Detroit Incinerator Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 5, 1942

45 N.L.R.B. 414 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of DETROIT INCINERATOR Co. and LOCAL 508, INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON
WoRI us (A. F. L.)
Case No. R-4366.Decided November ° 6, 194.
Jurisdiction : incinerators manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Represeaitatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to recognize organization to proposed unit until certified by the Board;
election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining,: all shop production employees, ex-
cluding truck drivers, supervisors , office employees and employees now cov-
ered by contracts with other labor organizations.
Mr. Louis Spileers, Mr. Allen Mosher, and Mr. E. E. Smauder, of
Detroit, Mich., for the Company.
Mr. George Suci, of Detroit,, Mich., for the Iron Workers.
Mr. Richard Johnson and Mr. Louis B. Goodenow, of Detroit,
Mich., for the Bricklayers.
Mr. Andrew McFarland, of Detroit, Mich., for the Hod Carriers.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding,, of counsel to tlie' Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF' ELECTION
STATEMENT OF' THE CASE
Upon petition duly'filed by Local 508, International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers (A. F. L.).,, herein
called the'Iron Workers, allegingthat a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Detroit
Incinerator Co., Detroit, Michigan, herein called the Company, the
National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before Harold A. Cranefield, Trial Examiner. Said
hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan, on October 8 and 9, 1942.
The Company; the Iron Workers; Local 334, International Hod Car-
riers & Building and Common Laborers Union, A. F. L., herein called
the Hod Carriers; and Local 2 Bricklayers & Stonemasons Union,
A. F. L., herein called the Bricklayers, appeared, participated, and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
45 N L. R. B., No. 63.
414
DETROIT INCINERATOR CO. 415
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. On October 26, 1942, the
Company filed a brief which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Detroit Incinerator Co. is engaged in the manufacture, fabrication,
and construction of incinerators and destructors for waste disposal.
The Company fabricates the steel framework at its plant in Detroit,
Michigan. The framework is mounted, and construction and installa-
tion is completed at the hospital, industrial concern, or army camp
where the incinerator or destructor is to be placed in operation. Dur-
ing the first 8 months of 1942, the Company purchased raw materials
valued at $74,698.41, of which the sum of $38,251.14 represents pur-
chases of materials from points outside Michigan. During the same
period, the Company's sales amounted to $229,303.11, of which approx-
imately 85 percent by value represents installation of the Company's
products at points outside Michigan.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 508, International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers; Local 334, International Hod Carriers &
Building and Common Laborers Union; and Local 2, Bricklayers &
Stonemasons Union, are labor organizations affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On July 22, 1942, the Iron Workers asked the Company to recognize" '
it as bargaining representative of five shop production employees.
The Company refused recognition unless the Iron Workers should
be certified by the Board. P
A statement prepared by the Regional Director and introduced
into evidence at the hearing indicates that the Iron Workers represents
a substantial number of employees in the appropriate unit.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
'The Iron Workers submitted to the Regional Director seven cards , dated in June 1942,
all of which appear to bear genuine signatures of employees on the Company's pay roll of
August 5, 1942 At the time of the hearing there were five employees in the appropriate
unit.
416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Company fabricates steel framework at its Detroit plant.' This
operation is the first step in the construction of the incinerator or
destructor. Incinerators and destructors are primarily constructed
where they are to operate. For this reason the Company's production
employees are roughly classed as shop employees and as field em-
ployees, although some employees perform part of their work in the
field and part at the shop.
The Company has a working agreement with the Hod Carriers and
the Bricklayers, under which the Company maintains standard union
wages and hires through these organizations new employees in cate- -
gories subject to their craft -jurisdictions. The parties agreed that at
the time of the hearing this working agreement covered all production
employees of the Company except two employees who spend the
greater part of their time as truck drivers and five production em-
ployees hereinafter more particularly described.2 The Iron Workers
contends that all production employees not covered by the working
agreements with the Hod Carriers and the Bricklayers, excluding
truck drivers, supervisors, and, 'office employees, constitute an ap-
propriate unit. The Company contends that these employees do not
form a homogeneous'group and that they do not constitute an appro-
priate unit apart from other production employees who spend all, or
an appreciable part of, their time in the shop.
The five employees who, at the time of the hearing, constituted the
proposed unit are Leslie Balla, John Zeller, William Perry, Robert
Harrison, and Anton Grabner. Balla performs janitor work and odd
jobs about the shop. He does small blacksmith work as may be needed,
although the Company lets out on contract its regular blacksmith
work. During the 2 years that he has been in the, Compa;ny's employ,
Balla has spent 1 day in fieldwork; otherwise his time has been spent
m tZie shop. Zeller is a handyman. He does any type of light work
which a physical infirmity permits. He makes crates, tags outgoing
merchandise, and does some painting and carpentry work. During the
15 months that he has been employed by the.Company, he has spent 1
day in fieldwork; the remaining part of his time has been spent in
the shop. Both Balla and Zeller, however, are subject to field assign-
ment as they may be needed. Perry does general janitor work about
the shop, odd jobs, and some drilling, punching, and grinding work.
At the time of the hearing, he was spending about two-thirds of his
time on steel work and the remaining part of his time on odd jobs.
2 The number of shop production employees not covered by the working agreement be-
tween the Company and the Hod Carriers and Bricklayers varies from time to time. The
largest number of such employees , so far as the record discloses, was nine.
DETROIT INCINERATOR CO. 417
He spends part of his-time in the field, but the greater part of his time
in the shop. Harrison, employed as a welder, does lay-out and struc-
tural steel cutting and welding. He does some repair work, for which
he spends part of his time out of the shop.3 Grabner has worked for
the Company as a part-time employee for about 6 years, working 2
to 3 days each week. He spends about half his working time for the
Company in grinding, and the remainder of such time in miscellaneous
work, such as loading cars and crating.
The'Company contends that a bargaining unit which would include
such employees should also include other production employees whose
work is primarily confined to the shop. No labor organization, how-
ever, has filed a petition for certification in this larger unit. More-
over, since all production employees save these in the unit proposed
by the Iron Workers are presently covered under a working'agree-
ment with affiliated labor organizations, employees in the proposed
residuary unit must either properly constitute a separate bargaining
unit or be indefinitely denied the right of collective bargaining until
such time as a labor organization desires to represent,them as part of
a larger unit. Under these circumstances, we find that the unit pro-
posed by the Iron Workers constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit.
We find that all production employees of the Company, excluding
truck drivers, supervisors, office employees, and, employees presently
covered by working agreements with other labor organizations, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE, DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees
in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Election, subject to
the limitations and additions set forth therein.
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 Relations
3 The Company contends that Harrison should not be given consideration as a regular
employee in the proposed unit inasmuch as he has repeatedly expressed a preference to re-
turn to the plant of the Dodge Motor Company , when and if a former job 'therein, from
which he was laid off in January 1942, becomes available we find no merit in this con-
tention . The Company employed Harrison in April 1942 as a regular employee to perform
what appears to be a part of its usual production work So far as appears , the Company
anticipates the continuance of the work performed by Harrison and the employment of
Harrison or another employee capable of performing it. We are primarily concerned herein
with the nature of the duties performed by employees within the proposed unit rather than
the persons who may perform such work at any given time
493508-43, vol 45-27
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Re I la=_
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes, of collective bargaining with Detroit Incin-
erator Co., Detroit, Michigan, 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 Seventh Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among all.em-.
ployees of the Company within the unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not,
work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or in the active military service or training of the Unted States, or
temporarily laid off, but excluding employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause, to determine whether 'or not they desire
to be represented by Local 508, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers (A. F. L.), for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.