American Cast Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 2, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 705 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

AMERICAN CAST PRODUCTS, INC. 705
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the Respondent, Coca-Cola Bottling Company of San Angelo,
Texas, occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 583,
AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent, Coca-Cola Bottling Company of San Angelo, Texas, has not
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) and (3)
of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
AMERICAN CAST PRODUCTS, INC. and AKRON ASSOCIATION OF THE PAT-
TERN MAKERS LEAGUE, PATTERN MAKERS LEAGUE OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-2262. November 2,1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before W. R. Griesbach, hearing
officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks an election in a unit composed of the Employ-
er's patternmakers and patternmaker apprentices. The Employer and
the Intervenor contend that an existing collective-bargaining contract
covers the employees sought by the Petitioner, and is a bar to a present
determination of representatives. On June 1, 1953, the Employer and
the Intervenor executed a contract for a term of 1 year, which recog-
nized the Intervenor as the exclusive bargaining agent for all of the
Employer's employees, excluding supervisors and technical and office
1 At the hearing , the petition and other formal papers were amended to show the correct
name of the Employer and the Petitioner.
2 The hearing officer referred to the Board the motions of the Employer and Interna-
tional Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, Local 440, AFL, herein
called the Intervenor , to dismiss the petition on the ground that a current contract be-
tween them constitutes a bar to this proceeding . For the reasons given infra, these
motions are hereby granted.
110 NLRB No. 108.
338207-55-vol. 110-46
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees 3 The contract provided for automatic renewal in the
absence of written notification of a desire to modify or terminate the
contract, not less than 60 days prior to the renewal date. It was stipu-
lated at the hearing that the contract was automatically renewed in
accordance with its renewal provisions, and continues in effect until
June 1, 1955. The Petitioner asserts that this contract cannot con-
stitute a bar to an election in a unit of patternmakers because (1) the
Employer had no patternmakers working at the plant at the time the
contract was executed; (2) the parties to the contract did not enforce
the union-security provisions of the contract against the Employer's
patternmakers; and (3) the Petitioner referred patternmakers to the
Employer, and had contract discussions with the Employer relative to
patternmakers beginning in February 1954, and on May 27, 1954,
entered into an oral agreement on everything except wages.
Prior to the execution of the contract between the Employer and
the Intervenor on June 1, 1953, the Employer purchased all of its pat-
terns from a partnership. Sometime between June 1 and June 8, 1953,
the Employer purchased the partnership's business with its building
and equipment, and on June 8 hired a salaried employee who was to
work as a supervisor in the Employer's new pattern shop. On Aug-
ust 3, 1953, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into a supple-
mental agreement which provided for the addition to the contract's
classification schedule of the job classifications of journeymen pattern-
makers and patternmaker supervisor. In October 1953, the Employer
hired its first hourly paid patternmaker.
When the patternmakers were hired by the Employer, they were
informed that the Employer had a union-security provision in its con-
tract with the Intervenor, and that they would be bound by all of the
provisions of the contract, except that the Intervenor had agreed to
waive dues payments because these employees were already paying
dues to the Petitioner, another affiliate of the American Federation
of Labor.' The patternmakers receive the same benefits under the con-
tract as do the other employees in the unit, and are subject to the same
conditions of employment under the contract, with the exception of
the payment of dues.
It is clear from the language of the contract of June 1, 1953, and
the supplemental agreement of August 3, 1953, that the parties to the
contract intended to add the patternmakers to the bargaining unit
covered by the contract. We do not believe the fact that the Inter-
31n May 1953 , the Intervenor was certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining
representative for the Employer 's production and maintenance employees , after winning
a Board-conducted election.
s The contract between the Employer and the Intervenor contains a union-security pro-
vision providing that all new employees shall become members of the Intervenor 30 work-
ing days after being employed , and shall remain members of the Intervenor in good stand-
ing as a continuing condition of employment.
AMERICAN CAST PRODUCTS, INC. 707
venor agreed to waive payment of dues is significant under the facts
in this case. There is nothing in the Act which prevents a labor organ-
ization, within its discretion, from waiving the payment of dues. The
record clearly shows that the Employer and the Intervenor considered
these employees to be within the bargaining unit covered by the con-
tract, and that the contract was in all other respects applied to them.
The record does not support the Petitioner's assertion that it had
an oral agreement with the Employer covering the patternmakers.
Moreover, such an agreement, even if made, could not impair the
validity of the existing contract between the Employer and the Inter-
venor for contract-bar purposes. The fact that the Employer secured
some of its patternmakers through the Petitioner rather than through
newspaper ads, does not militate against a finding that the pattern-
makers were included within the terms of the contract between the
Employer and the Intervenor.
On the basis of the entire record, we find that the Petitioner's con-
tentions are without merit, and that the contract of June 1, 1953, to-
gether with the August 3, 1953, supplemental agreement, covers the
Employer's patternmakers 6 As the petition in this case was filed
after the automatic renewal date of the contract, we find that the con-
tract is a bar to a present determination of representatives! We shall,
therefore, dismiss the petition filed in this case.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
CHAIRMAN FARMER and MEMBER DODGERS, dissenting :
We dissent from the decision of our colleagues not to direct an elec-
tion among the employees of the Employer's pattern shop. First of
all, at the time of entering into the contract which the majority deci-
sion here has found to be a bar, the Employer had no pattern shop and
purchased all the patterns used in its foundry operations from an inde-
pendently owned and operated pattern shop across the railway from
the Employer's main plant. Thereafter the Employer purchased the
patternmaking operation, including the building and equipment, and
added it to its own operation which consisted of the making of gray
iron castings. The foundry plant has been engaged in a job-shop
type of operation, and the Employer has since operated the pattern
shop in essentially the same manner, producing the patterns needed
6 Cf. Radio Corporation of America, RCA Victor Division, 107 NLRB 993. The instant
case is distinguishable from those cases in which the Board found that where the classi-
fication sought to be represented in a separate unit was neither in existence nor within
the contemplation of the parties at the time of the execution of the contract, and the
parties did nothing to include them within the coverage of the contract , the contract
covering the production and maintenance employees did not constitute a bar to an elec-
tion in a unit composed of employees in the new classification . See International Har-
vester Company, Melrose Park Works, 94 NLRB 907, 908.
"Billboard Publishing Company, 108 NLRB 182.
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the foundry operations and also making and repairing patterns for
the Employer's customers.
Although, after the purchase of the pattern shop the Employer and
Intervenor added certain patternmaking classifications to their con-
tract, when patternmakers later were actually hired, the parties recog-
nized their membership in the Petitioner by waiving application of
the contract's union-security provisions as to them.
It is not, of course, the Board's policy to conduct a separate election
among employees who, though employed in classifications added after
the execution of an existing contract, are nevertheless merely "accre-
tions" to an existing unit .7 However, where the Employer has added
to its operations a new plant, or, as here, a new division which for-
merly was a separate enterprise, and no persuasive bargaining history
has since developed, the Board will customarily grant an election to
the employees of such division or plant to determine their desires as
to representation.8 We believe that the latter is the proper course to
pursue here, and we would hold the contract no bar and direct an elec-
tion to determine their desires as to inclusion in the foundry unit.
7 The Budd Company, 107 NLRB 116.
8 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 108 NLRB 1468, and cases cited in footnote 6;
Michigan Limestone Division, United States Steel Corporation, 106 NLRB 1391; Arm-
strong Cork Company (Lancaster Floor Plant), 106 NLRB 1147.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER FUEL CORPORATION and UNITED GAS, COKE AND
CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA , C. I. 0., PETITIONER . Case No.
14-RC-9523. November 2,1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William F. Trent, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer. -
3. No 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 for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent all the field operating employees
in the Employer's city division. The Employer contends that only a
systemwide unit is appropriate.
110 NLRB No. 103.