American Hardware Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 4, 1937

4 N.L.R.B. 412 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of AMERICAN HARDWARE CORPORATION and UNITED
ELECTRICAL AND RADIO WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. B-271.-Decided December 4,1937
Hardware Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives: con-
troversy concerning representatives of employees : rival organizations ; refusal
by employer to recognize petitioning union as exclusive bargaining agent ; sub-
stantial doubt as to majority status-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargain-
ing: employees in four plants located in same city ; contention of craft union
for single plant unit , overruled ; centralization of management ; history of or-
ganization of employees and of collective bargaining with employer ; where
other considerations determinative of appropriate unit are such that either of
two contentions is valid, decisive factor is the desire of the employees involved ;
determination of dependent upon results of separate elections-Elections
Ordered-Certification of Representatives.
Mr. Edmund J. Blake, for the Board.
Robinson, Robinson, d Cole, by Mr. Francis W. Cole and Mr.
James M. Carlisle, of Hartford, Conn., for the Company.
Mr. Michael Petanovich, of New Britain, Conn., Mr. Charles New-
ell, and Mr. Anthony Uccello, for the U. E. R. W.
Mr. Francis P. Fenton, of Boston, Mass., for the Moulders' Union,
the Polishers' Union, and the American Federation of Labor.
Mr. Dennis Keefe, for the Moulders' Union.
Mr. John J. Flynn, for the Polishers' Union.
Mr. Ernest Umpleby, for the Pattern Makers' League.
Mr. J. H. De Cantillon and Mr. Jack Argazzi, for the I. A. M.
Mr. Paul S. Kuelthau, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 28, 1937, United Electrical and Radio Workers of Amer-
ica, herein called the U. E. R. W., filed a petition with the Regional
Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts) alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of American Hardware Corporation, New Britain,
Connecticut, herein called the Company, and requesting an investi-
gation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c)
412
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 413
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the
Act. On July 26, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and
Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 1, as amended, authorized the Regional Director
to conduct an investigation and to provide for an appropriate
hearing.
On July 29, 1937, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing
which was duly served on the Company and the U. E. R. W. Notice
was also served on the New England representative of the American
Federation of Labor, since the petition stated that some American
Federation of Labor unions claimed membership in the plants. Pur-
suant to the notice, a hearing was held at New Britain, Connecticut,
on August 9, 1937, before William Seagle, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. At the hearing, Pattern Makers' League
of North America, herein called the Pattern Makers' League, Metal
Polishers' International Union, herein called the Polishers' Union,
International Association of Machinists, herein called the I. A. M.,
and International Moulders' Union of North America, herein called
the Moulders' Union, were permitted to intervene and were repre-
sented. The Board, the Company, the Moulders' Union, the Pol-
ishers' Union, and the American Federation of Labor were rep-
resented by counsel, and the U. E. R. W. was. represented by an
organizer, a national representative, and the president of its local
union.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all the parties. At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for the
American Fede'ration of Labor made several motions to dismiss the
petition and to postpone the hearing, all of which were denied by
the Trial Examiner. Objections to the introduction of evidence were
made during the course of the hearing. The Board has reviewed the
rulings of the Trial Examiner on motions and objections to the intro-
duction of evidence and finds no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
American Hardware Corporation is a Connecticut corporation with
its principal office and place of business at New Britain, Connecticut.
The Company is engaged in the manufacture of locks, builders' hard-
ware, screws, and other metal products. We are here concerned only
414 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the Company's four plants at New Britain, Connecticut, - situ-
ated in groups of two approximately three-fourths of a mile apart.
The P. & F. Corbin division, which manufactures locks and
builders' hardware, and the Corbin Cabinet Lock division, which
manufactures cabinet locks, padlocks, trunk and suitcase hardware,
post office equipment, and miscellaneous metal products, are located
across the street from each other. The P. & F. Corbin division has
1,403 hourly paid employees on its July 24,1937 pay roll, and occupies
several buildings. The Corbin Cabinet Lock division had 549 hourly
paid employees on its July 24, 1937 pay roll and is entirely confined
to one building.
The Russell & Erwin division, which makes locks and builders'
hardware, and the Corbin Screw Division, which makes screws, nuts,
bolts, and automatic machine screw products, are likewise located
across the street from each other. The Russell & Erwin division had
932 hourly paid employees on its July 24, 1937 pay roll and occupies
a number of buildings in an area extending over four city blocks.
The Corbin Screw division had 1,016 hourly paid.employees on its
July 24, 1937 pay roll and occupies two neighboring buildings.
Forty per cent of the raw material used in its New Britain plants
is bought by the Company outside of Connecticut. These purchases
amount to $1,500,000 yearly. In addition, the Company buys coal,
valued at about $50,000 a year, from places outside of Connecticut.
The Company maintains sales offices and warehouses in San Fran-
cisco, Seattle, and Philadelphia. Likewise, through wholly owned
subsidiaries, it maintains sales offices and warehouses in New York,
Chicago, and London, England. The Company has 125 salesmen
operating throughout the United States.
The finished products from the plants in Connecticut are shipped
either directly to the purchaser or to the Company's American ware-
houses. Ninety per cent of the products are shipped out of Connecti-
cut.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Electrical and Radio Workers of America is a labor or-
ganization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.
It admits to membership all the employees of the Company paid
upon an hourly basis, except office and supervisory employees.
Pattern Makers' League of North America is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to mem-'
bership all pattern makers employed by the Company. -
Metal Polishers' International Union is a labor organization affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to member-
ship employees of the Company engaged in metal polishing and
buffing.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 415
International Association of Machinists is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to mem-
bership all machinists , tool makers, die makers, and gauge makers
employed by the Company . It also admits to membership certain
machine specialists.
International Moulders ' Union of North America is a labor organ-
ization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits
to membership persons employed in the Company 's foundries.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The craft unions here involved , with the exception of the I. A. M.,
which has been meeting with the Company for two years , have been
meeting with Company officials for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing for approximately a year. The Company is willing to recognize
each craft union as the representative of its members and has dealt
with each of them on that basis . No contracts covering wages, hours,
or working conditions have been signed with any union.
About the beginning of May 1937, the U. E. R. W. started to or-
ganize in the Company's plants. On May 31, 1937, the U. E. R. W,
wrote to George T. Kimball, president of the Company, requesting a
conference to discuss collective bargaining. As a result ,,conferences
took place on June 8, 1937 , and on June 17, 1937, at which the Com-
pany offered to recognize the U. E. R. W. as the representative of its
members and to deal with it as such. The U. E. R. W. insisted that
it should be recognized as the exclusive representative of all' em-
ployees of the Company.
The Company rejected this demand because of the conflicting
claims of the four craft unions which, as stated above, had been
bargaining with the Company for some uime.
At the hearing, the U. E. R. W. withdrew its contention that the
pattern makers should be included in the unit with the other em-
ployees because it appeared that all pattern makers employed by the
Company belonged to the Pattern Makers ' League. Since no one
objects to the claim that the pattern makers employed by the Com-
pany constitute a unit, and since the Board sees no objection to their
functioning as a unit, we find that, as to them, no question concerning
representation has arisen.
The other intervening unions contest the claim of the U. E. R. W.
to represent all.of the employees of the Company except pattern
makers, and themselves claim to represent certain crafts in the Com-
pany's plant . In view of the conflicting claims of the various unions
involved here , we find that a question concerning the representation
of employees of the Company at its New Britain plants has arisen.
416 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION ON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation, which has
arisen in connection with the operations of the Company described
in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
As stated above, the Company's four plants at New Britain are
situated in two groups about three-quarters of a mile apart. Each
plant has its own manager and superintendent with their respective
office staffs. The organization of the Company is such that the mana-
gers of the respective plants have no power to make important de-
cisions. All significant questions of Company policy are decided by
the president and general manager of the Company.
Although the various plants of the Company make somewhat dis-
similar products, their output is essentially of the same type. The
processes of the different plants vary to some extent, and it might
be difficult Qr impossible to transfer semi-skilled employees from one
plant to another. The Company does'not make such transfers under
its present policy. However, the president of the Company, George
T. Kimball, testified that it would be possible to transfer the more
highly skilled employees from plant to plant, since the work they do
in each plant is essentially the same.
Some of these plants fabricate materials used by the other plants
in their final product. Thus the P. & F. Corbin division supplies
castings to the Corbin Cabinet Lock division and to the Corbin Screw
division. The press work for the Russell & Erwin division is done
at the P. & F. Corbin division, and the tools and dies for use on such
work are also made by the P. & F. Corbin division. To a great ex-
tent, however, each plant is independent of the others and does all
the work necessary to the production of its final product.
Prior to the summer of 1935, the Company refused to deal with
any union for any purpose. That summer the I.- A. M. approached
the management and tried to negotiate. A raise in pay was granted,
though the Company denies that it was due to the activities of the
I. A. M. Although the I. A. M. at that time claimed members only
in the Russell & Erwin division, the increase was made applicable to
all the Company's plants in New Britain.
In the summer of 1936 the Pattern Makers' League, claiming to
represent all the pattern makers, approached the management seek-
ing a wage increase. The Company recognized the Pattern Makers'
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 417
League as the representative of its members without regard to the
plant in which they worked, and granted a wage increase which ap-
plied to all pattern makers employed in the New Britain plants.
Following the summer of 1936 the Company recognized and dealt
with the I. A. M., the Moulders ' Union, and the Polishers ' Union as
the representatives of their respective members. None of these
unions claimed to represent all the employees in their craft employed
by the Company , each confining its claim to employees of the Russell
& Erwin division . Nevertheless , all increases in wages resulting from
such negotiations were applied to all persons employed in the New
Britain plants in the craft affected by the raise.
All the unions involved in this case admit to membership em-
ployees in all the New Britain plants. The I . A. M., the Pattern
Makers' League, and the U. E. R. W. request that no distinction in
determining the unit be made because of the fact that the men are
employed in different plants and they have secured members in the
different plants. The Polishers ' Union and the Moulders' Union
ask that one plant be split off as a separate unit. In Matter of
Chase Brass and Copper Company, Inc., and Waterbury Brass Work-
ers Union,' the Board held the employees in two plants in tha
same city with a common management to be separate units on the
ground that the employees had organized and bargained on that
basis. No organization along the lines of a multiple plant unit had
commenced in that case. Such is not the situation here. The Pat-
tern Makers' League, the I. A. M., and the U. E. R. W. have or-
ganized on the basis that all employees of the Company in New
Britain eligible for membership in their respective unions constitute
an appropriate unit. To hold that each plant in New Britain con-
stituted a separate unit would hamper organization already started
along broader lines.
Further, the plants are not situated so far apart geographically
that there is any difficulty in holding meetings of the employees from
all four plants.
The factors of centralized management of all plants and of or-
ganization among the employees of all plants without distinction
as to the plant in which they work, readily lead to the conclusion
that no distinction should be made along plant lines in determining
the unit.
The U. E. R. W. contends that all production employees in the
four plants paid on an hourly basis, except pattern makers, office
workers, timekeepers , and foremen , but including factory clerks,
working assistant foremen, and shipping, packing, and trucking em-
ployees constitute an appropriate unit. In support of this conten-
14 N L. R. B. 47.
418 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion the U. E. R. W. asserts that all are employed by the same em-
ployer, that all must deal with the same persons in regard to wages
and working conditions, that in seeking improvements in wages or
working conditions all gain strength from a united front, and that
2,400 of the Company's 3,800 employees have expressed their prefer-
ence for an industrial unit by'joining the U. E. R. W.
The unit alleged by the U. E. R. W. to be appropriate includes
factory clerks and working assistant foremen. When the petition-
ing union so desires, it has been the policy of the Board to exclude
such employees from a unit of production workers. In this case,
however, the U. E. R. W. wishes them to be included and no ob-
jection is made by any of the other parties. These employees will
therefore be included in the appropriate unit.
The shipping, packing, and trucking employees work under the
same conditions as the other employees. The U. E. R. W. requested
their inclusion in the unit and no objection was made at the hearing.
They will therefore be included.
The office workers, timekeepers, and foremen are excluded from
the unit because their problems and working conditions are plainly
different from those of the other employees.
For these reasons, in the absence of organization along craft lines,
all production employees in the New Britain plants paid upon an
hourly basis, with the exceptions just noted, might well constitute an
appropriate unit for collective bargaining. , It is necessary, how-
ever, to consider the contentions of the craft unions that certain
smaller groups of the employees should be treated as separate units.
The I. A. Al. contends that the machinists, tool makers, and die
makers in the four plants constitute an appropriate unit. There
are approximately 150 employees in this unit. This contention is
supported by the fact that the employees in these classifications are
more highly skilled than the other men in the plant, and that they
have been organized and bargaining through the I. A. M. for ap-
proximately two years. It is true that no agreement, oral or written,
has ever been reached between the Company and the I. A. M., but
the I. A. M. did request and receive changes in wages and working
conditions during that period. Further, in October 1936 the
I. A. M. called a strike at the Corbin Screw plant lasting about
five weeks and involving 50 or 60 men. Thus the I. A. M. was an
active labor organization in the New Britain plants before the
U. E. R. W. started to organize there.
Consideration of these facts leads to the conclusion that the
machinists, tool makers, and die makers could function either as
a separate unit or as part of the larger industrial unit. The factors
which ordinarily persuade us that the craft unit, on one hand, or
the industrial unit, on the other, is the appropriate unit, are iiot
decisive here. In such a situation the Board has adopted the prin-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 419
ciple that the desires of the men involved shall determine whether
they are to be a separate unit or whether they are to be included
within the larger industrial unit.2 In accordance with this prin-
ciple, the determination of the unit to which the machinists' group
shall belong will depend upon the results of an election which we
shall direct.
The I. A. M. also contended that the header department at-the
Corbin Screw plant constituted a separate unit. This department is
composed of specialist machinists engaged in making the heads for
screws. The Corbin screw plant is the only one of the four plants
in New Britain that has such a department. There are, however,
specialist machinists of many other types eligible to membership in
the I. A. M. employed both at the Corbin Screw plant and at the
other plants of the Company. The machinists in the header depart-
ment are no more highly skilled than the other specialist machinists,
and the I. A. M. made no contention that all specialist machinists
constitute an appropriate unit. Further there is no history of col-
lective bargaining by the header department as a separate unit, and
no reason appears for separating those employees from the other
specialist machinists who are to be included in the industrial unit.
We therefore find that the header department does not constitute a
separate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining and that the
employees of that department are part of the industrial unit.
The Moulders contends that the foundrymen at the Russell & Erwin
plant constitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. In
view of our previous conclusion that the four plants should not be
treated separately, we cannot agree with this contention, insofar as
it would confine the unit to the foundry men in one of the plants.
There are both iron and brass foundries at the P. & F. Corbin
plant and at the Russell & Erwin plant, and no foundries at the
other two plants. The foundries at the P. & F. Corbin plant employ
166 persons, and those at the Russell & Erwin plant employ 122.
The representative of the Moulders' Union testified that the member-
ship of that Union was confined to the brass foundry at the Russell
& Erwin plant, which employs 68 persons. There was no indication
qt the hearing that any of the parties wanted the foundrymen in all
the plants to be considered an appropriate unit, or that the brass
foundrymen desired to be considered a unit. Were there any evi-
dence that a substantial number of the foundrymen desired that all
2 Matter of City Auto Stamping Company and International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, 3 N L R B 306; Matter of The Globe Machine and Stamping Co..
and Metal Polishers' Union, Local No 3, International Association of Machinists District
No. 51, Federal Labor Union 18968, and United Automobile Workers of America, 3
N L. R B 294; Matter of Pennsylsania Greyhound Lines et at and The Brotherhood of-
Railroad Trainmen, 3 N. L. R. B. 622; Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company and
United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, 3 N. L. R B 835; Matter of Allis-Chal-
iners Manufacturing Company and International Union, United Automobile Workers of
America, Local 2/i8, 4 N L R. B 159.
420 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of their craft employed by the Company should be considered as a
unit, we might have directed that an election be conducted which
would definitely indicate whether the craft as a whole desired to
belong to the industrial unit or to constitute a separate unit. In the
absence of such evidence, we hold the foundrymen to be part of the
industrial unit.
The situation of the Polishers' Union is much like that of the
Moulders' Union, except that there are polishers employed in all
four plants. The Polishers' Union contends that the polishers at
the Russell & Erwin plant constitute a separate unit. In view of our
finding that no distinction should be based upon the fact that the
persons concerned are employed in four different plants, we cannot
find that the unit asked for by the Polishers' Union is appropriate.
There are 223 polishers employed in the Company's plants in New
Britain, of which 94 are employed at the Russell & Erwin plant.
The representative of the Polishers' Union claimed that all the
polishers at the Russell & Erwin plant were members of that union,
but made no claim to members in the other plants. A former shop
committeeman for the Polishers' Union testified that at one time
all the polishers in the Russell & Erwin plant belonged to the
Polishers' Union, but that in June 1937 they had banded together
and joined the U. E. R. W. in a body, and were still members of the
U. E. R. W. There was no request at the hearing that all polishers
employed by the Company in New Britain be designated as a unit
by the Board. The Polishers' Union was opposed to such a designa-
tion. Had there been any indication that a substantial number' of
the polishers employed by the Company desired such a unit, we might
have ordered an election which would definitely indicate whether
they desired to belong to the industrial unit or to be a unit by them-
selves. Since there was no indication of any such desire, we hold
that the polishers are included with the other employees in the
industrial unit.
In accordance with the above discussion, we will not at this time
make a finding as to the unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. This determination will depend upon the results
of elections which we shall direct to be held separately (1) among
the machinists, tool makers, and die makers in all of the Company's
plants in New Britain, and (2) among the employees of all,the Com-
-pany's plants in New Britain paid upon an hourly basis, including
factory clerks, working assistant foremen, and those employees en-
gaged in shipping, packing, and trucking, but excluding pattern
makers, machinists, tool makers, die makers, office employees, time-
keepers, and foremen. If a majority of the men in each group desig-
nate the U. E. R. W. as their representative, both groups will con-
stitute a single unit. Otherwise we will find that there are two
appropriate units.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
421
The U. E. R. W. brought several trays of application cards to the
hearing. The recording secretary of the U. E. R. W. testified that
he thought there Were approximately 2,400 cards in the trays but
that the financial secretary was custodian of the cards. The financial
secretary did not testify. These cards were not checked against the
Company's pay roll nor were they introduced into evidence. There
was no breakdown of the cards to determine in what department the
men signing them were working. The I. A. M. introduced no evi-
dence of its membership but claimed to have enrolled a majority of
the machinists, tool makers, and die makers employed by the Com-
pany. Since competent evidence of a majority membership in either
group mentioned above is lacking, elections will be necessary.
In accordance with our usual practice, these employees within the
two groups mentioned above who were employed by the Company
during the last pay-roll period immediately preceding June 18, 1937,
the date of the filing of the petition, except those who have since
quit or been discharged for cause, will be entitled to vote in the
elections.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board concludes that a question affecting
commerce has arisen, concerning the representation of employees of
American Hardware Corporation, within the meaning of Section 9
(c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
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 Re-
lations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the
Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining with American Hardware Corporation, New Britain,
Connecticut, elections by secret ballot shall be conducted within
twenty (20) days from the date of this Direction, under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region,
acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations
Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among those employees of American Hardware Corporation
at its four plants in New Britain, Connecticut, who fall within the
groups described below and who were employed by the Company
422 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during the last pay-roll period immediately preceding June 18,
1937, and who have not since quit or been discharged for cause :
1. The machinists, tool makers, and die makers, excluding fore-
men, to determine whether they desire to be represented by United
Electrical and Radio Workers of America or International Asso-
ciation of Machinists for the purposes of collective bargaining, or
by neither ;
2. The employees paid on an hourly basis, including factory
clerks, working assistant foremen, and those, employees engaged in
shipping, packing, and trucking, but excluding pattern makers,
machinists, tool makers, die makers, office employees, timekeepers, and
foremen, to determine whether they desire to be represented by
United Electrical and Radio Workers of America for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
MR . EDWIN S. SMITH, concurring :
Although other facts on which this decision is based would seem
to indicate that the industrial unit is here the one most appropriate
to achieve the purposes of collective bargaining in the plants of the
respondent, I am ready to concur in the decision because of what the
record discloses of the history of the machinists' attempts to or-
ganize on a craft basis.
The I. A. M. began organization approximately a year before the
advent of the industrial union and the other craft unions. Its
members engaged in a five weeks' strike in the fall of 1936, thereby
demonstrating the solidarity of their craft convictions. There have
also been several attempts at bargaining by the machinists with
favorable results to the workers. These results can probably be
fairly attributed to the stand taken by the machinists' representa-
tives. The efforts zealously and effectively made to build up this
craft as a bargaining entity should not, I think, be wiped out, in
deference to the interests of the majority of the employees, without
permitting a vote of the sort here provided for.
[SAME TITLE
AMENDMENT TO DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
December 17, 1937
On December 4, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Elections in
the above-entitled case. The Direction of Elections provided that an
election by secret ballot be conducted within twenty (20) days among
the machinists, tool makers, and die makers, excluding foremen, em-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 423
ployed by American Hardware Corporation, New Britain, Connecti-
cut, to determine whether they desired to be represented by United
Electrical and Radio Workers of America, herein called the U. E.
R. W., or International Association of Machinists, herein called the
I. A. M., for the purposes of collective bargaining or by neither.
On December 13, 1937, the U. E. R. W. filed a petition asking that
the election among the machinists, tool makers, and die makers be
postponed until further investigation by the Board or that the U. E.
R. W. be withdrawn from the ballot.
Upon consideration of the petition, the Board finds no reason for
postponing the election, and therefore the Direction of Elections will
be amended to provide that the machinists, tool makers, and die
makers, excluding foremen, will decide merely whether they desire
to be represented by the I. A. M. We will also amend our Decision
to conform to this change in the Direction of Elections.
Therefore, the Decision in the above-entitled case, issued on De-
cember 4, 1937, is amended by striking therefrom the last two sen-
tences in the last paragraph of Section V of the Findings of Fact,
and substituting therefor the following :
If a majority of the machinists, tool makers, and die makers,
excluding foremen, choose the I. A. M., that group will con-
stitute a separate unit.
The Direction of Elections is hereby amended by striking there-
from paragraph 1, and substituting therefor the following :
1. The machinists, tool makers, and die makers, excluding fore-
men, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented
by International Association of Machinists for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
[SAME TITLE]
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 17, 1938
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 28, 1937, United Electrical and Radio Workers of America,
herein called the U. E. R. W., filed with the Regional Director for
the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts) a petition alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of American Hardware Corporation, New Britain,
Connecticut, herein called the Company, and requesting an investi-
gation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c)
67573-38-vol iv-28
424 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the
Act. On July 26, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and
Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and
authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for
an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On July 29, 1937, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon the
U. E. R. W., and upon the New England representative of the Ameri-
can Federat}on of Labor, since the petition stated that "several craft
anits of the American Federation of Labor" claimed membership in
the plants. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on August 9,
1937, at New Britain, Connecticut, before William Seagle, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company,
the U. E. R W., the American Federation of Labor, Pattern Makers
League of North America, Metal Polishers' International Union,
International Moulders' Union of North America, and International
Association of Machinists, herein called the I. A. M., were represented
at and participated in the hearing. On December 4, 1937, the Board
issued a Decision and Direction of Elections which provided that
two elections be held.
.In its Decision the Board made no final determination as to the
appropriate units for collective bargaining with the Company except
in so far as it refused to make any distinction along plant lines in
determining units and refused to segregate the foundrymen and-pol-
ishers as separate units because no substantial number in those crafts
had indicated a preference for craft units. The U. E. R. W. con-
tended that all production employees in the four plants at New Brit-
ain paid on an hourly basis, except pattern makers, office workers,
timekeepers, and foremen, but including factory clerks, working as-
sistant foremen, and shipping, packing, and trucking employees,
constituted an appropriate unit. The I. A. M. contended that the
machinists, tool makers, and die makers, excluding foremen, in the
four plants constituted an appropriate unit. The Board stated that
since either contention could be sustained, it would direct a separate
election to be held among the machinists, tool makers, and die makers,
excluding foremen, to determine whether they desired to be repre-
sented by the I. A. M., the U. E. R. W., or neither, and would decide
the issue on the basis of the preference indicated by those employees
in the electiozu.
The Board also directed an election among the employees paid
on an,hourly basis, including factory clerks, working assistant fore-
men, and those employees engaged in shipping, packing, and truck-
ing, but excluding pattern makers, machinists, tool makers, die mak-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 425
ers, office employees, timekeepers, and foremen, to determine whether
they desired to be represented by the U. E. R. W.
On December 9, 1937, the I. A. M. filed exceptions to the Board's
Decision, which were denied by the Board on December 14, 1937.
On December 10, 1937, the U. E. R. W. filed exceptions to the
Board's Decision and requested that the Board postpone the election
among the machinists, tool makers, and die makers pending further
investigation by the Board or remove the U. E. R. W. from the
ballot in that election. On December 17, 1937, the Board issued
an Amendment to the Decision and Directior of Elections. As
amended, the Direction of Elections provided that the machinists,
tool makers, and die makers, excluding foremen, should indicate
whether or not they desired to be represented by the I. A. M. The
Decision as amended provided that if that group chose the I. A. M.
it would constitute a separate unit.
Pursuant to the Direction of Elections as amended, elections by
secret ballot were conducted on December 22, 1937. Full oppor-
tunity was accorded to all parties to participate in the conduct of
the secret ballot and to make challenges.
On December 24, 1937, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to
Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 1, as amended, issued and duly served upon the
parties his Intermediate Report on the ballot. No exceptions to
the Intermediate Report were filed by any of the parties, and it was
forwarded by the Regional Director to the Board in Washington,
D. C., on December 30, 1937.
As to the balloting and its results, the Regional Director reported
as follows :
Machinists, tool makers, and die makers
Total number eligible_____________________________________ 195
Total number of ballots cast_______________________________ 184
Total number of blank ballots_____________________________ 1
Total number of void ballots______________________________ 3
Total number of ballots cast for the I A. 1I_________________ 118
Total number of ballots cast against the I. A M___________ 62
Other hourly paid employees
Total number eligible_____________________________________ 3,428
Total number of ballots cast_____________________________ 2,897
Total number of blank ballots_____________________________ 11
Total number of void ballots______________________________ 29
Total number of ballots cast for the U. E. R W____________ 2, 029
Total number of ballots cast against the U. E. R W________ 828
During the conduct of the election the Regional Director, upon
challenge, made certain rulings. Those rulings are hereby affirmed.
On January 5, 1938, the I. A. M. filed a "Statement of Protest
and Request for Oral Argument" in which it contended that it
426 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had not had proper notice of the hearing on August 9, 1937, and
that therefore it had not had the opportunity to introduce certain
specified evidence indicating that the header department should not
be included within the industrial unit. It also objected to the rul-
ing of the Regional Director at the election that certain employees,
referred to as blacksmiths by the Regional Director, and as me-
chanics in the experimental department by the I. A. M., were part
of the industrial unit.
At the hearing on August 9, 1937, the I. A. M. raised no objection
to holding the hearing on that day. Its objection now that it had
insufficient notice therefore comes too late. The Board considered
objections of the I. A. M. to the inclusion of the header depart-
ment in the industrial unit on December 9, 1937, and they were
denied as stated above. The I. A. M. has not indicated the existence
of any reason for reversing the ruling of the Regional Director in
regard to the status of those employees variously referred to as
blacksmiths and mechanics. We will not further delay certification
of representatives in this case for the sake of oral argument in the
absence of some indication that such a reason exists. For the above
reasons, the petition of the I. A. M. is-hereby denied.
Upon•the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following groups of employees of the CQmpany
at its four plants at New Britain, Connecticut, constitute units ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said
units will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of
their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and other-
wise effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Machinists, tool makers, and die makers, excluding foremen;
(b) Employees paid on an hourly basis, including factory clerks,
working assistant foremen, and those employees engaged
in shipping, packing, and trucking, but excluding pattern
makers, machinists, tool makers, die makers, office employ-
ees, timekeepers, and foremen.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
SUPPLEMENTAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The following employees of the Company at its four plants in
New Britain, Connecticut, constitute units appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the National Labor Relations Act :
(a) Machinists, tool makers, and die makers, excluding foremen;
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 427
(b) Employees paid on an hourly basis, including factory clerks,
working assistant foremen, and those employees engaged
in shipping, packing, and trucking, but excluding pattern
makers, machinists, tool makers, die makers, office employ-
ees, timekeepers, and foremen.
2. International Association of Machinists is the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees of the Company in the unit described
in paragraph 1 (a) above for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
0
3. United Electrical and Radio Workers 'of America is the ex-
clusive representative of all the employees in the unit described in
paragraph 1 (b) above for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 8 and 9, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Association of Machinists
has been designated and selected by a majority of the machinists, tool
makers, and die makers, excluding foremen, employed by American
Hardware Corporation, New Britain, Connecticut, at its four plants
at New Britain, Connecticut, as their representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to the provisions of Sec-
tion 9 (a) of the Act, International Association of Machinists is
the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment; and
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Electrical and Radio Workers
of America has been designated and selected by a majority of the
employees of American Hardware Corporation, New Britain, Con-
necticut, at its four New Britain plants, paid on an hourly basis,
including factory clerks, working assistant foremen, and those em-
ployees engaged in shipping, packing, and trucking, but excluding
pattern makers, machinists, tool makers, die makers, office employ-
ees, timekeepers, and foremen, as their representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to the provisions
of Section 9 (a) of the Act, United Electrical and Radio Workers
of America is the exclusive representative of all such employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
0