American Propeller Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1942

43 N.L.R.B. 518 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of AMERICAN PROPELLER CORPORATION , TOLEDO, OHIO and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AuuOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND ACRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA ( C. I. 0.) TOLEDO, OHIO
In the Matter of AMERICAN PROPELLER CORP. and MECHANICS
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA-LOCAL No. 4 (UN r mIATED)
Cases Nos . R-4019 and R-4030, Respectively .Decided August
'Jurisdiction : airplane propeller manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : refusal
to recognize one labor organization until it established its claim of majority
representation,' and suggestion that rival labor organizations petition the
Board; elections necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : where either a production and main-
tenance union or a single unit of toolroom employees and a single unit of
remaining employees could be found appropriate, toolroom employees directed
to indicate by vote whether they desired to be represented separately or as
part of production and maintenance unit ; metal polishers included .in pro-,
Unction unit, since they did not make up an identifiable craft, but were
scattered among other production employees and possessed no special skill
to distinguish them from the production employees; 'following categories
excluded: office employees and timekeepers because of absence of showing
of substantial interest and their traditional exclusion from production and
maintenance units; production follow-up staff employees and medical depart-
ment employees in the absence of evidence justifying their inclusion and
because of the probable specialized duties of the latter group; engineering
department and planning staff employees in view of their technical and
professional functions.
Mr. Richard C. Swander, for the board.
Mr. Henry R. Bloch and Mr. Ira J. Snader, of Toledo, Ohio, and
Mr. John J. Gz°ealis, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company.
Mr. Edward Lamb, of Toledo, Ohio, and Mr. Lester Byrd, for
the U. A. W. -
Mr. Earl S. Streeter and Mr. Tor Cedervall, of Toledo, Ohio, for
the M. E. S. A.
Mr. Edwin J. Lynch, Mr. A. H. Danner, and Mr. William Gardner,
of Toledo, Ohio, for the Metal Polishers.
Mr. Robert E. Tillman, of counsel to the Board.
43 N L. R. B , No. 78 ,
518 , ,
AMERICAN PROPELLER CORPORATION 519.
DECISION -
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petitions, duly filed by International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
(C. I. 0.), herein called the U. A..W., and by Mechanics Educational
Society of America-Local #4 (Unaffiliated), herein called the
M. E. S. A., alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of American Propeller
Corporation, Toledo, Ohio, herein called the Company, the National
Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice before Henry J. Kent,. Trial Examiner. Said hearing
.was held at Toledo, Ohio, on July 8, 1942. The Company, the.
U. A. W., the M. E. S. A., and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers &
Helpers, Local Union No. 2, affiliated with the A. F. of L., herein
called the Metal Polishers, appeared, participated, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues., The Trial Exam-
iner's, rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
On July 20, 1942, the M. E. S. A. and the Company, and on July 22,
1942, the Metal Polishers filed briefs which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF•THE COMPANY
American Propeller Corporation, incorporated in New York, is
a wholly owned subsidiary of Aviation Corporation,- incorporated in
Delaware. The Company has its principal office and plant in Toledo,
Ohio, where it is engaged in the manufacture of airplane propeller
blades. The Company commenced production on or about May 1,
1942. Up to the time of the hearing, orders for raw materials in an
amount of $500,000 had been placed with business concerns located
outside the State of Ohio. In fulfillment' of the orders, materials
valued at $50,000 had already been received from points outside the
State of Ohio, and the remaining orders-were expected to be filled
within 6 months of the hearing. Before the expiration Of 1942,
the Company plans to manufacture and ship to points outside the
State of Ohio propeller blades having a total value of $1,000,000.
The American Federation of Labor withdrew from the proceedings and further indi-
cated that it had no interest in any election the Board might order herein
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, is a labor organization affil-
iated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits
to membership employees of the Company.
Mechanics EdnWional Society of America-Local #4, is an
unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to membership toolroom
employees of the Company.'
Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers & Helpers, Local Union No. 2,
is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of'
Labor. It admits to membership metal polishers and buffers
employed by the Company. -
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The parties stipulated that each' of the labor organizations had
requested the Company to recognize it as exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the unit it proposed as appropriate,
and that the Company had advised the U. A. W. to establish its
claim of majority representation, and had suggested that the
M. E. S. A. and the Metal Polishers petition the Board.
A statement of a Field Examiner, together with- other evidence
introduced at the hearing, indicates that each of the labor organiza-
tions represents a substantial number of employees in the unit it
claims to be appropriate.'
We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
2 The U. A. W submitted 405 authorization cards , all bearing apparently valid original
signatures . Of these signatures , 320 were names of persons whose names appeared on
the Company' s pay roll for May 20, 1942, which listed 500 production employees
The M E S. A submitted 41 application cards , of which 37 bore apparently valid
original signatures. ' Of these 37 signatures , 33 were names of persons whose names
appeared on the above-mentioned pay roll, which listed 52 toolroom employees. Of the
33 cards , 13 were duplicated by U. A W cards.
At the hearing , the U. A. W. submitted authorization petitions purportedly signed by
approximately 72 toolroom employees out of approximately 90 such employees on the
pay roll at the time of the hearing
The Metal Polishers submitted 54 authorization cards, of which 25 bore apparently
valid original signatures of persons whose names appeared on the above-mentioned pay
roll , The number of employees in the unit proposed by the Metal Polishers was not
determinable at that time. As of the time of hearing, following a rapid expansion in
employment , the number of so-called polishers was approximately 125. The Metal Polish-
ers stated that it had 60 to 68 dues-paying members, and, in addition, 15 more authoriza-
tion cards, or a total of 75 to 83 authorizations.
AMERICAN PROPELLER CORPORATION 521
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The U. A., W. requests a unit of all production, tool, maintenance,
and office employees, excluding confidential office employees, watch-
men, time-study, tool design, draftsmen and the blueprint room,
foremen, assistant foremen, and other supervisory employees. The
Company approves of a single production and maintenance unit but
differs with the U. A. W. as to certain inclusions dealt with here-
inafter.
The M. E. S. A.' vi'ould separate from the production and mainte-
nance unit all maintenance mechanics, maintenance machinists, tool
and die makers, tool grinders, and tool inspectors. These employees
make up Department 9, the toolroom of the Company.
The Metal Polishers would separate from the production and
maintenance unit all employees working in Departments 40, 45, 60,'
65, and 70, engaged in operating machines or, tools for polishing,
buffing, and plating, who are eligible under the constitution and
bylaws of the Metal, Polishers.
Toolroorrm employees
Construction of the- Toledo plant began in November 1941. A
small building referred to as the pilot house,'built as a model for the
main plant and ultimately intended to be used entirely for experi-
mental purposes, was completed first. Production began at the pilot
house on or about May 1, 1942. The main plant was still in the
process of construction in part at the time of the hearing, but transi-
tion of the production departments from the pilot house to the main
plant had been going on for' some time. It was anticipated that the
toolroom wuld be moved to the main plant within a week or two of
the hearing.
The main plant is a single room set up with a single production
line. Each department has its particular space marked with signs
bearing its name or number. The toolroom will occupy ' a space
adjoining but not in the production line. The total number of
employees at the plant at the time of hearing was 1284. The 8
production departments then employed 480 workmen. In addition
to these, there were 399 hourly paid employees classified as non-
production. Apparently this latter group includes Department 9
(the toolroom) and Department 5 (the general maintenance depart-
ment). Department 5 includes oilers, electricians, welders, engineers,
firemen, millwrights, carpenters, pipefitters, and electronic specialists.
Only the U. A. W. is claiming these employees.
At the time of the hearing, there were approximately 90 employees
in Department 9, working under separate supervision in and out of
522 DECISIONS OF NAT10NAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the toolroom. Included in this department are mechanics, tool and
die makers and helpers, who make up a well-defined skilled craft.
All are hourly paid, as are production employees and other main-
tenance employees. The principal work performed in the toolroom is
the making of tools, gauges, templates, arbors, and other parts used
on machines. Many toolroom employees are engaged in the main-
tenance work involved in the upkeep and repair of production ma-
chinery. The vice president of the Company testified that toolroom
employees also worked on the production line, sometimes spending
2 or 3 days on the line. A toolroom employee, called as a witness
for the M. E. S. A., testified that toolroom employees worked on pro-
duction when the production employees did not have the machinery
to do the work, and when models were needed for experimental pur-
poses. He also testified that when new tools were designed, tool-
room employees would go to the production line to demonstrate their
use to the production employees. He admitted that he had worked on
production parts and:blades in the toolroom.
Upon the foregoing facts, and in'the absence of any history of col-
lective bargaining, we find that all maintenance' mechanics, mainte-
nance machinists,, tool and die makers, tool grinders and tool in-
spectors, employed in the Company's toolroom, excluding super-
visory employees,3 could properly constitute a separate unit or be
included ' with production and other maintenance employees "in a
single plant-wide production and maintenance unit.
Metal Polishers
The vice president of'the Company denied that the Company had
any metal polishers. He testified that the so-called polishers working
for the Company were merely removing metal from the propellors to
provide balance and tolerance. The Metal Polishers admitted that
these were the objectives of the polishing operations in the Toledo
plant, but stated that Metal Polishers had always claimed jurisdic-
tion over such craftsmen.
The, production process at the Toledo plant originates in Depart-
ment 40'and proceeds through Departments 45, 50, 55, 60, and 65
to 70 and 75, where the finished propellors leave the line. There is no
separate polishing- or buffing department comparable to the separate
toolroom department. Instead, included among the 480 production
employees are approximately 125 employees whom the Metal Polish-
3A witness for the U. A. W. testified that the toolroom had no supervisor except a,
superintendent A witness for the Al. E S. A. testified that there were also assistant,
foremen. Both the U. A W. and the M. E S A. would include die leaders or group
leaders who work with the men in the appropriate unit .
AMERICAN PROPELLER CORPORATION' 5523
ers claims as metal polishers. ',These- so-called polishers work under
the production department supervisors, although in every depart-
ment their immediate supervisor is one in charge of the particular
operations in which they are engaged.
In Department 40, after the metal tube which is to be made into
a propeller. has undergone certain machining operations, it passes
to workmen who operate sand belt machines called Mattison machines.
The principal feature of these machines is a long rotating band of
abrasive cloth, which is used to remove particles of metal scale from
the inside of the tube. The tube is then inspected and passes to the
next -department for further machining. At various subsequent
stages in the production line, other employees perform metal re-
moving operations on the outside of the tubes and propellor blades
which the Metal Polishers considers to be polishing.' In performing
these operations, Wysong and Miles strapping machines are used. in.
addition to the operators of the two above-mentioned machines, one
'or more of the departments has a number of hand polishers and two
departments have electric disc sander operators. All four groups' of
employees are, claimed by the Metal Polishers.
The vice president of the Company testified further that the plant
did not have to employ polishers to perform the various above-
described operations, but could use unskilled farm hands, since every
operator must be trained in the operations involved, and since the
operations are merely machine operations. ,
There is no plating process at the plant, and'it appears that only
one or two buffers are employed there.
Upon the basis of all the above facts, we find that' the production
operations of the Toledo plant are closely integrated into a single
production chain. We further find that the employees sought to
be included in a separate unit by the Metal Polishers do not make up
an identifiable craft, since they are scattered among other production
employees throughout at least five of the eight production depart-
ments, and possess no special skill to distinguish them from other
production employees. We are of the opinion that the so-called pol-'
ishing operations are merely types of machining essential to the
manufacture of propellers. We find that those employees, of the
Company engaged in operating machines or tools, for. polishing and
buffing, do not constitute a unit separate and apart from the other
production and maintenance employees.
Unsettled categories in proposed industrial unit
The Company, while favoring a plant, wide unit, disagrees, with
the unit proposed by the U. A. W. in ,that the Company would sip-
plement the exclusions made by the U. A. W. by excluding the fol-
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lowing categories'of employees: office, medical department employees,
timekeepers, checkers and counters, production follow-up staff, and
engineers.4
Office : There were 77 office employees at the time of the hearing.
The U. A. W. Would include in its proposed unit all who are not
employed in confidential capacities, whether they be hourly or weekly
paid. The Company considers all of its office employees-confidential
and contends that the Board should not attempt to divide them into
confidential and non-confidential. The U. A. W. admits office person-
nel to membership and has sought to represent them. However, the
U. A. W. has made no showing of representation among office work-
ers.' In view of this absence of a showing of substantial interest,
and because office employees have been traditionally excluded from
production and maintenance units, we find that office employees
should be excluded from the .unit proposed by the U. A. W.
Timekeepers, checkers, and counters: There were 25 timekeepers
employed at the time of, the hearing., The Company did not appear
to have any checkers or counters but plans eventually to employ some.
The Company contends that these employees are confidential because
they have access to production records and the number of pieces pro-
duced in certain departments or operations, and because their duties
are such that their interests are closer to management than to labor.
We find that timekeepers, checkers, and 'counters are clerical em-
ployees, and that our ruling in respect to office employees is appli-
cable here. We shall, therefore, exclude timekeepers, checkers, and
counters from the unit proposed by the U. A. W.
Production follow-up staff: There we're 82 employees on this staff
at the time of the hearing. , Their functions were not described, but
the Company urges their exclusion for the same reasons it gave in
regard to timekeepers. A witness for the U. A. W. testified that that
department was not engaged in confidential work. In the absence of
adequate evidence in the record describing the production follow-up
staff and justifying its inclusion in the,. appropriate unit, we shall
exclude employees in the production follow-up staff from the unit"
proposed by the U. A. W-6
Medical department: There were six employees in this department
at the time of the hearing. The Company contends that they are con-
fidential since they have access to. certain of the records of the em-
* The U. A w. agreed that the employment office staff and pay-roll clerks were confl-
dential employees and thus would be excluded from the appropriate unit
° The U. A W. indicated that it had an authorization petition signed by 25 office
employees. The record is not clear whether those who signed were office employees or
timekeepers. - -
° There was a vague indication ' in the record that the production follow-up staff bore
some relation to the stores department.
AMERICAN PROPELLER CORPORATION 525
ployment and personnel office. The record does not disclose the spe-
cific functions of this department. In view of this, and' the absence
of any evidence tending to prove the appropriateness 'of their inclu-
sion in a production unit, and in view of the probably specialized
character of their services, we shall exclude medical employees from
the unit proposed by the U.A.W.
Engineering departments: The Company has three departments
bearing titles which include the terms "engineering" or "engineers":
engineering and experimental with 13 employees ; engineering and
draftsmen with 42 employees; and plant engineers with 16 employees.
Appai•ently'the Company and the U. A. W. are agreed that employees
of the engineering and draftsmen department should be excluded.
The U. A., W. also agreed to exclude experimental employees, probably,
referring to the engineering and experimental department. Neither
the U. A. W. nor the Company took a position specifically as to plant
engineers, and the record does not disclose the duties of these em-
ployees. We shall exclude employees. of all three engineering de-
partments from the proposed U. A. W. unit, since their inclusion in
a production and maintenance unit would be inappropriate in view
of the technical and professional capacity in which they are employed.
Planning staff : The Company desires to exclude employees of the
planning staff, and the U. A. W. took no position as regards them.
The record does not indicate their functions. We shall exclude em-
ployees of the planning staff from the proposed U. A. W. unit, for the
reasons stated above in reference to the employees of the engineering
departments.
In view of our above findings with regard to toolroom employees,
we shall make no final determination of unit at this time, but shall
direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen
be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among the employ-
ees in the following voting groups who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of
Elections, subject to the limitations and additions set forth therein :
(1) among all maintenance mechanics, maintenance, machinists, tool
and die makers, tool grinders, and tool inspectors employed in De-
partment 9, excluding supervisory employees, to determine whether
they desire to be represented by the M. E. S. A., the U. A. W., or
neither, and (2) among the remaining production and maintenance
employees, excluding office employees, timekeepers,, checkers and
counters, watchmen, tune-study employees, tool design employees, em-
ployees of.the engineering and drafting department and the engineer-
ing and experimental department, plant engineers, employees of the
medical department, the production follow-up staff, and the planning
staff, foremen, assistant foremen, and other supervisory employees,
526 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by the
U. A. W. Upon the results of these elections will depend in-part
our determination of the appropriate unit or units . If a majority
of the toolroorn employees select the M. E. S. A. as their representa-
tive, they will constitute a separate unit; if a majority in both voting
groups choose the U. A. W., the groups will together constitute a
single unit.
Since the unit proposed by the Metal Polishers has been found
inappropriate, the name of the Metal Polishers has not been included
on any of the above ballots.
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-Series 2,
as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with' American Pro-
peller Corporation, Toledo, Ohio, elections by secret ballot shall be
conducted 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 Eighth Region, acting in
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among
the following groups of employees who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction
of Elections,' including employees who did not work during such
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or in the active
military service or training of the United States, or temporarily ,laid
off, but excluding any who have since quit 'or been discharged for
cause:
1. All maintenance mechanics, maintenance machinists, tool and die
makers, tool grinders , and tool inspectors employed in Department
9 of the Company , but excluding all supervisory employees , to deter-
mine whether they desire to be represented by Mechanics Educational
',Society of America-Local, #4 (Unaffiliated),•,or by International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers -of America (C. I. 0.), for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, or by neither.
2. Among all production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany, excluding office employees , timekeepers , counters and checkers,
watchmen , time-study employees , tool design employees , employees
AMERICAN PROPELLER CORPORATION, 527
of the engineering and drafting department and the engineering and
experimental department, plant engineers, employees of the medical
department, the production follow-up, staff, and the planning staff,
foremen, assistant foremen, and other supervisory employees, and all
employees included in group 1 above, to determine whether or not
they desire to be represented by International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(C. I. 0.), for the purposes of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in ,the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.