Chicago Rawhide Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 23, 1944

59 N.L.R.B. 1234 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of CHICAGO RAWHIDE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and
INTERNATIONAL FUR & LEATHER WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 43, C. I. 0.
Case No. 13-R-2706.-Decided December 23, 1944
Messrs. John H. Bishop and John M. Falas, of Chicago, Ill., for
the Company.
Mr. Robert Herbin, of Chicago, Ill., for the CIO.
Mr..S. G. Lippman, of Chicago, Ill., for the AFL.
Mr. Bernard Goldberg, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by the International Fur & Leather
Workers Union, Local 43, C. I. 0., herein called the CIO, alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Chicago Rawhide Manufacturing Com-
pany, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Leon A. Rosell, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at
Chicago, Illinois,on November 14, 15, 16, and 17, 1944. The Company,
the CIO, and the Rubber & Plastic Workers Union,'Local 82, A. F. L.,
herein called the AFL, appeared and participated. All parties 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. All parties were afforded an oppor-
tunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Chicago Rawhide Manufacturing Company, an Illinois cor-
poration, is engaged'in the processing of hides and the manufacture
59 N. L. R. B., No. 224.
1234
CHICAGO RAWHIDE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1235
of oil seals, leather and synthetic rubber products at its Chicago,
Illinois, plant, with which this proceeding is concerned. The Com-
pany's annual sales exceed $1,000,000 in value, of which more than
60 percent represents sales and shipments to customers outside the
State of Illinois. The annual purchases of raw materials and supplies
by the Company are in excess of $1,000,000, of which more than 50
percent is shipped to the plant from points outside the State of Illinois.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Fur & Leather Workers Union, Local 43, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Rubber & Plastic Workers Union, Local 82, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to either the CIO or
the AFL as the exclusive bargaining representative of its production
and maintenance employees until certified by the Board in an appro-
priate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 0 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The CIO generally seeks a unit of all production and maintenance
employees, including watchmen, and laboratory employees in the syn-
thetic rubber division, but excluding chemists, engineers, accountants,
nurses, chauffeurs, office and clerical employees, foremen, assistant
foremen, executives, and other supervisory personnel. The AFL and
the Company agree that the aforesaid unit is appropriate. The
1 The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 550 authorization cards ; that
the names on 369 of the cards appeared on the Company's pay roll of October 22, 1944,
which contained the names of 1,017 employees in the appropriate unit ; and that 113 of
the cards were undated, with the balance dated between April and November 1944.
The AFL submitted 99 authorization cards, the names on 80 of which also appeared on
the aforesaid pay roll. Three of the cards were dated in October 1944, with the remainder
undated.
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
parties are in disagreement, however, with respect to the categories
and employees discussed below.
Factory clerical employees. All parties agree that factory clerical
employees who do production or inspection work in addition to their
clerical duties, ought to be included in the unit. They are in dis-
agreement, however, concerning those clerical employees, who, while
assisting and working under the supervision of various production
department foremen, do no manual work. The Company and the
AFL would include the latter class of employees in the unit, whereas
the CIO urges that they be excluded. Two of the employees involved
are a typist in the shipping department who types various shipping
forms such as bills of lading and labels to be attached to outgoing
shipments, and a desk clerk in the inspection and trimming depart-
nient of the synthetic rubber division, who performs various clerical
duties for the foreman of that department, such as writing shop or-
ders, packing slips, etc. It is our opinion that all factory clerical
employees who work in the various production departments under the
supervision of production foremen, whether or not they perform
manual labor, have a community of interest with the production and
maintenance employees, and, accordingly, belong in the same bar-
gaining unit as the latter employees. We shall therefore include all
factory clerical- employees in the unit.2
Production clerk in the synthetic rubber division. The Company
and the AFL desire to include, and the CIO to exclude, the production
clerk from the unit. This employee, who works in the general office
of the synthetic rubber division, receives orders from the main office
of the Company, processes them, and then distributes them to the dif-
ferent production departments. In pursuance of his duties, he fre-
quently goes out into the plant to consult with the various production
department foremen. Unlike the' other general office employees, the
production clerk is supervised by the production manager. In view
of the fact that his duties are so closely connected with the production
processes, and of the further fact that he is under production depart-
ment supervision, we shall include the production clerk in the unit.
Timekeepers. The parties agree that the following employees per-
forming timekeeping duties should be included in,the units: (a) the
timekeeper and inspector in the metal and leather assembly depart-
ment, who spends 75 percent of her time as a production inspector and
the balance as a timekeeper; (b) the production and time clerk in the
bean press department, who does some production and inspection work
in addition to her clerical duties; (c) the timekeeper in the pneumatic
'Matter of Servel, Inc ., 58 N. L. R. B. 5; Matter of Proximity Manufacturing. Com-
pany, 56 N. L. R. B. 264; Matter of Goodman Manufacturing Company, 58 N. L R. B. 513.
CHICAGO RAWHIDE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1237
cup department, who devotes all of her time to her timekeeping ac-
tivities under the supervision of the foreman of that department; and
(d) timekeepers in the synthetic rubber division, who are responsible
to the various production department foremen. The Company and
the AFL likewise seek to include the clerk and timekeeper in the press-
room of the synthetic rubber division, while the CIO contends that he
should be excluded. This clerk and timekeeper, as he is designated on
the Company pay roll, works at a desk in the pressroom calculating the
time and amount of work performed by each man in that room.' Al-
though working in the pressroom, he is responsible, and makes his
reports to the personnel manager of the synthetic rubber division, who
is in charge of the "personnel and timekeeping" section. The Com-
pany was unable to explain why the clerk and timekeeper in the press-
room is supervised by the personnel manager, while the timekeepers
in other departments of the same division are supervised by the fore-
men of the departments where they work. Since the duties of this
clerk and timekeeper are similar to those of the timekeepers whom
the parties agree to include, and to factory clerical employees gen-
erally, we shall include him in the unit.3
O face boy. The Company and the AFL would include, while the CIO
would exclude the office boy attached to the general office of the syn-
thetic rubber division, who picks up and distributes mail and messages
throughout the division and is supervised by an employee of the per-
sonnel office. Since his duties do not pertain entirely to the production
department and he is supervised by the personnel office, we shall, ex-
clude the office boy from the unit.
Guards. The Company and the AFL urge the inclusion of the
guards in the unit, whereas the, CIO seeks to exclude them. There are
approximately 12 uniformed, recently demilitarized, and unarmed
guards who are principally engaged in checking the identification of
employees as they enter the plant grounds. The same vacation and
other employment policies of the Company are applicable to both the
guards and to production and maintenance employees generally. We
are of the opinion that the demilitarized guards have bargaining in-
terests similar to those of production and maintenance employees and
we shall, therefore, include them in the unit.4
Photographer and assistant photographer. The Company and the
AFL desire to include, and the CIO to exclude these employees from
the unit. The photographer and his assistant work in the engineering
department under the supervision of the chief engineer, taking photo-
graphs of drawings for reproduction purposes, company products,
employees, and subjects for the plant newspaper; some of their work
See Matter of Shartle Brothers Machine Company, 57 N 'L. R. B 1546.
Matter of Shartle Brothers Machine Company, 57 N L. R. B. 1546.
1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is done in connection with product development and testing. Al-
though the photographer and his assistant are former production
department employees, their present duties and interests are more
closely linked to those of the technical employees in the engineering
department than to those of the production and maintenance em-
ployees, and we shall, therefore, exclude them from the unit .5
Laboratory testers in engineering department. The Company and
the AFL would include, the CIO exclude the testers in the laboratory
testing section of the engineering department. These employees, who
are not technically educated, operate testing machines under the
supervision of the chief engineer to whom they submit their test re-
ports. Some of their testing work is done in connection with the
experimental work of the engineering department in the development
of new products; another part consists in testing certain of the Com-
pany's manufactured products for compliance with customer speci-
fications. It appears that all of their work is performed under the
supervision of the chief engineer and much of it is in direct aid of
highly trained technicians engaged in experimental and research work
for the Company.6 We are of the opinion that their interests lie
less with the production and maintenance employees than with the
technical employees in the engineering department whom all the
parties agreed to exclude from the unit. Accordingly, we shall ex-
clude the laboratory testers from the unit.7
Draftsmen. The Company and the CIO would exclude the drafts-
men in the engineering department, while the AFL would include
them. These employees perform the usual duties of draftsmen and
do some designing work as well. We shall- exclude the draftsmen
from the production and maintenance unit."
Supervisors in the synthetic rubber division. The Company and the
CIO assert that all employees in the synthetic rubber division with
the job title of supervisor, excepting Henry McAfoos, Samuel Robert-
son, and John J. Surface, should be excluded from the unit, whereas
the AFL contends that supervisors other than those specifically named
should be included. The supervisors oversee the work of from 5 to
12 subordinates, spend about 50 percent of their time in actual pro-
duction work and the balance in supervision and have, and exercise,
the power effectively to recommend the discharge or disciplining of
See Matter of Birdsboro Steel Foundry & Machine Co , 32 N. L. R. B 107.
° In this respect their duties differ from those of the laboratory employees in the
synthetic rubber division whom all parties agreed to include in the unit. The latter's
routine testing operations are devoted entirely to production testing and do not pertain
nor are they in aid of research work.
7 See Matter of Servel, Inc, 58 N. L R. B. 5.
° Matter of Birdsboro Steel Foundry & Machine Co., 32 N. L. R. B. 107; Matter of
Goodman Manufacturing Company, 58 N. L. R. B. 531.
CHICAGO RAWHIDE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1239
any of their subordinate employees to the foremen . McAfoos, Robert-
son, and Surface , all parties agree, although having the title of super-
visors, spend all of their time in actual production work and have no
employees working under them. We find that the supervisors with
the exceptions noted above , are supervisory employees within our
customary definition ; we. shall exclude them from the unit.
George J. Lowing has the title of assistant supervisor in the synthetic
rubber division. The AFL and the CIO urge his inclusion in the
unit; the. Company seeks to have him excluded. Lowing supervises
the work of 10 employees and with respect to such subordinates has
the same power to recommend discharge or discipline as have the
supervisors discussed above. He was given the title of assistant
supervisor and receives less pay than supervisors not because his
powers or duties are different from those of supervisors, but because
he has been with the Company for only a short time. Like the super-
visors he is responsible to the foreman of his department and not to
a supervisor . Since the powers and duties of Lowing resemble those
of the supervisors , whom we are excluding from the unit as super-
visory employees , we shall also exclude Lowing.
Set-up men in synthetic rubber division . The CIO and AFL would
include the set-up men , who spend all of their time setting up ma-
chines and supervising the technical phases of the work, whereas the
Company would exclude such employees . Since it does not appear
that the set-up men possess -supervisory authority within the Board's
definition , we shall include them in the unit."
Set-up and supervisors in Departments 24 and 35. The Company
contends'that the employees having the job title of "set-up and super-
visor" are supervisory employees and should be excluded from the
unit, whereas the CIO and AFL maintain that despite their title
they perform only the usual duties of set-up men and should therefore
be included in the unit . Each of these employees spends his work-
ing time setting up machines for the operators , getting material for
them, making spot checks from time to time to determine - if the die or
machine is in need of repair or adjustment , and correcting the opera-
tors if they are performing their job incorrectly. Although the Com-
pany contended that the "set -up and supervisor" employees have the
power to make effective recommendations for discharge or discipline,
a number of these set -up men testifying at the hearing denied that
they had such authority, that they had ever been informed that they
had such authority, or that they had ever exercised it. We find on the
basis of the weight of credible testimony that these employees are not
9 Matter of Goodman Manufacturing Company, 58 N L. R B. 531; Matter of AN-
berg Bearing Company, 56 N. L. R. B 1794.
1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supervisors within the Board's definition, and shall include them in
the unit .10
Assistant foremen in the tannery. The Company and the AFL
would exclude, while the CIO would include these employees. There
are three assistant foremen in the tannery, each of whom is in charge
of a particular section of the tannery and is responsible for the work
of approximately seven or eight employees. Although the assistant
foremen spend a majority of their time in the pursuit of duties similar
to those of their subordinates, it does appear that they have the power
to make effective recommendations to their foreman for the discharge
and disciplining of those whose work they supervise. Accordingly,
we find such assistant foremen to be supervisory employees and shall
exclude them from the unit.
Gztstave Serosky has the job title of supervisor in Department 26.
The Company would exclude, while both unions would include him.
Serosky spends his entire day sorting and trimming scrap leather
and is assisted by two other men who bundle the material under his
direction ; he also shaves blocks and helps load the bundles of scrap
onto trucks about twice a week. With respect to the men who assist
him in his work, it does not appear that he exercises the kind of au-
thority denominated supervisory by the Board's definition. Accord-
ingly, we shall include him in the unit.
John Macaluso has the job title of "set-up man" in Department
26-A which comprises 12 employees and is supervised by a foreman.
The Company contends that since Macaluso replaces the foreman
during the latter's absence, he is in reality an assistant foreman and
should therefore be excluded from the unit; both unions desire to in-
clude him. Macaluso sets dies, answers the telephone, and spends 6
of his 8 hours doing block cutting along with other production work-
ers in the department. Since his ordinary duties are clearly those of
a production worker without supervisory authority, and since it does
not appear that his substitution for the foreman is more than sporadic
or irregular in nature, we shall include Macaluso in the unit."'
Charles J. Krocka has the title of assistant foreman in Department
921. The Company and the AFL contend that Krocka should be ex-
cluded because of his title, the CIO urges that he be included. The
evidence establishes that Krocka spends 10 percent of his time in
setting up and changing knives on the machines of other employees,
and 90 percent of his time doing straight production work. The only
occasion on which it may be said that he exercises supervisory au-
thority occurs when he replaces the foreman during the latter's in-
10 See Matter of Goodman Manufacturing Company, 58 N. L. R. B. 531 ; Matter of Ahlberg
Bearsny Company, 56 N. L R B. 1794.
11 Matter of Goodman Manufacturing Company, 58 N. L. R. B. 531; Matter of Mal-
linckrodt Chemical Works, 58 N L. R. B. 1568.
CHICAGO RAWHIDE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1241
frequent absences. Such transitory substitution for the foreman is
not sufficient to bring him within our supervisory definition. Accord-
ingly, we shall include him.12
Philip Opella has the job title of assistant foreman in' Department
65. The Company and the AFL desire to exclude, and the CIO to
include him. Department 65 has about 40 employees, and is super-
vised by a foreman and a first assistant foreman, Fred ' Semkiu, who
all parties agree is a supervisory employee. Semkiu formerly was
the sole assistant foreman in the department. When he was designated
to take charge of a night shift, Opella was elevated to the position
of assistant foreman. Recently the night shift was abandoned and
Semkiu returned to his old position as assistant foreman on the day
shift. Although Opella's title has not changed, his responsibilities
admittedly have. At the present time Opella spends half of his
time setting dies, and making adjustments and test runs of machines
to determine if the dies have been properly set. , After the dies are
set either the foreman or Semkiu assign girls to the machines. During
the balance of his time, Opella does such odd jobs as checking on dies
being repaired in the tool and die room, helping in the shipping room,
checking on material requirements, bringing material to the girls on
occasion, etc. Despite his title, it does not appear that Opella is a
supervisor within our customary definition and we shall, therefore,
include him in the unit.
Paul Borowski and Walter Setlock have the job title of supervisor
in Department 65. The Company would exclude them as supervisory
employees, the AFL and the CIO would include them. Borowski has
four men under his direction and is in charge of bin loading and
stock storing. Setlock is in charge of the shipping section and has
two assistants. Both Borowski and Setlock spend all of their time
working along with their men. It does not appear that they have
supervisory authority and we shall include them in the unit.
Stanislaus Wierzbicki has the job title of assistant foreman in
Department 36, the tool and die department. The Company and the
AFL would exclude, while the CIO would include him. There are
11 employees in the tool and die department besides the foreman who
is in charge. Most of the men in the department are highly skilled
and require little supervision. Wierzbi cki, like other tool and die
makers, spends three-fourths of his time making dies and the balance
in checking on and keeping the dies he has made in good condition
for production. He admitted that he performs exactly the same work
that he did before he was appointed assistant foreman ; he receives
the same hourly pay as 2 other tool and die makers. The only time
that he can be said to exercise supervisory 'functions is when he sub-
12 See footnote 11, supra.
1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stitutes for the foreman, which is very infrequent. We find that Wierz-
bicki is not a supervisory employee and shall include him in the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees, including
guards, watchmen, factory clerical employees,' laboratory employees
in the synthetic rubber division, set-up men, set-up men and super-
visors, but excluding chemists, engineers, accountants, nurses, drafts-
men, laboratory testers in the engineering department, photographer,
assistant photographer, chauffeurs,l4 office clerical employees,15 office
boy in synthetic rubber division, foremen,16 assistant foremen,17 super-
visors,"" and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the sta-
tus 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.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
At the time of the hearing a company application for wage in-
creases was pending before the War Labor Board. The Company
urges that the election be postponed until after the War Labor Board
has announced its decision on the application. We have considered
the arguments advanced by the Company in support of its position
and find them to be without merit as justifying a departure from our
customary practice in fixing the date for an election.'
Accordingly, we shall direct that the question concerning repre-
sentation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot
among the employees in the appropriate unit who were employed
during 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.
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 Rela-
13 Includes production clerks in the general office of the synthetic rubber division, time-
keepers, and warehouse clerks -
14 The chauffeurs are presently represented by the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, A. F. L.
15 Includes employees in the general pffice of the synthetic rubber division.
16 Includes Irvin C. Fialkowski, acting foreman of Department 45 during leave of absence
of John Droses.
"Not excluded as falling within this category are Michael Sonnenberg and John Gos-
tomski, who , all parties agreed, despite their title supervise no personnel , and Walter
Mroczyka , an ordinary production worker incorrectly classified as assistant foreman. Also
not excluded are Charles J. Krocka , Philip Opella , and Stanislaus Wierzbicki
18 This category includes George J. Lowing, but does not include Henry McAfoos, Samuel
Robertson , John J Surface , Gustave Serosky, Paul Barowski , and Walter Setlock.
19 Matter of Dickson -Jenkins Manufacturing Company, 57 N. L. R. B., No. 162.
CHICAGO RAWHIDE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1243
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relation Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of,the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Chicago Rawhide
Manufacturing Company, Chicago, Illinois, 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, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, act-
ing 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 imme-
diately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who
did not work during the 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 any 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 they desire to be represented by
International Fur & Leather Workers Union, Local 43, C. I. 0., or by
Rubber & Plastic Workers Union, Local 82, A. F. L., for the purposes
of collective. bargaining, or by neither.