Chain Belt Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 2, 1939

17 N.L.R.B. 155 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter Of CHAIN BELT COMPANY and STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZ-
ING COMMITTEE , ON BEHALF OF THE AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION. OF
IRON, STEEL & TIN WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA, LODGE #1527.
Case No. R-1541.Decided November 2, 1939
Chain and Machinery Manufacturing Industrzy-Investigation of Representa-
tives: controversy concerning representation of employees : refusal of employer
to?reL16gnizeipetltiening 'union as the exclusive representative of,its . employees-
Unit Appropriate for Collectin;e Bargaining: production and maintenance em-
ployees in Milwaukee County plants, excluding supervisory and clerical
employees ; single unit comprising five plants in single county located within
area of 2'12 miles, substantial functional interrelation , common management,
previous collective agreement with union on inter-plant basis , organization of
union , desires of union uncontested by any other labor organization or employee
representative-Representatives: testimony that union has majority , no desire
for certification without election-Election Ordered
Mr. Frederick P. Mett and Mr. Morris L. Forer, for the Board.
Wood, Warner & Tyrrel, by Mr. Edgar W. Wood, of Milwaukee;
Wis., and Lines, Spooner ce Quarles, by Mr. Leo Mann, of Milwaukee,
Wis., for the Company.
Mr. W. O. Sonnemanun, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the Union.
Mr. Albert J. Hoban, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 28, 1939, Steel Workers Organizing Committee, on behalf
of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North
America, Lodge #1527, herein called the Union, filed with the Re-
gional Director for the Twelfth Region (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), a
petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of Chain Belt Company,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, herein called the Company, and requesting an
investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section
9 (c) of the National Labor Relations. Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. On August 25, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act
and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
17 N. L . R. B., No. 8.
155
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Regulations-Series 2, ordered an investigation and authorized
the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice. On September 5, 1939, the Regional Di-
rector issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were, duly. served
upon the Company and the Union. Pursuant to an amended notice
duly served upon the parties, a hearing was held on September 18
and 19, 1939, at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, before P. H. McNally, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the
Company, and the Union were represented by counsel and partici-
pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was' afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing
the Trial Examiner Inade several rulings on motions and on objections
to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings
of the Trial Examiner and-finds that no prejudicial errors were cons
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On October 9, 1939, the Company filed a brief with the Board.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the parties, a hearing for the
purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington,
D. C., on October 11, 1939. The Company was -represented by counsel
and participated in the oral argument. The Union did -not appear
but on October 12, 1939, filed a brief with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Chain Belt Company is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal
office at Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It is engaged in the manufacture of
chains, sprocket wheels, conveying equipment, concrete mixers, moto
mixers, road pavers, contractors' pumps, grey-iron castings, and
malleable iron castings. The principal plants of the Company are
located in Milwaukee and in the village of West Milwaukee; in the
county of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It also maintains a plant at Chi-
cago, Illinois, which is not involved in this proceeding.
In 1938 the value of the raw materials used by the Company at its
Milwaukee County plants, consisting chiefly of pig iron, scrap, steel,
steel tubing, rivets, bolts, steel castings, and steel forgings, amounted
to $700,000. Eighty per cent of these raw materials were shipped to
the Milwaukee County plants from points outside Wisconsin. Dur-
ing the same year, the Company manufactured products to the value
of $5,700,000 at these plants, 87 per cent of which was shipped to
purchasers outside Wisconsin.
On August 25, 1939. the Company had 1,174 persons in its' employ
in the Milwaukee County plants.
CHAIN BELT COMPANY
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
157
Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North
America, Lodge #1527, is a labor organization affiliated, with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership
production and maintenance employees of the Company, excluding
supervisory and clerical employees.
III. THE QUESTION -CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On August 7, 1937, the Union and the Company entered into a
written agreement in which the Company recognized the Union as
the representative of its members. The agreement contained pro-
visions pertaining to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment. In December 1937, the Union, acting in accordance
with a'clause in the agreement, served notice of termination on the
Company. Shortly thereafter, 'represeritatives of both parties met
-for,..the.;:purpose of negotiating a new agreement. The Union de-
manded exclusive recognition as the representative of the Company's
production and maintenance employees. The negotiations were sus-
pended after approximately 8 weeks.
In May 1939, the Union renewed its demands, but the Company
refused to recognize it as the exclusive representative of all produc-
tion and maintenance employees at its Milwaukee County plants
until the Union had legally established that it represented a majority.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen , occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close , intimate, and substantial
relation to` trade,' traffic, and commerce among the :several States,
and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union and the Company agree, and we find, that the unit or
units which we designate in this proceeding should consist of all
production and maintenance employees at the Milwaukee County
plants of the Company, exclusive of supervisory and clerical
employees.
158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union urges a single unit to comprise the five Milwaukee
County plants, while the Company would have us segregate the
plants into four units.
Plant No. 1, located in the city of Milwaukee, consists of the chain
division in which chains are manfactured and assembled, and the
grey-iron foundry, in which the Company produces grey-iron cast-
ings. Plants Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 are located in the village of West
Milwaukee, about 21/2 miles from plant No. 1. Plant No. 2 produces
malleable iron and Z-steel castings; plant No. 3, concrete-mixing
machines; and plant No. 4, conveying equipment. Plant No. 5 is a
general machine shop. The Company groups these five plants into
three divisions : the chain division, the machinery division,,compris-
ing plants Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and'the foundry division.
Upon the basis of this classification, the Company argues that the
chain division, the machinery division, and the foundry division
should be established as separate units. The Company further con-
tends that the foundry division should be divided into two separate
units " consisting of the grey-iron foundry and the malleable-iron
foundry.
Although the two foundries do not exchange materials or skilled
men with each other, there is a substantial degree of integration
among the Milwaukee County plants. Plant No. 5 operates as a
general machine shop for each of the other plants. Almost 50 per
cent of the output of the foundry division goes to the chain and
machinery divisions for further fabrication. " Some of the material
"produced by the chain division is shipped to the machinery division
for, its use in manufacturing concrete mixers and conveying
equipment..
The Company maintains a single personnel office and John T.
Brown, the vice president and works manager, handles all labor
relations for the five Milwaukee County plants.
Although the record indicates that some labor organizations had
certain dealings with the Company on behalf of different groups of
employees, the Milwaukee County plants have no definite bargaining
history. prior to August 7, 1937. On that date the Company entered
into an agreement. with the Union. This contract recognized the
Union for its members only, but it applied to all Milwaukee County
plants and, in addition to grievance machinery for each plant, it set
up a General Grievance Committee with authority over all the Mil-
waukee County plants. The Union terminated this agreement in
December 1937 in order to secure exclusive recognition.
The Union desires a single unit. Employees of all five plants are
eligible for membership in the Union which is a single lodge of the
Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers. No labor.
CHAIN BELT COMPANY 159
organization or other employee representative has appeared to con-
. test the appropriateness of an inter-plant unit.
Because of the physical proximity of the plants, their substantial
degree of functional interrelation, the common ultimate management,
the collective agreement with the Union on an inter-plant basis, the
organization of the Union, and its desires uncontested by any labor
.organization or other employee representative, we shall include all
five Milwaukee County plants in a single unit.
Accordingly, we find that all the production and maintenance
employees of the Company at its Milwaukee County plants, excluding
supervisory and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of . collective bargaining and that such unit will insure
to the employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to
self-organization and to collective bargaining and will otherwise
effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Union asserts, by testimony of its president and of its at-
torney, that it has a majority of the employees comprising each
plant's portion of the appropriate unit. The Union did not produce
other evidence of majority designation. In view 'of'the statement
by the Union that it did not seek certification without an election,
the Company introduced no evidence on this issue. Under the' cir-
cumstances we find that the question concerning representation can
best be resolved by means of an election by secret ballot.
During the hearing, the Company and the Union entered into a
stipulation in which they agreed that September 11, 1939, the pay-
roll date nearest the hearing, should be used in' determining the
eligibility of employees to vote in the election. We see no reason for
departing from the desires of the parties in this respect.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Chain Belt Company, Milwaukee, Wis-
consin, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All the production and maintenance employees of the Company
at its Milwaukee County plants, excluding supervisory and clerical
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Re-
lations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, it
is hereby . -
DIREcTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective, bargaining
with Chain Belt Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 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 Di'rector' for the
Twelfth, 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 all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Milwaukee County plants of the Company whose
names appear on the September 11, 1939, pay roll of the Company,
including employees whose names did not appear -on said pay roll
because they were ill or on vacation and employees who were then
or who have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding super-
visory and clerical employees and any employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they.
desire to be represented by Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel
& Tin Workers of North America, Lodge #1527, foi the>purposes
of collective bargaining.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEisERSON, . concurring :
I agree with the result reached in this case. But I do not think
that the integration of the employer's production processes and the
unified personnel office for the.five plants should be made the basis
for determining the bargaining unit. Employers who regularly
make collective bargaining contracts with different organizations
representing a number of separate bargaining units also have inte-
grated production and management but the employees' method of
self-organization for collective bargaining must be the primary factor
in determining the bargaining unit.
Since there is only one organization of employees contending for
the right to act as exclusive representative in the present case, and
this includes production and maintenance employees from all five
plants organized to bargain as a single unit, in the absence of any
contract or established custom or practice to the contrary, this em-
ployees' unit must be held appropriate.