American Can Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 1631 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of AMERICAN CAN COMPANY and AMALGAMATED LITHOG-
RAPHERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 5, AFL
In the Matter of AMERICAN CAN COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO
In the Matter of AMERICAN CAN COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL Asso-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 9, AFL
Cases Nos. 14-R-1137, 14-R-1140, and 14-R-1146, respectively.-
Decided May 31, 1945
Mr. Morgan Callahan, of New York City, for the Company.
Mr. Victor B. Harris, of St. Louis, Mo., for the CIO:
Mr. TV. C. ,Riley, of St. Louis, Mo., for the IAM.
Mr. H. P. Koenig, of St. Louis, Mo., for the IBEW.
Mr. Charles D. Bond, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Pressmen.
Mr. Robert A. Roessel and Miss Ruth Boxdorfer, of St. Louis, Mo.,
for the Amalgamated.
Mr. William L. Ryan, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Teamsters.
Mr. Sidney Grossman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon separate petitions filed by the Amalgamated Lithographers
of America, Local 5, AFL, hereinafter called the Amalgamated, by
the United Steelworkers of America, CIO, hereinafter called the CIO,
and by the International Association of Machinists, District No. 9,
AFL, hereinafter called the IAM, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
American Can Company, St. Louis, Missouri, hereinafter called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro-
priate consolidated. hearing upon due notice before Helen F. Hum-
phrey, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at St. Louis, Missouri,
on April 5, 1945. The Company, the Amalgamated, the CIO, the
IAM, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
No. 1, AFL, hereinafter called the IBEW, the International Printing
61 N. L. R. B., No. 255.
1631
1632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pressmep and Assistants' Union of North America, Papercraft
Workers' Union, Local No. 409, AFL, hereinafter called the Pressmen,
and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, AFL, hereinafter called the
Teamsters,l appeared-and participated. All parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs
with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
American Can Company, a New Jersey corporation, is engaged in
the manufacture of metal and paper containers at its St. Louis, Mis-
souri, plant, with which we are here concerned. During the year 1944,
the Company purchased raw materials in excess of $1,500,000 in value,
of which approximately 50 percent was secured from sources outside
the State of Missouri. During the same period, the Company manu-
factured finished products in excess of $1,900,000 in value, of which
approximately 50 percent was shipped to points outside the State of
Missouri.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local 5, International
Association of Machinists, District No. 9, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1, and International Printing Press-
men & Assistants' Union of North America, Papercraft Workers'
Union, Local No. 409, all affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, are labor organizations admitting to membership employees
of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to any of the Unions
herein as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees
until they have been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
1 The Teamsters appeared at the hearing, but withdrew without further participation
after the other unions herein disclaimed any interest in the Company' s chauffeurs.
AMERICAN CAN COMPANY N 1633
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the CIO, the IBEW, the IAM, and the Amalga-
mated each represents a substantial number of employees in the units
each claims to be appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The CIO seeks a unit consisting of all employees of the Company at
its St. Louis, Missouri, plant, including watchmen, but excluding truck
drivers, office employees, factory clerical employees, and all supervisory
employees. The Pressmen is in substantial agreement with the unit
proposed by the CIO, but would also exclude therefrom the employees
sought by the IAM and the IBEW. The IAM requests a unit con-
sisting of all machinists, apprentice machinists, and die makers in
the Company's machine shop. The IBEW contends that all electri-
cians constitute a separate unit. The Amalgamated urges the appro-
priateness of a separate unit confined to the employees in the lithograph
department, excluding the foreman. The Company takes no position
with respect to the appropriate unit or units except, with the con-
currence of the other parties herein, it would exclude therefrom all
salaried employees. In the main, each of the craft Unions herein
involved seeks a unit covering the employees of the Company who fall
within its jurisdiction. Their respective contentions will be dis-
cussed below.
The unit proposed by the JAM
The IAM requests a unit comprised of all machinists, apprentice
machinists, and die makers in the Company's machine shop. In op-
posing the separation of these employees from a plant-wide unit, the
CIO, in its brief, asserts that the unit proposed by the IAM consists of
t The Regional Director reported that the CIO submitted 87 authorization cards, of
which 70 represented employees appearing on the Company pay roll of February 4, 1945,
and that 4 cards bore dates in December 1944, 24 in January 1945, 9 in February 1945, and
33 were undated, in an alleged appropriate unit consisting of 164 employees.
The IADI submitted eight authorization cards, all of which bore dates in February 1945,
and represented employees on the pay roll above referred to in an alleged appropriate
unit consisting of eight employees. -
The IBEW submitted two authorization cards, both of which bore dates in February
1945, and represented employees on the said pay roll in an alleged appropriate unit
consisting of two employees.
The Amalgamated submitted 8 application cards, of which 6 bore dates in January 1945,
and 2 were undated ; all the cards represented employees on the above-mentioned pay roll
in an alleged appropriate unit consisting of 12 employees
The Pressmen submitted 33 authorization cards, of which 7 bore dates in January
1945 and 26 in February 1945; 30 cards represented employees on the company pay roll
of February 4, 1945, in an alleged appropriate unit consisting of 15 '1 employees. The
representation evidence submitted by the Pressmen is adequate to support its status as
intervenor and accord it a place on the ballot.
1634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an artificial grouping of employees in the Company's maintenance de-
partment and that excluded therefrom are helpers and other em-
ployees who function as machinists.
The record discloses that the Company's maintenance department
includes numerous classifications of employees who work in the ma-
chine shop under the immediate supervision of the machine shop
foreman. As part of this group, there are approximately eight em-
ployees who fall within the classifications sought by the IAM. They
are highly skilled craftsmen who have been with the Company for
many years and generally receive a greater wage rate than the pro-
iduction employees. There is no interchange between these employees
and other employees in the plant. We have often found that such
employees constitute a skilled and functionally cohesive group, tradi-
tionally represented by craft organizations for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining.3 Nor is the integral character of the unit altered
by the IAM's desire to exclude the employees referred to by the CIO.
The evidence reveals that the' Company does not employ any helpers
who are regularly assigned to the machinists, but occasionally it may
utilize the services of other employees in the plant to assist the ma-
chinists, as well as other maintenance workers, in the performance of
unskilled duties. It also has' in its employ a group of employees
classified as machine adjusters who, under separate supervision in
their respective departments, are primarily responsible for the proper
functioning of machines employed in the production process, and, al-
though they'may make minor machine repairs, unlike the machinists,
they do not use machine tools and ordinarily have not pursued any
apprenticeship training. We, therefore, find that, absent any history
of collective bargaining, the employees sought by the IAM may ap-
propriately bargain as a separate craft unit. On the other hand, it
is evident that the employees in this group may also form part of the
broader plant-wide unit sought by the CIO. Accordingly, our de-
termination of the unit issue with respect to these employees will
depend, in part, upon their own desires to be expressed in the elec-
tion hereinafter directed.
The unit proposed by the IBEW
The IBEW seeks a unit consisting of the Company's electricians.
The CIO opposes the appropriateness of a separate unit of electricians.
The Company employs a chief electrician 4 and an electrician class'B,
8 See Matter of American Can Company , 57 N. L . R. B. 104 , where the unit , although
comprised of all the employees in the Company 's machine shop , was substantially similar
to that here sought by the IAM ; Matter of Santa Cruz Portland Cement Company, 52
N. L. R B. 444
* The record does not disclose that the chief electrician possesses any supervisory
authority.
AMERICAN CAN COMPANY 1635
who have their headquarters in the engine room and, as part of the
maintenance department, are under the supervision of the machine shop
foreman. While the services of other employees in the plant may at
times be utilized to assist the electricians, the record discloses that this
does not occur with any appreciable frequency. Nor do electricians
ordinarily perform the work of other employees in the plant. In the
absence of any history of collective bargaining, we have frequently
found that employees similar to those whom the IBEW seeks to repre-
sent constitute a cohesive and identifiable group; it is also apparent
that such employees on the other hand might well be included within
the plant-wide unit.5 Accordingly, we find that the electricians may
properly constitute a separate bargaining unit or function with equal
effectiveness as part of the broader unit sought by the CIO.
The IBEW seeks the inclusion of Mack Scott, a millwright, who
receives a wage rate equivalent to that of a class B electrician, and
keeps his tools in the engine room. The evidence reveals that Scott
performs miscellaneous duties throughout the plant as a "general
handyman." Thus, he runs errands, acts as a chauffeur, conducts city
inspectors through the plant, assists the millwrights, and, although
during his spare time he helps the electricians, he does not spend more
than 25 percent of his time in the performance of such duties. It is,
therefore, clear that Scott is neither a helper regularly assigned to the
electricians nor a regularly employed electrician; accordingly, we shall
exclude him from the voting group of electricians.
The unit proposed' by the Amalgamated
The Amalgamated desires a unit comprised of the employees in the
lithograph department, excluding the foreman. The CIO and the
Pressmen urge the inclusion of the lithograph employees in the broader
unit each seeks to represent.
The employees 6 in the lithograph department 7 are engaged in
processing sheet metals by the addition of labels and protective coating.
The Company regards them as a separate and distinct departmental
group. Although one or more of these employees may spend part of
their time in the glue room, which is also under the supervision of the
lithograph foreman, the glue room is located in a separate portion
of the plant and is not regarded by the Company as part of the litho-
graph department. While the evidence reveals some interchange
between employees in the lithograph department and those of other
5 Matter of Illinois Division, Bendix Aviation Corporation, 54 N. L . It. B. 1051 ; Matter
of Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc ., 54 N. L. It. B. 67.
6 The Company 's pay roll includes the following employee classifications in the lithograph
department : apprentice pressmen , operator coater and automatic feeder, paint mixer,
machine adjuster , oven stripper, tend automatic feeder ( presses ), and machine operator.
7 The printing process in the plant is confined to this department.
1636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
departments, such interchange is not appreciable. Although the em-
ployees in the lithograph department have not been previously bar-
gained for, the record discloses that the Company has bargained sepa-
rately for lithographic employees in several of its other plants. We
have held that employees engaged in the lithographic process constitute
a distinct group possessing a community of interest such as to warrant
our finding that they constitute a separate appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining." Conversely, it is apparent that
because of their close functional relationship to other employees of
the Company, they may properly form part of a larger plant-wide
unit. Accordingly, our determination of the unit issue with respect
to these employees will depend, in part, upon their own desires as
expressed in the elections hereinafter directed among them."
As indicated above, the CIO and the Pressmen would include watch-
men in the residual production and maintenance unit. The Company
has in its employ approximately six employees who are classified as
watchmen and are under the joint supervision of the master mechanic
and the supervisor of personnel. Although they are not-militarized,
they are armed, uniformed, and have been licensed as special watchmen
under the Ordnances of the City of St. Louis. They are under duty
to guard the Company's premises against trespasses, fires, and other
emergencies that may arise, and to report the progress of their plant
rounds as required by the local office of the American Telegraph Com-
pany where they are registered. In addition, they record the time
employees enter and leave the plant, report any infractions of the
Company's regulations on the part of employees, and during their
spare time perform miscellaneous duties in and about the plant. Since
the watchmen are deputized under local law, and serve in a monitorial
capacity, we shall, in accordance with our customary policy, exclude
them from the production and maintenance unit.10
As hereinbefore indicated, we shall make no final determination with
respect to the appropriate unit or units pending the outcome of the
elections hereinafter directed. We shall direct that separate elections
by secret ballot be held among the employees in each of the voting
8 Matter of Con P Curran Printing Company, 57 N L. R. B. 185; Matter of American
Can Company, Southern, New Orleans Factory, New Orleans, Louisiana, 43 N. L. R. B. 838.
8 The CIO, in its brief, contends that were the Board to find that the employees in the
lithograph department constitute a separate appropriate unit, it would, in effect, be
resolving a jurisdictional dispute between the Amalgamated and the Pressmen. We find
no merit in such contention in view of the presence in this proceeding of a third labor
organization, not affiliated with the parent body of the Amalgamated and the Pressmen.
See Matter of Montgomery Ward cC Co., Incorporated, 50 N L R B 163 Moreover, we
have held that effective resolution of the existing conflict between the two coaffiliated
unions here concerned cannot be had without resort to the administrative processes of
the Act See Matter of Midwest Printing Co , 58 N. L R. B 673.
10 Matter of Columbian Paper Company, 60 N L. R B. 1201; Matter of Abrasive Company,
59 N. L. R. B 1488; Matter of Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation , 59 N L . R B. 924.
AMERICAN CAN COMPANY 1637
groups below set forth, who are employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elections herein,
excluding salaried employees, 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, subject to the limitations and additions
set forth in the Direction :
1. All employees of the Company classified as machinists, apprentice
11machinists, and die makers:
2. All employees of the Company classified as electricians; 12
3. All employees in the Company's lithograph department;
4. All remaining production and maintenance employees of the
Company, excluding truck drivers, watchmen, office employees, and
factory clerical employees.
Upon the results, of the elections in the afore-mentioned groups will
depend, in part, our determination of the appropriate unit, or units.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with American Can
Company, St. Louis, Missouri, elections by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the
date of this Direction of Elections, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, acting in this mat-
ter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among
the employees who were employed by the Company during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Elections,
including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period
because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and includ-
ing employees in the armed forces of the United States who present
themselves in person at the polls, but excluding any who have since
quit or been discharged for cause, and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the elections.
1. The employees in the first voting group described in Section IV,
above, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Inter-
national Association of Machinists, District No. 9, AFL, or by United
11 Excluded therefrom is C. Klug , a machinist , now employed in the assembly department
as a machine adjuster and supervisor.
12 Excluding Mack Scott.
1638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Steelworkers of America , CIO, for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, or by neither;
2. All employees in the second voting group described in Section IV,
above, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , Local No. 1 , AFL, or by
United Steelworkers of America , CIO, for the purposes of collective
bargaining , or by neither;
3. All employees in the third voting group described in Section IV,
above, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Amal-
gamated Lithographers of America, Local 5, AFL , by United Steel-
workers of America, CIO , or by International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants ' Union of North America , Papercraft Workers' Union,
Local No. 409, AFL, or by none;
4. All employees in the fourth voting group described in Section IV,
above, to determine whether they desire to be represented by United
Steelworkers of America , CIO, or by International Printing Pressmen
and Assistants ' Union of North America, Papercraft Workers' Union,
Local No. 409 , AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither.