Dortch Stove Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 20, 1944

58 N.L.R.B. 431 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of DORTCH STOVE WORKS, INC. and UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO)
Case No. 10-R-1253.-Decided September 20, 1944
Mr. W. Raymond Denny, of Nashville, Tenn.,, and Messrs. T. F.
Lance and G. 0. Stanley, both of Franklin, Tenn., for the Company.
Mr. William Dunn, of Nashville, Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. Joseph C. Wells, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of America
(CIO), herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Dortch Stove Works, Inc., Franklin, Tennessee, herein called the Com-
pany, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropri-
ate hearing upon due notice before Irving Rogosin, Trial Examiner.
Said hearing was held at Franklin, Tennessee, on August 1, 1944.
The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All par-
ties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
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. All parties were afforded
an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Dortch Stove Works, Inc., is a Tennessee corporation engaged in
the manufacture of stoves at Franklin, Tennessee. During the past
12 months the Company purchased from points outside the State of
Tennessee raw materials and other unfinished products of a value in
excess of $400,000, for use at its plant at Franklin Tennessee. During
58 N. L. B. B., No. 82.
431
432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the same period the Company sold and delivered to points outside the
State more than $750,000 worth of its finished products.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees until the
Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of the Trial Examiner, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
the employees involved herein?
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The petition filed by the Union alleges to be appropriate a unit com-
prised of inspectors, plant clerical employees, checkers and markers 2
at the Company's plant at Franklin, Tennessee. However, at the hear-
ing the Union stated that it desired to represent these employees as a
part of the existing production and maintenance unit. The Company
takes the position that the inspectors are supervisory employees within
the Board's usual definition, and that the remaining employees sought
to be represented by the Union in this proceeding are clerical employees
who should not be included in a bargaining unit of production and
maintenance employees.
On October 16, 1943,3 the Board, in accordance with a stipulation
between the Company and the Union, directed an election among all
employees at the Company's plant at Franklin, Tennessee, excluding
clerical workers, salesmen, checkers, inspectors, foremen, and any other
supervisory employees. The Union won the election and on Decem-
ber 15, 1943, entered into a contract with the Company with respect to
these employees.
'The Trial Examiner reported that at the hearing the Union submitted 10 membership
application cards all of which bore apparently genuine original signatures ; that 9 of the
cards were dated April 1944, and 1 was dated March 1944 . There are approximately 10
employees in the group which the Union seeks to represent.
2 A company witness testified that the Company has no employees classified as markers.
Checkers appear to perform timekeeping duties.
8 Matter of Dortch Stove Works, Inc ., 52 N. L. R. B. 1450.
DORTCH STOVE WORKS, INC. 433
The Company employs approximately five inspectors who inspect
the work of a number of production and maintenance- employees, in-
struct new employees, and perform numerous assignments necessary to
maintain a steady flow in the production of the Company's finished
products. They have no authority to hire or discharge employees, and,
although a Company witness testified that they have authority effec-
tively to recommend such action, there is nothing in the record to show
that the Company has ever hired, discharged, or changed the status
of employees on the basis of a recommendation made by one of these
inspectors.' We have frequently held that inspectors having duties
similar to those here involved may participate in collective bargain-
ing, and have included them in units with production and maintenance
employees.5 No sufficient reason here appears why the inspectors may
not be so included.
One of the employees sought by the Union herein is employed prin-
cipally to change the dies on machines and to instruct new employees.
He was described at the hearing as a "die setter." Although he testified
at the hearing that he spent a portion of his time as an "assistant fore-
man," it is clear that his duties are not supervisory within the Board's
usual definition, and that he may properly be in in a unit with
other production and maintenance employees.6
Approximately four employees perform work of a clerical nature
in that part of the plant reserved for the Company's production work.
One of these employees is a' stockroom clerk, another is called a "con-
trol board clerk" and maintains a perpetual stock inventory, another
is called a "put-away man" and stores parts in the proper storage
space, and another keeps a record itemizing the weights and classifica-
tions of castings subsequent to the cleaning, grinding and inspection
operations and is known as the "scale man." While the duties of these
employees are clerical, the record indicates they are under the direc-
tion of the production department supervisors; that their work is
closely aligned to that of production employees; and that they are
physically separated from the clerical employees in the Company's
main office. We are of the opinion that these plant clerical employees
may properly be included in the existing production and mainte-
nance unit.'
One of the Company's employees is classified as a "timekeeper and
checker." His duties consist of keeping the time of about 30 produc-
4 Two additional employees in the cleaning department are classified as inspectors
These two employees are not involved in the proceeding inasmuch as the Company and the
Union have agreed heretofore to include them in the existing bargaining unit of production
and maintenance employees -
5 Matter of Industrial Rayon Corporation , 56 N L R B 547 and 1679 , and cases cited
therein See Matter of United Wall Paper Factories, 49 N L R B. 1424
See Matter of Ahlberg Bearing Company , 56 N L B B 320
See Matter of Aluminum Forgings , Inc, 53 N L R B 1054.
609591-45-vol. 5 8-t. 9
434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion employees in the steel fabricating department and performing
other miscellaneous clerical work. We are of the opinion that the
duties and interests of this employee are not sufficiently akin to those
of the production and maintenance workers as to warrant his inclu-
sion within the same bargaining unit."
In accordance with the foregoing considerations, we shall direct an
election among the inspectors, the die setter, and the plant clerical
employees, but excluding the timekeeper and checker, for whom the
Union petitions in this proceeding to determine whether or not they
wish to be represented by the Union. In the event that a majority of
their number select the Union as their collective bargaining repre-
sentative, they will have indicated their desire to be part of the appro-
priate unit presently represented by the Union, and will be part of
such unit.
Accordingly, we shall direct that the question concerning repre-
senta;tion, which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot
among the, inspectors, the die setter, and the plant clerical employees,
but excluding the timekeeper and checker, who were employed by
the Company during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations
and additions set forth in the Direction.
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
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRLCTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Dortch Stove
Works, Inc., Franklin, Tennessee, 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 Tenth R^giou, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among
the inspectors, the die setter, and the plant clerical employees, but
excluding the timekeeper and checker, in the Company's employ who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding'the
date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during
8 See Matter of Aluminum Forgtng.u, Inc, supra
DORTCH STOVE WORKS, INC. 435
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but
excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to
determine whether or not' they desire to be represented by United
Steelworkers of America ( CIO), for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining.
CHAIn .MMAN MiLias took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.