Dana Corp.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 26, 194671 N.L.R.B. 1249 (N.L.R.B. 1946) Copy Citation In the Matter Of SPICER MANUFACTURING DIVISION OF DANA COR- PORATION , EMPLOYER and MECHANICS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OP AMERICA, LOCAL #4, PETITIONER Case No. 8-R-199,5.-Decided December 26, 1946 Marshall, Melhorn, Wall c6 Bloch, by Messrs. Arnold F. Bunge and Lloyd J. Haney, of Toledo, Ohio, for the, Employer. Messrs. Earl AS. Streeter and Harry Shell, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Petitioner. Messrs. Lowell Goerlich and Thomas Burke, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Intervenor. Mr. Melvin J. Welles, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Toledo, Ohio, on August 8 and 9, 1946, before John A. Hull, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the hearing officer reserved for the Board ruling on the Employer's and Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petition. For reasons stated hereinafter, the motion is hereby granted on the ground that the unit petitioned for is inappropriate. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Spicer Manufacturing Division of Dana Corporation, a Virginia corporation, has its principal office and place of business in Toledo, I In addition to alleging that the unit petitioned for is inappropriate , the motion was based on the following allegations : that the petitioner made no showing of interest ; and that a contract between the Employer and the Intervenor is a bar to the proceeding. The Employer also moved to expunge from the record as immaterial certain exhibits introduced by the Petitioner at the hearing. Since we are granting the motion to dismiss on the ground that the unit is inappropriate , we find it unnecessary to rule on the other grounds. And since the hearing officer admitted the exhibits in question into evidence , and we have already indicated that the hearing officer ' s rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are affirmed , we deny the motion to expunge. 71 N. L. R. B., No. 200. 1249 1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ohio. It is engaged in the manufacture of axles, transmissions, uni- versal joints, clutches and automotive parts. During the year imme- diately preceding the hearing, the Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 85 percent was shipped to it from points outside the State of Ohio. During the same period, the Employer manufactured finished products valued in excess of $2,000,000, of which approximately 85 percent was sold and shipped by it to points outside the State of Ohio. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization , claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricul- tural Implement Workers, Local #12, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit of the following non-supervisory skilled employees of the Employer : all employees in the toolroom, exclud- ing the power trucker and clerk; all employees in the machine repair department, excluding the power trucker, oilers, laborers and clerks; all employees in the tool inspection department; and all employees in the cutter grind departments, excluding clerks. The Intervenor and the Employer contend that the only appropriate unit is a plant- wide unit of production and maintenance employees. The Employer contends further that if the Board finds appropriate a unit of skilled employees, the unit should include the electricians, millwright, tool stores and tool cribs, tool salvage, boiler room, tool design and tinsmith departments. In 1934, the Petitioner represented a small group of skilled tool makers . A strike occurred in that year, following which the Peti- tioner and Federal Labor Union No. 18384 began organizing all employees in the plant. On February 6, 1935, identical members- only agreements were made by the Employer with the Petitioner and the Federal Labor Union, covering both production and skilled employees. On September 1, 1935, similar agreements were signed. At this time, however, the Petitioner executed two contracts with the Employer, one for production employees and one for maintenance employees. In February 1937, an election was conducted, pursuant to a stipulation by the Petitioner, the Intervenor, the Employer and DANA CORPORATION 1251 the Toledo Industrial Peace Board, among all production and mainte- nance ennpioyees of the Employer, excluding foremen, supervisors, clerical workers, and draftsmen and designers in the tool division. The Petitioner and the Intervenor were the only unions on the ballot and the latter received the majority of the votes cast. Following the election, a contract was executed that year between the Employer and the Intervenor, covering employees in the voting unit. Since that time, the Intervenor has served as the bargaining representative for all production and maintenance employees of the Employer. To show that the Petitioner has maintained its identity in the plant since 1937, the Petitioner introduced evidence concerning a number of meetings held by the skilled employees from 1937 to the date of the hearing. In addition, the Petitioner filed a petition in 1940 requesting a unit similar to that sought here; the Regional Director for the Eighth Region refused to issue a notice of hearing on the ground that the unit desired was inappropriate.2 On the other hand, the Intervenor adduced evidence which indicates that it has bargained for all employees, including skilled workers, since 1937; that it has obtained benefits for all employees; and that employees in the depart- ments sought by the Petitioner have served as officials for the Inter- venor. Each department in the plant is under the immediate supervision of a foreman. The skilled departments are all, however, supervised by the manager of the mechanical division. These skilled departments which are under the manager of the mechanical division are not con- fined to those sought by the Petitioner, but include also the tool design, electricians, tinsmiths and sheet metal workers, millwrights, carpen- ers, plumbers, steam fitters, boiler room, tool crib and tool salvage departments. We are of the opinion that the unit sought by the Petitioner is neither a pure craft unit, a departmental unit, nor an all-inclusive skilled unit. Because of this fact, and considering the established bargaining history since 1937 on a plant-wide production and mainte- nance basis," we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and we shall dismiss the petition filed herein. IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the petition is inappropriate, as stated in Section III, above, we find that no ques- tion has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Case No. 8-R-312. a We attach little importance to the bargaining history between 1935 and 1937, as it was on a members -only basis. See Matter of Elgin National Watch Company, a3 N. L. R B 855. 1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employer within an appropriate unit, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of Spicer Manufacturing Division of Dana Corporation, Toledo, Ohio, filed by Mechanics Educational Society of America, Local #4, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation