Atlas Steel & Tube Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1943

52 N.L.R.B. 856 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of ARNOLT MOTOR COMPANY , INC., AND S . H. ARNOLT,
D/B/A ATLAS STEEL & TUBE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION
UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L.
Case No. B-5868.-Decided September 25, 1943
Cllr. Everett E. Rasor and Mr. Francis H. Lightfoot , of Warsaw,
Ind., for Arnolt.
Mr. Charles L. McClellan, of Warsaw, Ind., for Atlas.
Mr. George Grisham and Mr. Gerald Smith , of Warsaw , Ind.; for
the Union.
Mr. William, C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition and amended petition duly filed by United Auto-
mobile Workers of America, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, al-
leging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of Arnolt Motor Company, Inc., Warsaw,
Indiana, and S. H. Arnolt, d/b/a Atlas Steel & Tube Company, War-
saw, Indiana , hereinafter referred to collectively as the Companies,,
and singularly as Arnolt and Atlas, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
Robert E. Ackerberg, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at
Warsaw, Indiana, on August 18,1943. The Companies and the Union
appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportu-
nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues , and to file briefs with the Board. The
Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
52 N. L . R. B., No. 149.
856
ARNOLT MOTOR COMPANY, INC.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
857
Arnolt Motor Company, Inc., is an Indiana corporation engaged at
Warsaw, Indiana, in the manufacture and sale of steel precision pro-
ducts. The annual value of the raw materials used by said Company
exceeds $50,000, the majority of which is shipped to Arnolt's plant,
from points outside the State of Indiana. Arnolt's annual sales of
finished products exceed $100,000, over 50 percent of which is sold
and delivered to the United States Navy within the State of
Indiana.
Atlas Steel & Tube Company, an individual proprietorship owned
by S. H. Arnolt, is engaged at Warsaw, Indiana, in the business of
fabricating metal tubing most of 'which is used in aircraft motors.
The annual value of the raw materials purchased by Atlas for use in its
plant exceeds $25,000, all of which is shipped to the plant from points
outside the State of Indiana. The annual sales of Atlas' finished
products amount to more than $50,000, approximately 30 percent of
which is sold to companies operating under contracts with Federal
war agencies and is ultimately shipped by them to points outside the
State of Indiana.
The Companies admit that they are engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, is
a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership employees of the'Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about July 7, 1943, the Union requested the Companies to
recognize it as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain
employees of each Company which the Union alleged comprised an
appropriate bargaining unit. The Companies refused to accord the
Union such recognition unless and until it is certified by the Board.
A statement of the Acting Regional Director , introduced into evi-
dence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial
number of employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.'
' The Regional Director reported that the Union submitted 95 authorization cards
bearing the apparently genuine original signatures of 68 persons whose names appear
on the July 17, 1943, pay roll of Arnolt Motor Company , Inc., and 27 persons whose
names appear on the July 17, 1943 , pay roll of Atlas Steel & Tube Company The Arnolt
pay roll contains the names of 184 employees within the appropriate unit; the Atlas
pay roll contains the names of 37 employees in such unit.
858 DEIGISIO 'NS OF NAPrIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Companies within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that the appropriate unit should be comprised
of all hourly paid production and maintenance employees of the
Companies, excluding office employees, watchmen, guards, confidential
employees, timekeepers, and supervisory employees. The Companies
oppose a multiple-employer unit and contend that separate employer
units are appropriate.
S. H. Arnolt is the sole owner of Atlas and the majority stockholder
in Arnolt. He has the ultimate control of both companies and actively
exercises this control with respect'to labor policies personally and
through Charles McClellan, works manager of both Arnolt and Atlas.
The operations of both companies are housed in two large adjoining
buildings, known as the North and the South buildings, and three
smaller buildings. Arnolt occupies all of the North building and
approximately 75 percent of the South building. Atlas occupies the
other 25 percent of the South building. It leases the space from:
Arnolt. One of the smaller buildings is.used by Arnolt's timekeepers,
the second is used by Atlas welders and the third is used as a ware-
house by both companies. All of these buildings, with the exception of
the warehouse, are surrounded by a single fence. The warehouse is
located about one block' from the other buildings. The employees of
both companies use the same entrance in entering and leaving the
plants. They also punch the same time clock and work on the same
floor.
Arnolt furnishes Atlas with electric power, certain maintenance-
services, and timekeeping facilities for which Atlas pays a fixed rent.
Each company maintains its own pay roll. Employees of, one com-
pany often work temporarily for the other company, and' a loose,
system of mutual reimbursement is followed. Atlas' drill presses
are occasionally used by Arnolt employees, and the tool and die
employees of Arnolt frequently perform work for Atlas. The in-
spectors of both companies are interchangeable and the Companies'
guards are under common supervision and take turns guarding the
properties of both companies. Production employees of one company
are frequently transferred to the pay roll of the other company. In
the case of a slack period at one company, its excess personnel is
transferred to the other company to obviate a general lay-off. Atlas
maintains that its operations will be moved' into the building now
used as the warehouse as soon as the necessary steel fencing can be
procured.
ARNOLT MOTOR COMPANY, INC. 859
Neither company has ever had a collective bargaining agreement
with any labor organization. The record indicates that on October
13, 1942, under separate but identical consent election agreements,
the Union lost separate consent elections among all production and
maintenance employees, excluding guards, clerks, and foremen, of
each company. The Companies argue that the aforesaid agreements
between the parties as to the appropriate units should be considered
by the Board.as a controlling factor in its determination of the ap-
propriate unit. While it is true that, as a general rule, a previous
agreement with respect to the appropriate unit entered into between
the parties involved in a representation proceeding is considered by
the Board as a factor in its determination of the appropriate unit, it
does not follow that the Board is bound by such an agreement when
the other attendant circumstances reveal the inappropriateness of the
unit set forth in the agreement. The Board has frequently found
appropriate a unit comprised of the employees of two or more em-
ployers engaged in different types of operations where, as here, there
exists common ownership or control of the enterprises and unified
labor policy as well as other factors indicating community of interest
among the employees of both employers.2 In the instant case these
factors are present and clearly outweigh those tending to favor the
establishment of separate units. We find that the two companies
jointly constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2
(2) of the Act and that a unit comprised of the employees of both
constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit.
At the hearing, dispute arose with respect to the disposition of the
inspectors employed by the Companies. The Union would exclude
inspectors as supervisory employees, while the Companies desire their
inclusion. Inspectors work in the plants under the supervsion of
chief inspectors, receive wages similar to those paid the production
employees, are carried on the production pay rolls, and have no pow-
ers to discipline, hire or fire, or recommend hiring, firing, or promo-
tion. Their function is to check products against blueprints and to
refer workers with defective products to their foremen for the latter's
decision as to whether the defect is grave enough to require resetting
of machinery; in so referring workmen, the inspector tells the worker
to stop his machine pending the foreman's decision. In view of their
duties, we find that the inspectors, other than the chief inspectors,
are not supervisory employees and should be included in an appro-
priate unit.3
2 See Matter of John Deere Tractor Company, 40 N. L. R. B. 004 ; Matter of Lehigh
Portland Cement Company, 43 N. L. R. B. 842, and Matter of North Carolina Finishing
Company, et al, 44 N L R B 081
8 See Matter of The Lehon Company, 34 N. L. R. B. 313.
e
860 DEICLStIO'NS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION BOARD
We find that all hourly paid production and maintenance employees
of the Companies, including inspectors, but excluding office employees,
confidential employees, timekeepers, watchmen, guards, and all super-
visory employees with the authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis-
cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or ef-
fectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9;
(b) of the Act.
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 who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
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, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions 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 Arnolt Motor
Company, Inc., Warsaw, Indiana, and S. H. Arnolt, d/b/a Atlas
Steel & Tube Company, Warsaw, Indiana, an election by secret bal-
lot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty
(30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11', of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in
the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in
person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented by International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
MR. GERARD, D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.