unit.
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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance
employees 'of the Employer at its Cleveland, Ohio, plant, excluding
office and clerical employees, time-study, plant-protection employees,
outside truck employees, foremen, assistant foremen and other super-
visory employees within the usual definition of the Board. While the
Employer does not object to the specific composition of the foregoing
unit, it maintains that it is inappropriate because it fails to include
the employees at the 'Euclid, Ohio, operations of the Employer.
The Employer's Cleveland operations consist of the original plant
of the Employer at Clarkwood Road, Cleveland, Ohio, together with
certain related -operations conducted in various buildings located
within a radius of approximately 3 miles from the Clarkwood Road
plant. The latter is, in turn, located, approximately 8 miles from the
Employer's larger and more recently established plant at Euclid,
Ohio.' While it appears that both the Cleveland and Euclid plants
involve similar classifications, operations, and working conditions,
and are subject to the same over-all supervision, the separate identity
of each plant is shown by the fact that the hiring of employees has
' The-Hriiplbyer 's-Euclid plant ,-established -in-1941 as `the`result'"of-war expansion, was
operated under a Government lease by Thompson Aircraft Products Company, a wholly
owned and controlled subsidiary of the Employer , until May 31 , 1946, at which time the
Employer acquired legal title to the plant and 'caused the subsidiary corporation above
mentioned to be dissolved
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been conducted by the Employer upon a local plant basis; 2 and that
separate and distinct pay rolls are maintained at each plant.
Notwithstanding some transfers of employees in the past,,' it would
appear that, upon the completion of the bulk transfers arising from
the conversion of the Employer's business to a peacetime basis, the
great majority of the employees of each plant will normally remain
in the plant to which they are regularly assigned. Furthermore, the
Employer has by stipulation in successive Board proceedings recog-
nized that the employees at the Cleveland and Euclid plants,, respec-
tively, constitute separate bargaining units.'
The Employer, in support of its contention that only a multiple-
plant unit is appropriate, points to the fact that the Board has re-
cently found appropriate a unit covering a group of employees at both
the Cleveland and Euclid plants; 5 that the Employer has recently
acquired legal title to the Euclid plant; and that the Petitioner has
attempted to organize the employees in both the Cleveland and Euclid
plants.
The Employer apparently contends that the recent proceeding in
which the Board found an appropriate unit covering certain employees
at both the Cleveland and Euclid plants, establishes conclusively its
position that a unit limited to Cleveland plant employees would be
inappropriate. The contention is, however, without merit inasmuch
as the election in such proceeding did not result in the selection of a
bargaining representative 6
So far as the Employer's contention based on 'a change of owner-
ship is concerned, the Employer has admitted in an announcement
made to the employees at the Euclid plant, that "the change is a purely'
legal one and will have no effect on any of the conditions of employ-
ment now existing within the Company." We find, accordingly, that
the, mere change in ownership referred to by the Employer is insuffi-
cient to warrant'a disregard of the recognized separate identity of the
plants herein concerned.
2 The hnmg of employees at each plant is handled by- a separate employment office and
peisonnel chtector
3The tiansters of groups of employees and operations have occnued largely during the
organization of the Euclid plant and during the reoiganization period-after the war
4 See Matter of Thompson Products, Inc,, 40 N L R B 407, Matter of Thompson Prod-
ucts. Inc , 63 N L. R B 1495
In addition thereto, the fact that the Employer has recently issued a 1947 handbook
3pecifically designed for emplovees of the Euclid plant, indicates that the Employer still
regards its employees at the Euclid plant as separate and distinct from those at the
Cleveland plant -
5 See Matter of Thompson Pr oducts, Inc., 72 N L R B 64, where the Board, upon stipu-
lation of the Employer and a labor organization other than the Petitioner,. found en ap-
propriate unit covering all fieight truck drivers at both the Cleveland and Euclid plants
The petition in this case was dismissed February 10, 1947, upon failure of tlie,employees
,concerned to select a bargaining representative ..
See Matter of Louis Molina, et al., 66 N L R. B 592 ; Matter of He>rsheyMachrne and
Foundry Company, 69 N. L R. B. 1308.
THOMPSON PRODUCTS, INC. 551
As regards the further contention of the Employer that the Peti-
tioner's extent of 'organization makes inappropriate a unit limited to
a single plant , the evidence indicates that the Petitioner has extended
its organization to both plants , but that due either to lack of interest
on the part of the Euclid plant employees or the Employer 's unfair
labor practices hereinabove mentioned ,' it has , up to the present time,
been unable to obtain sufficient representation among the employees of
the Euclid plant to warrant making a request for an election therein.
While it is true that the Petitioner has stated in a recent bulletin that
it expects shortly to file a petition for an election at the Euclid plant,
this fact , in our opinion , does not detract from those factors upon which
we hereinafter predicate our finding as to the appropriate inlit 8
Because of the separation of the Cleveland and Euclid plants, the
semi-autonomous character of the Cleveland operations as indicated
by the authority of the plant employment office and personnel director,
the probability that in the future there will be no appreciable transfer
of,employees between the Cleveland and Euclid plants , and the long-
continued recognition of the separate identity of such plants, we are
of the opinion that the employees at the Cleveland plant constitute a
separate unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining .9
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer at its Cleveland , Ohio, operations , excluding office and clerical
employees , time-study and'plant-protection employees , outside truck
drivers, foremen, assistant foremen , and all other supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote , discharge , discipline , or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees , or effectively recom-
melid such action , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OP REPRESENTATIVES
The Employer moves that the petition be dismissed and no election
directed, on the further ground that the number of its employees at its
Cleveland plant will be materially increased upon completion of its
peacetime expansion program.
It was disclosed at the hearing that the Employer was considering
the transfer of 3 divisions totaling approximately 1,100 employees to
the Cleveland plant which, at the date of the hearing, had already
approximately 1,600 employees. Inasmuch as the Employer, at the
See footnote 4, .spin a -
The case of Fickett Brown Mfry Co, 51 N L R. B 34,-and similar cases relied upon
by the Employer as holding inappiopiiate a unit narrower than the scope of attempted
organization by the Petitioner, have been overruled or are distinguishable See Matter
of Standard 0?,erall Company , 53 N L R B 960
e See Matter of Pacific Lumber Company , 51 N L R B 407 ; Matter of Carbide and
Carbon Chemicals Corporation. 64 N L R B. 330, Matter of May McEwen, Kaiser Com-
pany-May Fall Fashion Division, 66 N L R P. 1341, Matter of Salant it Salant, Inc, 69
N L R B 84
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time of the hearing, employed more than 50 percent of its expected
personnel complement at the Cleveland plant, we find that an election
is now appropriates'
DIRECTION OF ELECTION"
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Thompson Products, Inc.,
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 Direc-
tor for the Eighth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Llibor 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 unit found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during, the pay-roll period imme-
diately 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 temporarily laic) 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 dis-
charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the
date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be rep-
resented by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 300 (UAW-
CIO), for the purposes of collective bargaining.
CIIAilnt&N Hu lizoG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election. ,
° See Matter of Iloosier - Cardinal Co, poration , 68 N L R B 743 ; Matter of Textron, In-
corporated , 71 N L It B 731
'i Any participant - in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to , and approval
thereof by , the Regional Dnnector, have its name removed from the ballot