Dana Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 26, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 1249 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

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.