Clearfield Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 914 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of CLEARFIELD MACHINE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 6-R-1'126.Decided July 31, 1916
Mr. Frank G . Smith, of Clearfield , Pa., for the Employer.
Mr. A. G. Skundor , of Pittsburgh , Pa., for the Petitioner.
Mr. George M. Yaghjian , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF' REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, on
May 15, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among the employees
in the alleged appropriate unit to determine whether or not they
desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was
furnished the parties. The Tally shows that there were approxi-
mately 92 eligible voters, of whom 52 voted for, and 33 against, the.
Petitioner; in addition, 3 ballots were challenged.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Clearfield, Pennsylvania, on June
9, 1947, before Henry Shore, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby afririned.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Clearfield Machine Company, a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal place of business in Clearfield, Pennsylvania, is engaged in
the business of manufacturing and servicing heavy equipment. The
Employer manufactures grinding and crushing machinery for refrac-
tories and mixing machinery for foundries; it repairs machine parts
of power shovels, bulldozers, and local machine plants. During the
12-month period ending May 1, 1947, the Employer purchased raw
74 N. L. R. B., No. 143.
914
CLEARFIELD MACHINE COMPANY 915
materials worth $192,000, of which 67 percent was shipped to its plant
from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the
same period, the Employer manufactured finished products and
serviced parts worth $700,000, of which 67 percent was shipped to
points outside the Commonwealth.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.'
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization, claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.2
III. THE 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.
We 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.
1V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer, including the order clerk,3 the assistant
foundry foreman,' and the assistant machine shop foreman,5 but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, the shipping clerk,e engineering de-
partment employees, and supervisory employees. Although the
Employer takes no position as to the appropriateness of the proposed
unit, it agrees that the shipping clerk should be excluded, but, contrary
to the position of the Petitioner, contends that the order clerk, the
assistant foundry foreman and the assistant machine shop foreman
should also be excluded.7
1 The Employer questions the Board ' s jurisdiction , pointing out that its production em-
ployees, numbering less than 100 , aie all local residents , that all its products are sold
f. o b its plant, that it has no branch office ; and that it employs no salesmen . But the
fact remains that a substantial amount of the raw materials used by the Employer and a
substantial amount of its manufactured products flow in the stream of interstate com-
merce. Matter of Lawrence Woolen Company, 62 N. L R. B. 1151.
2It is clear that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act. Inasmuch as the Petitioner , and not its Local 1048 , appeared
on the ballot , it alone is entitled to any certification which may be in order.
S William E Butler.
4 Buck O ' Donnel.
6 Robert Thorn
6 Richard J. McLaughlin.
'The three challenged ballots were cast by McLaughlin , the shipping clerk , Butler, the
order clerk ; and O ' Donnel, the assistant foundry foreman Thorn , the assistant machine-
shop foreman , did not vote
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The order clerk works in the general offices. He attends to the paper
work involved in the receipt of mail orders and transmits applicable
job instructions to the production departments . He is salaried , enjoys
paid vacations , and is responsible to the president and the secretary-
treasurer. He has no subordinates, but in all other respects his work
and working conditions are like that of the shipping clerk, who also
is responsible to the same officers and whom the parties agree to exclude
from the unit. The order clerk frequents the shop to keep in close
touch with the progress being made in the plant on the various jobs
ordered by customers. However, he is basically an office clerical
worker. We shall exclude the order clerk.
The assistant foundry foreman is the foundry foreman's son. The
foreman's increasing physical disabilities and absences require that
an assistant carry on his functions . Although the foreman is sala-
ried, the assistant is hourly paid, receiving 5 cents less than the top
hourly rate for foundry workers. The Employer would probably
grant him some absence pay in the event of illness. He does a certain
amount of manual work daily. Being the best qualified molder in
the foundry , he may at tinges assist a molder. He attends to tipping
the cupola and corrects any trouble for the tender . He obtains and
brings the patterns to be used by the workers . But he has the author-
ity of the foundry foreman, even when, the latter is present. He can
discipline a foundry employee himself, advising the foreman and
working together with him on the case. Regarding a change of pay
rates , hiring or discharging, he would work through the foreman, but
his recommendations would carry weight and be relied upon by the
foreman. We shall exclude him as a supervisory employee.
The assistant machine shop foreman has an office in the shop tool
room. He attends to the clerical details of shop orders , seeing to it
that time is correctly recorded and that material is properly handled
on job orders. He hands out work in the machine shop foreman's
absence. He can transfer workers from one job to another , although
that involves no change in their pay rate. He does a small amount
of manual work daily, when not otherwise occupied, such as operating
a light lathe in his office. His recommendations as to an employee's
change of status would be made to the foreman, or in the latter's
absence to the office , but his recommendations would have weight.
We shall exclude him as a supervisory employee.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer, excluding office clerical employees , the shipping clerk, the
order clerk , engineering department employees, the assistant foundry
foreman, the assistant machine shop foreman, and all other super-
CLEARFIELD MACHINE COMPANY 917
visory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. TIIE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Employer objects to the election, contending in substance that
(1) an election should be conducted after a hearing at which all issues
are resolved; and (2) that in any event a prehearing election was
improper in this case, because substantial issues were involved.
For reasons stated in the Squibb case,8 we reject the Employer's
first contention. Nor do we find merit in the Employer's second con-
tention. The only issues in the case are (a) whether or not the Em-
ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act; (b)
whether or not the Petitioner is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act; and (c) whether or not three employees should be
included in the appropriate unit. There can be no question that the
first two issues should be answered in the affirmative. And the third
issue, relating to the inclusion of but three employees, also, cannot be
regarded as "substantial."
Inasmuch as we have excluded the shipping clerk, the order clerk,
and the assistant foundry foreman from the appropriate -unit, we
hereby sustain the challenges to the ballots of Richard L. McLaughlin,
William E. Butler, and Buck O'Donnel, who respectively occupy these
positions. And since the Petitioner has received a majority of the
valid votes cast, we shall certify it as the collective bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Inasmuch as we have excluded the shipping clerk, the order clerk,
has been designated and selected by a majority of all employees of
Clearfield Machine Company, Clearfield, Pennsylvania, in the unit
found to be appropriate in Section IV, above, as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that pursuant to Sec-
tion 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representa-
tive of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.
8 Matter of E R Squtibb & Sons, 67 N L. R B 557