Borg-Warner Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 15, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1613 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

BYRON-JACKSON DIVISION 1613
Company. Although Mick made no effort on November 8 to seek other employ-
ment, I shall , for reasons above stated , include that day as one for which he should
be reimbursed , for he undoubtedly would have returned to work on that date if
he had been given the type of notice customarily required in such cases.
In conclusion , then, I find the amount of net back pay, less unreasonably incurred
losses, to be as follows:
Myers:
Net back pay---------------------------- --------------- ----- $285.85
Less unreasonably incurred loss between October 20 and 22, or 24 hours
at $2.57 an hour------------------------------------------- 61.68
Back pay due-------------------------------------------- 224.17
Mick:
Net back pay------------------------------------------------ 409.21
Less unreasonably incurred loss between October 20 and November 5,
or 96 hours at $2.57 an hour-------------------------------- 246.72
Back pay due-------------------------------------------- 162.49
Carls :
Net back pay----------------------------------------------- 329.38
Less unreasonably incurred loss between October 20 and 22 and be-
tween November 3 and 5,* or 48 hours at $2.57 an hour ---------- 123. 36
Back pay due----------------- -------------------------- 206.02
Cassias:
Net back pay------------------------------------------------ $203.61
Less unreasonably incurred loss between October 20 and 22, or 24 hours
at $2.57 an hour------------------------------------------- 61.68
Back pay due-------------------------------------------- 141.93
*Although , if Cooney had mailed the required notice to the Charging Parties on November
3, 1954, it would presumably have been received on November 4, spoon Tile would have
had no work before November 8 and Carls could, if he had accepted employment at Ideal
Builders , have worked on November 3, 4, and 5 for that company.
Byron-Jackson Division, Borg-Warner Corporation and Local 4,
International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-3004. May 15,
1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clifford L. Hardy,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
L The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The Petitioner, referred to herein as Molders, and Local Lodge
1391, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, the Inter-
venor, referred to herein as IAM, are labor organizations claiming to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
117 NLRB No. 204.
1614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
( c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Molders seeks to represent a unit of employees in a newly estab-
lished foundry operation at the Employer 's plant at Lawrenceburg,
Indiana. The Employer contends that the petition is barred by its
contract with IAM, signed in March 1956 , for a 2-year term, as supple-
mented by extension of its provisions to the new job classifications
filled by the employees who are petitioned for herein.' Although the
IAM contends that inclusion of the foundry employees within the
coverage of its contract is valid, it does not interpose the contract as
a bar and is willing to have the representation issue determined in a
Board-conducted election.
The Lawrenceburg plant has been engaged in the manufacture of
pumps for many years under various ownerships . The plant has
always contained a production machine shop and has also , at other
times, contained a foundry for the manufacture of castings to be used
in the assembly of the pumps . Bargaining history at the plant began
in 1942, when IAM was certified as bargaining representative for a
unit of machine shop employees , and Molders was certified for a unit
of foundry employees . The plant continued to operate as a combined
production machine shop and foundry , with the two unions each repre-
senting a separate unit until 1951, when the then owner of the plant
leased the foundry to an independent firm, Greendale Foundries, Inc.,
which continued foundry operations within the same building and
adjacent to the machine shop. IAM continued to represent the ma-
chine shop employees of the then owner and Molders continued to
bargain with the new operator of the foundry. Late in 1951, the
entire plant was sold to Byron-Jackson , then an independent corpora-
tion. Byron -Jackson operated the machine shop and continued to
lease the remainder of its plant building to Greendale Foundries.
This arrangement continued until September 1, 1955, when Byron-
Jackson merged with Borg-Warner . At that time Borg -Warner gave
Greendale notice that its lease would be terminated the following
September. Upon the expiration of the lease the following year,
Greendale removed its equipment and vacated the premises . Foundry
operations at the plant ceased for the time being. The agreement
between Greendale and Molders presumably terminated in September
1956, when all foundry employees were discharged.
Upon Greendale 's removal the Employer began renovation of the
foundry area of its plant and installation of new foundry equipment.
While the premises were being readied for foundry operations, the
Employer and TAM agreed, as noted above , upon the addition of new
'The supplemental agreement for the additional job classifications required in the
foundry operation was entered into in October 1956
I
BYRON-JACKSON DIVISION 1615
job classifications to their current agreement and to the extension of
the terms of that agreement to all employees to be hired in the future
for foundry work. A few days before the extension agreement was
signed Molders had requested the Employer to recognize it as rep-
resentative for whatever foundry employees it might later hire.
This proposal was rejected in favor of the supplementary agreement
with IAM.
In December 1956, the Employer began the staffing of its new
foundry operations. By the date of the hearing, it had employed 23
persons, of whom 8 had been transferred from its machine shop and
15 were newly hired. Of the 15 new hires, all but 1 had been employed
by Greendale in its foundry on the Employer's premises. On the same
date there were approximately 60 employees employed in the machine
shop. Working conditions for employees in the machine shop and
foundry are uniform. The machine shop and foundry each has its
superintendent, responsible to the plant manager. Maintenance work
throughout the plant is performed by employees assigned to a central
maintenance department which is under the supervision of the machine
shop superintendent.
The Employer contends that the newly established foundry depart-
ment constitutes a normal accretion to its manufacturing process and
to its working force, and that the extension of the agreement to the
foundry employees does not impair its validity as a bar to this pro-
ceeding. The agreement of March 1956 applied to all production and
maintenance employees at the Lawrenceburg plant. When it was
entered into, its coverage was coextensive with the scope of the unit
for which IAM had been certified, since the Employer's operations then
consisted only of the machine shop. However, the inclusion of foundry
job classifications in October 1956, has expanded the contract unit
beyond the scope of the unit for which IAM was originally certified,
and has thereby infringed upon the historic representation of foundry
employees by Molders at the Lawrenceburg plant. Although we
recognize that castings are an integral item in the manufacture of the
Employer's product, it is clear from the past production experience
at the plant that operation of a foundry is not an essential element of
the manufacturing process. The Employer itself and at least 2 of its
predecessors at the Lawrenceburg plant have for a period of not less
than 6 years obtained all their casting requirements from independ-
ently owned foundries. Even when Greendale was located in the same
building with the machine shop, the Employer obtained more than half
of its castings from firms other than Greendale.
On the basis of the long bargaining history at the Lawrenceburg
plant for separate units of machine shop and foundry employees, and
the fact that the foundry has been operated independently of the ma-
chine shop, we view the foundry department as a new operation, not
1616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contemplated when the original contract was signed in March 1956, and
not a normal accretion to the working force. It follows, consequently,
that neither the March 1956 agreement nor its extension before the
foundry commenced operations and after Molders had advised the
Employer of its interest in continuing to represent foundry employees
at the plant is a bar to this proceeding?
4. The Employer and Molders agreed that a unit of foundry depart-
ment employees is appropriate. IAM does not dispute this. Accord-
ingly, we find that the following employees constitute an appropriate
unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act: All molders, coremakers, sand conditioning
machine operators, cupola and yard men, chippers and grinders, blast-
ing cleaner operators, foundry laborers and foundry janitors at the
Employer's Lawrenceburg, Indiana, plant, excluding machine shop
and maintenance employees, clerical, technical, and professional em-
ployees, inspectors,' guards, all other employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
5. As IAM stated at the hearing that it did not wish to participate
in an election for the foundry employees we shall not accord it a
place on the ballot.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
2 Armstrong Cork Company ( Lancaster Floor Plant), 106 NLRB 1147 . Such cases as
American Cast Products , Inc, 110 NLRB 705; Solar Manufacturing Company , 110 NLRB
1188 ; and Borg -Warner Corp , 113 NLRB 152 , upon which the Employer relies, are dis-
tinguishable since in these cases the accretions to the working force found to be in-
cludable within the coverage of the contract were relatively small auxiliaiy operations
which had never , in the plants involved , constituted separate units See Consolidated
Cement Corporation , 117 NLRB 492 , footnote 1, and Hudson Pulp and Paper Corporation,
117 NLRB 416.
3 The Employer has an inspection department separate from both the machine shop
and foundry departments . The inspectors are supervised by a chief inspector , and are
periodically reassigned to the various work stations located throughout the plant The
inspectors are covered by the contract with IAM. We exclude them from the foundry
department unit General Motors Corporation , 117 NLRB 947; Western Electmio Com-
pany, Incorporated, 108 NLRB 396, 400.
Crucible Steel Company of America and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC-2915. May 15,
1957
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
executed by the parties on February 11, 1957, an election was conducted
on February 27, 1957, under the direction and supervision of the
117 NLRB No. 207.