A. O. Smith Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 7, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1379 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

A. O. SMITH CORPORATION 1379)
It is therefore irrelevant whether, as the Intervenor contends, the
parties intended the contract to take effect by May 216
On the record as a whole, we are not persuaded that a sufficiently
complete and final signed agreement between the Employer and the
Intervenor came into existence before the filing of the petition on
May 216 We therefore 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.
4. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, we find that all offset
production employees at the Employer's Midway, Wisconsin, plant,,
excluding office clerical employees, 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.]
awe are unable to agree, moreover , that the parties manifested any such intent. The
rider clearly says at the beginning : "The following changes and additions are to be made
to the above-named Agreement , such changes to become effective the ____ day of ____,
1952." Wilterding testified . "To me it was not an agreement until . . . the day we-
met to sign it, and on that day at the time we affixed our several signatures , I put myself,
I wrote in May 19 as the effective date.. . Moreover , the Intervenor apparently
did not consider that a complete contract had been reached until May 22, for it again,
considered and approved the entire contract on May 17, submitted it to a further referen-
dum on May 21, and held another "Meeting on Contract Negotiation " with the Employer
on May 22.
9 We thus find it unnecessary to decide whether telegrams from the Petitioner received
by the Employer on May 16 and 20 were themselves sufficient to preclude the contract from
being a bar.
A. O. SMITH CORPORATION, AIR FRAME COMPONENT DIVISION 1 and
INTERNATIONAL UNION7 UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,2 PETITIONER
A. O. SMITH CORPORATION, AIR FRAME COMPONENT DIVISION and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL,3 PETITIONER,
Cases Nos. 3-RC-980 and 3-RC-989. October 7, 1952
Decision and Order
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.
' Herein called UAW-CIO.
a Herein called IAM.
100 NLRB No. 238.
227260-53-vol. 100--88
1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
John C. Weld, 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 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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
•9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The JAM seeks a unit composed of all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Rochester, New York, plant. The
UAW-CIO seeks a unit composed of a group of maintenance and
nonproduction employees. The Employer contends that both peti-
tions are premature, and, in the alternative, that the UAW-CIO unit
is inappropriate.
The Employer took possession of the plant here involved in August
1951, for the purpose of manufacturing a specific aircraft component
for the Boeing Aircraft Corporation. Prior to August 1951, the
plant had been used as a grain storage warehouse. At the time of the
hearing, which was held on June 10, 1952, the Employer had approx-
imately 220 production and maintenance employees, who were engaged
in plant rehabilitation, machine rehabilitation, and other activities
necessary to convert the plant to its intended use, and also in the
production of a test model of the proposed product. The Employer
,estimated that the conversion of the plant was approximately 30 per-
cent- completed and that such conversion would be completed, and
production for shipment would commence, sometime during the first
.quarter of 1953. The date for commencing such production depends,
however, upon the maintenance of present delivery schedules for
machinery and satisfactory completion of the test model. At that
-time the Employer expects to have an additional 1,000 production and
maintenance employees, which it expects to hire at a rate of 135 to
150 a month between the date of the hearing and the date of completion.
On June 1, 1952, there were 55 employees working on rough machin-
ing and several other employees of different classifications working
in what will ultimately be the production department. The Employer
-plans to hire from 800 to 850 additional production employees by the
first quarter of 1953. There are many contemplated phases of produc-
tion and production classifications for which no employees have yet
been hired. These include heat treating, annealing, plating, and final
:machining. Some phases of production will depend upon the results
A. O. SMITH CORPORATION 1381
of experimental work now being conducted. Also, although welders
have been hired for training, there are none as yet ready to work in
final welding.
The unit proposed by UAW-CIO would include employees in the
toolroom, the pattern shop, the templet shop, and building and
machine maintenance employees, all of whom would also be included
in the unit proposed by IAM. On June 1, 1952, there were approxi-
mately 120 employees in this proposed unit. The Employer expects "
to hire 150 to 200 more employees in these categories by the time the
plant is completed. ' The employees sought by UAW are presently
performing'-few of the functions which-ultimately will be required of
them when regular production begins. At' present the toolroom
employees are making tools and dies to be used in production and
are also fabricating parts for the test model. Some production
workers are working in the toolroom area on similar work due to
a lack of machines in the production area. Welders assigned to the
toolroom are welding test fixtures which are being made there. After
regular production commences, the toolroom employees will be
assigned to maintenance and repair of tools and dies; production
-employees and welders will be moved out of the toolroom into pro-
duction. The Employer anticipates that the use of plastics and spe-
Icial alloys may necessitate the addition of job classifications in the
toolroom. Employees now engaged in plant rehabilitation and
machine installation will later be assigned to building maintenance
work. Other employees, now engaged in rebuilding and overhauling
machines, will later be confined to repairing machines. Due to spe-
cialized equipment which will be required for production 4 the
Employer anticipates unique maintenance problems which may re-
,quire additional classifications in the maintenance department. In
-addition, the Employer anticipates the transfer of some employees
from these departments to production departments at the time that
production commences.
It is clear from the foregoing that the duties of the present plant
'complement have not been stabilized, and that it will, moreover, be
necessary for the Employer, before it can begin its regular production
operations, to hire large numbers of employees for new job classifica-
tions in its production and maintenance operations. Under these
circumstances, we find that both petitions in this case are premature,
and they will be dismissed 5 without prejudice to the subsequent filing
,of other petitions at a more appropriate time.
'Among equipment needed are large presses , special furnaces - and a rolling mill being
specially designed by the Employer for this operation . Although the Employer was not at
liberty to disclose the exact nature of its operation for security reasons, it indicated that
it is highly novel , and will present a number of unique problems not hitherto encountered.
5 Coast Pacific Lumber Co., 78 NLRB 1245 ; A 0. Smith Corporation , 97 NLRB 1570.
As we are dismissing the petition of UAW on other grounds, it is not necessary to, and we
do not, pass upon the Employer 's contention that the unit sought by UAW is inappropriate.
1382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD)
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions in Cases Nos. 3.-RC-980 and.
3-RC-989 be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
FRANK SMITE & SONS and AMALGAMATED MEAT CurrERs & BUTCHER'
WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 202, AFL, PETPrIONER. Case:
No. 16-RC-109R. October T, 196$
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor-
Relations Act, hearings were held before Charles Y.. Latimer and
James R. Webster, successive hearing officers. . The hearing officers"
rulings made at the hearings 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-
ianel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Boards finds :
The Employer is a Texas partnership, engaged in the business of
growing, processing, and selling poultry. Substantially all of the
Employer's purchases and all of its sales ' are made within the State
of Texas. All but approximately $25,000' of the sales to Safeway
Stores, Inc., were made to its retail outlets. Of the total sales to Furr-
Food Stores, only $7,452.33 was poultry consigned to New Mexico,
stores.3 The remainder of the sales to Furr and those to A. & P. Tea
Company are not broken down in the record, and there is no indica-
tion that these sales were made to other than retail outlets of multi-
state chains. Nor does the record show that the Texas operations of
Furr and A. & P., apart from their retail outlets, engage in any inter-
state transactions. Moreover, the record does not demonstrate that
any of these retail stores, either independent or chain, sell goods out-
side the State of Texas in the amount of $25,000 annually.
Under the formula laid down in the Hollow Tree Lumber Co. case,4
the Board has excluded sales to local units operating as integral parts
' The record shows that the Employer 's principal sales during the past 12 months have
been made to the following retail chain distributors of food products ; Safeway Stores, Inc.,
;858,000 ; Purr Food Stores , ;150,000 ; A. & P. Tea Company , $100,000. The remainder
of the sales were made to restaurants and retail stores.
2 This sum represents sales to Safeway's warehouse in El Paso , Texas , which admittedly
handles goods destined for out-of-State shipment valued in excess of $25,000 a year.
a Purr directly shipped the poultry from such sales to its New Mexico retail outlet.
91 NLRB 635.
100 NLRB No. 228.