Doehler-Javis Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 1, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 1097 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of DOEHLER-JARVIS CORPORATION (DOEHLER DIE CAST-
ING DIVISION), EMPLOYER and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DIE CAST-
ING WORKERS, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER
In the Matter of DOEHLER-JARVIS CORPORATION (DOEHLER DIE CAST-
ING DIVISION), EMPLOYER and MECHANICS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OF
AMERICA, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 8-RC-212 and 8-RC-265, respectively.Decided March 1
1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before a
hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. National Association of Die Casting Workers, affiliated with
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), herein called the
UAW; Mechanics Educational Society of America, herein called
MESA; and International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers
of America, (CIO), herein called the Intervenor, are labor organiza-
tions claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer.
1 The Intervenor has not complied with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act, but
was permitted to intervene because of its present contract covering the employees involved
herein.
*Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray.
81 N. L. R. B., No. 167.
1097
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. At the hearing, and in their briefs, the Employer and the Inter-
venor moved to dismiss the petitions on the ground that an existing
contract between them is a bar to these proceedings?
On July 3, 1947, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a con-
tract covering the production and maintenance employees in the Em-
ployer's four plants,3 to terminate May 1, 1949, which provided that
the question of wages might be reopened on or after May 1, 1948. In
April and June 1948, the parties negotiated on a number of issues other
than that of wages. On June 30,1948, they entered into a supplemental
agreement , which, in addition to other material changes, extended the
termination date of the original contract to May 1, 1950. On July 6,
the Employer's executive committee approved the contract, and at the
next regular executive committee meeting on July 19, a formal note of
this ratification was made in the minutes. On July 7, the contract was
ratified by the Intervenor's membership at the four plants.
In the meantime, a schism within the ranks of the Intervenor had
developed because of its failure to comply with the filing requirements
of the amended Act. On June 26 and 27, representatives of about 20
locals, including those in the National Doehler Council,4 herein called
the Council, attended a conference at Toledo, Ohio. These representa-
tives voted to reactivate the National Association of Die Casting
Workers, CIO,5 herein called the NADCW, and to recommend affili-
ation to their respective locals. On July 10, the Chicago local, and on
July 18, the Toledo and Pottstown locals, affiliated with the NADCW.6
About July 18 another conference was held at which it was proposed
that the NADCW affiliate itself with the UAW.' On August 3, a con-
tract was signed by which the NADCW merged with the UA`Y. At
meetings in Buffalo on August 12 and 13, the Council recommended
that the locals affiliate with the UAW. Thereafter, the members of
2In view of our determination of the contract bar issue , we find it unnecessary to pass
upon the claim of the UAW that the Intervenor , being a defunct labor organization, with
substantially no members at the Employer's plants, and no officers to administer its con-
tract with the Employer, cannot assert its contract as a bar to these proceedings.
8 These plants , which under the contract constitute one bargaining unit, are located at
Toledo, Ohio ; Chicago, Illinois ; Pottstown , Pennsylvania ; and Batavia , New York.
I The Council is an organization of four representatives from each of the four separate
locals at the Employer 's plants, which carries on bargaining negotiations with the
Employer , and also conducts the final handling of all grievances with the top level of
management.
0In 1942, the NADCW, which had been the representative of the employees involved
herein, merged with the Intervenor.
6 The Batavia local never affiliated with the NADCW, but affiliated with the AUW on
August 13
' A committee , elected by representatives at the Toledo conference , was instructed to con-
fer with AUW officials, and were authorized to execute an agreement of affiliation if they
thought such a move would be beneficial to the organization.
DOEHLER -JARVIS CORPORATION 1099
each of the four locals voted to affiliate with the UAW. Charters were
issued to all of the four locals in September 1948.8
On July 7 the Employer received a letter from the NADCW re-
questing recognition as the bargaining representative of all the Em-
ployer's production and maintenance employees.° On July 13 the
NADCW filed its petition with the Board and on August 24 amended
its petition to show its affiliation with the UAW. On August 18,
MESA filed its petition with the Board.
We find no merit in the contention of the Employer and the Inter-
venor that their current contract is a bar to these proceedings 10 The
petitions, being timely as to the July 1947 contract,11 are not barred
by the July 1948 contract, which was a premature extension of the
1947 contract, having been executed during the term of that con-
tract.12 We also find without merit the Employer's contention that
the doctrine of premature extension should not be applied to this
case because the negotiations for the July 1948 contract were carried
on in good faith; they were conducted a year before the terminal date
of the original contact; and the extension of the contract was "part
and parcel of the wage increase plan," both of which followed the
General Motors pattern.13
We find that questions affecting commerce exist concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer, within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act .14
4. The UAW seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer at its plants at Toledo, Ohio, Pottstown,
9 Each of the four locals had previously voted to disaffiliate from the Intervenor. The
officers of the Intervenor ' s locals became officers of the UAW locals.
6 This letter had been sent to the Employer on July 2, but was delayed in the mails because
it was incorrectly addressed Peter Zvara , international representative of the UAW, and
formerly the Intervenor ' s regional director , who signed the contract of July 1948 on behalf
of the Intervenor , testified that he called the Employer ' s labor relations director on July 3,
advising him of the Council's affiliation with the NADCW , and that a letter had been sent to
the Employer requesting recognition for the production and maintenance employees at the
Employer 's four plants . The Employer ' s labor relations director denied that a demand for
recognition was made during this conversation . Inasmuch as this fact is not pertinent to a
determination of the issues, we find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in testimony.
30 We find it unnecessary to pass upon MESA ' s contention that the contract cannot
constitute a bar because it was never "closed by competent parties," inasmuch as Zvara
had been discharged by the Intervenor on June 28 , before he signed the contract on June
30 as regional director of the Intervenor.
n Matter of United States Vanadium Corporation , Pine Creek Unit, 68 N . L. R. B. 389.
ii Matter of National Hardware Corporation and Acme Hardware Corporation, 80
N. L. It. B . 368; Matter of Armstrong Cork Company , 80 N. L . It. B. 566 ; Matter of United
States Finishing Company, 79 N. L. It. B 699. Cf. Matter of Westinghouse Electric Corpo-
ration, 81 N. L . It. B. 59.
13 Matter of Armstrong Cork Company , 80 N. L R B 566.
i4 The Intervenor also moved to dismiss on the following grounds : ( 1) The NADCW
and the UAW were not "in existence " at the time the representation claim was presented ;
(2) the NADCW , as recreated , involved a secession in violation of the Intervenor 's consti-
tution; and ( 3) Section 9 (h) of the amended Act is unconstitutional. The organizing
committee involved herein is a "labor organization" within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act , and may claim recognition and file a petition on behalf of the after -formed
1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pennsylvania , Batavia, New York, and Chicago , Illinois, excluding
time study engineers and analysts , sales estimating engineers , nurses,
office and clerical employees , guards, and supervisors . MESA re-
quests the severance from the established production and maintenance
unit, of a unit of all employees in the mechanical division of these
four plants ," including all draftsmen , designers, checkers , blueprint
and photostat clerks, specialists , diemakers , pantograph engravers,
hand engravers , duplicator operators , welders, grinders , toolmakers,
die repairmen , machinists , and their respective apprentices , but ex-
cluding time study engineers and analysts , sales estimating engineers,
nurses, supervisors , and all employees in other divisions.
The Employer , the UAW, and the Intervenor contend that the unit
proposed by MESA is not appropriate "' ( 1) because of the integration
of operations of all employees in the plants , and (2 ) because of the long
bargaining history of the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees on a multi-plant -wide basis 17 There is no dispute as to the
particular categories of employees to be included or excluded from the
proposed units.
The Employer is engaged in the mass production of non-ferrous die
castings . The mechanical division , which MESA seeks to represent,
is one of several divisions in the Employer's plants ."' This division,
which is under the separate over-all supervision of a superintendent,
as are the other divisions , is divided into various departments. They
are the die shop, the die repair department , the toolroom , the machine
shop, and the engineering department .' 9 Each department is under
the separate immediate supervision of a foreman , all of whom are
responsible to the superintendent of the mechanical division.
The employees in the mechanical division do no production work,
and there are no other employees who have duties identical to those
organization See Matter of Texas Hardwood Manufacturing Company, 73 N L. R. B.
356; Matter of Aluminum Company of America ( Harvard Plant, Cleveland ), 80 N. L. R. B.
1342. The question of whether or not the UAW has violated the constitution of the
Intervenor is immaterial to the question of representation . The resolution of such a ques-
tion is not the function of the Board Matter of Harbison -Walker Refractories Co., 44
N. L R. B. 1280 ; Matter of Cincinnati Daily Newspaper Publishers Association, 56
N. L. R. B 171 ; cf. Matter of Remington Rand, Inc., 78 N. L. R. B. 181. The constitution-
ality of the amended Act will be presumed in the absence of contrary court decisions.
Matter of Rite -Form Corset Company, Inc ., 75 N L . It. B 174; Matter of Schenley Distillers
Corporation, 78 N. L. R. B. 504 ; Matter of Mergenthaler Linotype Company, 80 N. L. It. B.
132.
15 This division is sometimes referred to as the skilled division.
10 The Employer and the UAW stress the fact that the evidence introduced by MESA In
support of its petition , related only to the Toledo plant. The record, however , indicates
that the operations at the Employer's other plants are similar to those in the Toledo plant.
37 The Employer and the Intervenor have bargained for this inclusive unit since about
1942. Prior to that time, the Employer bargained for several years with the NADCW for
the same unit.
le The plants are divided into divisions according to their functions.
1° In the Chicago plant, the toolroom and machine shop are included in one department.
DOEHLER-JARVIS CORPORATION 1101
.of employees here involved. Although the work of some of these
employees, at times, brings them into production departments, they
remain under the supervision of their own department foreman, ex-
cept for instructions as to which job is to be done.20 While there are
transfers in and out of the mechanical division,21 there is no inter-
change between the employees of the mechanical division and the pro-
duction and maintenance employees.
The Employer also contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate
because it contains skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled personnel.
While the employees in question possess varying skills, the record
shows that the great majority of these employees are highly skilled.22
There is a formal apprenticeship program at the Employer's plants.23
We find, in line with our holdings in prior cases,24 that the multi-
plant mechanical division herein contains a sufficient nucleus of
skilled craftsmen to warrant their severence as a separate unit, should
the employees so desire, notwithstanding the history of collective bar-
gaining on a multi-plant-wide basis . The fact that there appears
to be no similar unit in the die casting industry is not sufficient to
warrant denying these employees the opportunity to express, through
an election, their desire with respect to representation in a separate
unit.25
However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time,
but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in
the elections hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for MESA,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a sepa-
rate unit. If, however, they select the UAW, they will be taken to
have indicated their desire to remain a part of the existing multi-
plant-wide unit.
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among
employees within the voting groups described below : .
20 Supervision of how the job is to be done rests with the foreman of the department
where the employee works.
21 At least 90 percent of the transfers are into the mechanical division from the produc-
tion divisions . These transfers are in accordance with plant promotion rules , which give
preference to those employees already working in the plant over newly hired employees
22 All jobs are classified into labor grades. Labor grades 9 to 12 represent the skilled
workers, grades 5 to 8 are semi-skilled , and grades 1 to 4 are considered unskilled. ' At
Toledo there are approximately 281 skilled employees , 28 semi-skilled , and 34 unskilled ; at
Pottstown , 220 skilled , 38 semi-skilled , and 26 unskilled ; at Batavia , 123 skilled , 27 semi-
skilled, and 14 unskilled ; at Chicago , 106 skilled , 2 semi-skilled , and 8 unskilled.
22 At the time of the hearing there were 49 apprentices at Toledo , 22 at Pottstown, 17 at
Batavia , and 3 at Chicago . The employees who testified at the hearing stated that they
served a 4 -year apprenticeship.
24 Matter of International Harvester Company, 79 N. L. R. B . 1452 ; Matter of Sprague
Electric Company, 81 N. L R. B., No. 71; Matter of C. Hager & Sons Hinge Manufacturing
Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 163.
20 Matter of Hunter Packing Company, 79 N. L. R. B. 197 ; Matter of Crocker, Burbank
and Co., Asscn., 80 N . L. R. B 774.
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. All employees in the Employer's mechanical division in its plants
at Toledo, Ohio; Pottstown, Pennsylvania; Batavia, New York;
and Chicago, Illinois, including all draftsmen, designers, checkers,
blueprint and photostat clerks, specialists, diemakers, pantograph
engravers, hand engravers, duplicator operators, welders, grinders,
toolmakers, die repairmen, machinists, and their respective appren-
tices, but excluding time study engineers and analysts, sales estimating
engineers, nurses, professional, office and clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors.
2. All remaining production and maintenance employees at these
four plants, excluding time study engineers and analysts, sales esti-
mating engineers, nurses, professional, office and clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 26
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, elections by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among
the employees described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Elections, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or re-
instated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether :
(1) The employees in Group 1 desire to be represented for purposes
of collective bargaining by Mechanics Educational Society of America,
or by National Association of Die Casting Workers, affiliated with
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) ,27 or by neither;
,(2) The employees in Group 2 desire to be represented for purposes
of collective bargaining by National Association of Die Casting Work-
ers, affiliated with International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
& Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO).
26 Inasmuch as the Intervenor has not complied with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the
amended Act , we shall not place its name on the ballot.
21 The name of the UAW appears in its brief as National Association of Die Casting
Workers, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW-CIO). No motion for correction of the record in regard to the UAW' s name has
been filed with the Board.