American Rolbal Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1942

41 N.L.R.B. 907 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of AMERICAN ROLBAL CORP. and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT . AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 698, C. 1. 0.
Case No. R-3840.-Decided June 11, 1942
Jurisdiction : war products manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to accord petitioner recognition ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : industrial unit including alleged'
"learners" and "temporary" employees hired since Company became engaged
exclusively in war work held appropriate despite Company's request for two
units, one which would consist of employees formerly engaged to manufacture,
Company's product prior to the war program, and the other which would con-
sist of employees newly hired as part of the war program ; foremen, assistant
foremen, chief inspector, engineers, and confidential employees, excluded;
errand boy, included.
Mr. Gustave B. Garfield, of New York City, for the Company.
Mr. Julius Droisen, of New York City,'for the Union.
Mr. Charles TV. Schneider, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by International Union, United Automo.
bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local`
698, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
American Rolbal Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, herein called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an ap-
propriate hearing upon due notice before George Turitz, Trial Ex-
aminer. Said hearing was held at New York City from May 11 to 14,
1942. • The Company and the Union 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.
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. On May 28, 1942, the Company filed a brief
which the Board has considered. -
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
41 N L. R. B, No. 161.
907
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
American Rolbal Corporation is a New York corporation having a
plant and its principal place of business at Brooklyn, New York.
The Company was formerly engaged in the manufacture of ball and
roller bearings, but about June 1941 it began to manufacture certain
vital war products. At the present time it is wholly engaged in the
production of war goods. During the 6 months' period preceding the
hearing, the Company used over 30 tons of metal valued at more than
$50,000, all of which was shipped to the Company from States other
than New York. During the same period the Company produced
finished goods weighing in excess of 5 tons, all of which was shipped to
States other than New York.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local 698, is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about April 14, 1942, the Union requested recognition of the
Company as collective bargaining representative of the Company's
employees. The Company refused the request. A report of the Re-
gional Director introduced into evidence at the hearing indicates that
the Union represents a substantial number of employees in the unit
which we hereinafter find 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 National Labor
Relations Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
Contentions
The Union contends that the appropriate unit consists of all em-
ployees of the Company, excluding supervisory employees, foremen
I The Union submitted to the Regional Director 84 application-for-membership cards,
dated as follows • 1 in 1937, 2 in 1941, 3 in the months of March and April of unnamed
years, 32 dated from February 5 to April 16, 1942, and 46 undated All the cards bore
apparently genuine original signatures. All the signatures were the names of persons
on the Company's pay roll of April 22, 1942. There are approximately 190 employees
in the appropriate unit
AMERICAN ROLBAL CORP. . 909
and assistant foremen having the power-to hire and discharge, en-
gineers, the chief inspector, officer and clerical employees.
The Company contends that there should-be-two appropriate units,
the first consisting of all present employees who, were employed by
the Company on or prior to May 28, 1941, and the second consisting
of all other employees excluding "learners." If this unit contention
-is overruled, the Company maintains as an alternative that "learners''
should be excluded from voting "because they are not production
workers." 2
In addition the Company takes the position that, excepting three
confidential employees whom it stipulated to exclude, all its employees,
including supervisory, clerical,, and engineering, should be included
in the appropriate unit or units. -
The unit
The Company no longer manufactures ball and roller bearings, at
which it employed from 60 to 100 people. Since June 1941, it has
been engaged exclusively in war work. Plant employment at the time
of the hearing was approximately 190. The Company anticipated,
however, hiring approximately 60 new employees within a 6-week period
following the hearing.
The Company's work appears to consist of the development and
manufacture of machines in connection with the production of war
materials. At the close of the war the Company will return to the
manufacture of bearings. The basic categories of employment, both
in the Company's previous and its present work, appear to consist of
the following classifications : tool makers, machinists and set-up men,
grinders, screw machine operators, drill press operators, heat treating
men, lathe hands, and inspectors. -
The Company asserts that in order to carry out its war work it has
been necessary to expand its staff considerably. The new employees,
the Company contends, are only "temporary," and when t'he Com-
pany returns to the manufacture of bearings, it will have no, use for
the additional personnel. For that reason the Company urges that
the employees who were engaged in'the manufacture of bearings, and
whom the'Conipany intends to retain, have nothing in common with
those employees hired as a part of the war program, and that the
two groups should therefore constitute separate appropriate units.
In addition, the Company asserts that 'as a part of the 'Government's
"training in industry" program the Company has engaged in the
training of inexperienced men, who.are hired at a rate of about 40
3
The Company contended that the Union,showed no isubstantial representation in either
of the two units which the company proposed and that an election should therefore
not be directed. For treasons appearing hereinafter we' find that it is unnecessary to
determine whether the Union has substantial fepresentation in either of those units.
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cents per hour and are trained in the operation of machinery. These
employees , the Company contends , require about 6 months' training to
become ' experienced operators, and until that experience has been
acquired they are regarded by the Company as "learners " or "trainees"
and not as production workers . The Company 's position is that this
group under no circumstances constitutes part of an oppropriate unit,
and should have no choice in the selection of a bargaining represent-
ative. The Company defines a "learner" or "trainee" as an employee
earning less than 60• cents an hour if hourly paid or $24 per week if
weekly paid.
The record , however, indicates that there is no apparent difference
in the nature of the work performed by the old and the new employees.
Furthermore , the alleged "learners" also appear to be engaged in pro-
duction. Each job evidently consists of the mass manufacture of parts
which are later assembled . Each part undergoes a number of oper-
ations. The machines are "set up " for each operation by machinists,
set-up men , or foremen . Although some of the newly hired employees
are experienced and are capable , none of them appear to do any set-
up work . New employees who have had no previous machine experi-
ence watch an experienced employee at a particular operation for
several hours , are shown how it is done , and are then put to, work
at the same operation . Although there is some conflict in the testi-
mony, it appears that after several days or a week the average inex-
perienced employee can produce as much good quality work as the -
experienced men. Each employee remains on a particular operation
until it is completed and is then shifted to another. The Company's
position thus appears to be that an inexperienced employee does not
become a production worker until he has gained experience at all the
operations on all the machines-a result requiring about 6 months'
time. The Union 's contention is that all employees are production
workers and that no distinction should be drawn between experienced
and inexperienced employees.
The staff of instructors consists of the supervisory force. The
inexperienced employees are given no theoretical training . They are
not informed when hired that their employment is temporary or pro-
bationary. At the time of the hearing the Company was inaugurating
a "stint"-. a kind of modified piece-work system. Although the Com-
pany insists that "learners" are not production workers, the "stint"
will apply to them as well as to the more experienced men.
It is apparent from the foregoing facts that the Company 's position
with respect to its request for plural units is, in essence, that length
of service alone is a valid criterion for the allocation of -employees
into separate appropriate units. On the facts disclosed by this record,
we cannot accept that formula . Nor do we regard the possibility
AMERICAN ROLBAL CORP. 911
that some of the employees hired since May 28,1941; may not be retained
at the end of the war as establishing that they are "temporary" em-
ployees-within a material definition of that term.
Similarly,'in the case of the alleged "learners"'tlie'Company' s posi-
tion is, in effect,'that 6 months' experience plus a certain- degree of-per-
sonal efficiency measured solely by wages, are valid criteria for• aster=
taining an employee's right to bargain collectively -or -to 'ha've a voice
in the selection of the bargaining agent. That is not a- proper formula
for determining -whether employees are "learners," '"trainees," or
"probationary."
We therefore find that a single plant-wide unit, including the alleged
"learners," but excluding the groups hereinafter indicated, is appro-
priate.
Other disputed categories
Foremien and assistant foremen: The Union requested the-exclusion
of foremen and assistant foremen having authority to hire and dis-
charge. The Company asks that all foremen and assistant foremen be
included. We find that all foremen, and assistant foremen are super-
visory.employees and should be excluded.
Engineers: The Union would exclude, and the Company would- in=
elude, engineers, of whom there are, about seven. These men are ap-
parently technical employees. The Uniomcontends that they are not
eligible to membership. We find that thye should be excluded from
the unit.
The chief inspector: The Union would exclude this employee as
being supervisory. The Company would include him. He appears
to be a supervisor over the inspection staff. We find that he should
be excluded.
Clerical employees: The Union would exclude, and the Company
would include, the clerical force, which consists.of five office employees.
They will be excluded from the unit.
. G. M. Levy: The Union requests that Levy be excluded as a confi-
dential employee. The Company contends that Levy is in the same
category-as a, "learner" and if the latter are permitted to vote, Levy
should also. He is paid $14 per week and appears to be an errand boy.
We find that he should be included in the unit.
Miscellaneous: The parties stipulated, and we find, that three confi-
dential employees : Leibovitz, Grossman, and Tarra, should be excluded
from the unit.
We find that all employees of the Company, excluding supervisory,
office, and clerical employees, foremen, assistant foremen, engineers,
the chief inspector, and the confidential employees : Leibovitz, Gross-
man, and Tarra, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit. The Union requested that eligibility
to vote be -determined by the pay roll for the week ending May 13,
1942. We shall direct, however, that the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the-date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the
limitations and additions set forth in, the Direction, shall determine
such eligibility.-
-DIRECTION OF ELECTION
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, 49 Stat. 449, and subject'to Article III, Section 9, 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 Rolbal
Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, an election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as=early as possible, but not later 'than thirty (30) days
from the date of this -Direction of Election, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Second 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 employees of the Company in the unit found to be appropriate in
Section IV above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, 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, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bar=
gaining by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 698, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations.