Capitol Stampings Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 781 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of CAPITOL STAMPINGS CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION or MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 10,
PETITIONER
Case No. 13-R-4102.-Decided April 30,1947
Mr. O. S. Hoebreckx, of Milwaukee , Wis., for the Employer.
Mr. P. L. Siemiller, of Chicago, Ill., for the Petitioner.
Mr. George M. Yaghjian, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Mil-
waukee, Wisconsin, on March 3, 1947, before Max Rotenberg, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the
grounds that the record does not show that Petitioner has made any
showing of interest and that there has been a reduction of force and
some change in personnel between the filing of the petition and the
time of the hearing, thus effecting a change in the Petitioner's repre-
sentation. For reasons stated in the O. D. Jennings case,' the motion
is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS Or FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Capitol Stampings Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation with its
principal place of business in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is engaged in the
manufacture of metal stampings. During 1946, the Employer pur-
chased for processing at its plant raw materials, consisting prin-
cipally of sheet steel, valued in excess of $50,000, of which more than
80 percent was shipped from points outside the State of Wisconsin.
1 Matter of 0. D Jennings d Company, 68 N L R B 516
73 N. L R. B, No. 145.
781
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the same period it produced finished products valued in excess
of $100,000, of which more than 35 percent was shipped to points
outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization, claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
III. TIIE QUESTION, CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
Nye find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Iv. TIIE APPROPRI ATE UNIT
The parties agree generally that a unit comprising all production
and maintenance employees, including shop clerical employees and
janitors, but excluding office employees and supervisory employees,
is appropriate. The Employer, however, would also exclude ap-
prentices and the timekeeper, whereas the Petitioner would include
them.
The Employer does not now, and has not in the past year, employed
any apprentices. Nor is there any evidence that it intends to employ
any apprentices in the near future.- Under those circumstances, we
shall make no provision for the inclusion or exclusion of apprentices.'
The timekeeper has a desk in the plant. Her primary function is
to record accurately the operators' time spent on particular jobs and
to tabulate each worker's hourly production of parts. Her tabulations
are sent to the office, where they serve as the basis for determining the
cost of operations on each job or order. Timekeeping for pay-roll
purposes is the function of an office clerk. The timekeeper is hourly
paid, as are the production and maintenance workers, and reports,
as they do, to the shop foreman. The office workers are paid weekly
salaries. It is apparent that the timekeeper is actually a plant clerical
worker and that her interests lie with those of the production and
maintenance workers. We shall, therefore, include the timekeeper
in the unit.3
2 Matter of Hughes Tool Company, 63 N L R B 1053
J Matter of Northeast Engineering Company, 73 N L R B. 40
CAPITOL STAMPINGS CORPORATION 783
We find that all production and maintenance employees, including
the timekeeper, shop clerical employees and janitors, but excluding
office employees and all supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Capitol Stampings Corpora-
tion, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted 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
Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the
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 and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Interna-
tional Association of Machinists, District No. 10, for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
759926-47-vol. 73-51