Ferry Cap and Set Screw Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1949

82 N.L.R.B. 479 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of FERRY CAP AND SET SCREW CO., EMPLOYER and DIS-
TRICT 54, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 8-RC-355.-Decided March 29, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a 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.*
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. District 54, International Association of Machinists, herein called
the Petitioner, is an unaffiliated labor organization claiming to rep-
resent employees of the Employer.
Federal Labor Union, Local 19468, herein called the Intervenor, is a
labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represeitt;-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all the production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's Cleveland, Ohio, plant, excluding
office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors. The Intervenor seeks to represent a unit of the em-
ployees in the shipping and receiving, packing or stockroom, inspec-
.Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock.
I At the hearing , the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition , alleging that the Peti-
tioner was fronting for its Lodge No. 233 , which was not in compliance with Section 9
(f), (g), and ( h) of the Act. This motion was referred to the Board. As evidence
of such compliance is an administrative , matter, and as we are satisfied that both the
Petitioner and Lodge No. 233 are at present in compliance , the motion is hereby denied.
82 N. L . R. B., No. 54. 479
480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion, heat treat, and general labor departments, as well as sweepers,
truckers, and clean-up men who are assigned to various departments
in the plant .2
The Employer takes no position on the unit question.
The Intervenor contends that it has for several years represented
the majority of the employees 3 in the departments and categories set
forth in its proposed unit, and that the unit it seeks is a homogeneous,
identifiable group composed of all the unskilled employees in the
plant. However, the sweepers, truckers, and clean-up men work
throughout the plant in various departments, such as heading, trim-
ming, punch press, pointing, shaving, roller, cut thread, and milling,
drilling, and grinding, and they are responsible to the foremen of their
respective departments. In most departments of the plant, there are
a few skilled employees and a larger number of unskilled or semi-
skilled machine operators and helpers. There is one basic hourly rate
of pay for all unskilled employees. They all have a similar vacation
program, and, in the event of a reduction in force, both departmental
and plant-wide seniority is taken into consideration. The depart-
ments sought by the Intervenor are unrelated in themselves, but are
integral parts of the Employer's production process. There is some
interchange of personnel between departments. We find no basis.for
separating the employees sought by the Intervenor from the remaining
employees in the plant, and accordingly find the unit sought by the
Intervenor to be inappropriate.
The Petitioner contends that assistant foremen should be included
in the production and maintenance unit. The Employer and the
Intervenor contend that assistant foremen are supervisors and should
be excluded from any unit found appropriate.
There are 5 assistant foremen in the plant. They are paid 20 to
25 percent more than the most skilled employees in their departments.
Although they are paid on an hourly basis, as are production workers,
they do not receive incentive bonuses, as do the production employees.
It was estimated that they spend approximately 20 percent of their
time doing production work. The foreman and assistant foreman in
the milling, drilling, and grinding department are in charge of ap-
proximately 75 employees. The assistant foreman in this department
assigns work and may make effective recommendations with regard to
transfers or discharges. In the heat treating department, there is an
assistant foreman in charge of the 20 employees on the second shift,
8 The Intervenor requested that its name be placed on the ballot for the production
and maintenance unit in the event the Board finds that to be the only appropriate unit.
7 The Employer had recognized and bargained with the Petitioner and the Intervenor for
their respective members since 1933, and had executed joint union -shop contracts with
them , but with no clearly defined jurisdictional lines. The last of these contracts was
tolled in April 1948 by communications from both organizations to the Employer.
FERRY CAP AND SET SCREW CO . 481
and an assistant foreman in charge of the 12 employees on the third
shift. Both of these assistant foremen have discharged employees.
In the inspection department there are 25 employees supervised by a
foreman and an assistant foreman. The assistant foreman in this
department assigns work, prechecks it, advises the inspector what to
watch for, and makes effective recommendations to the foreman with
regard to the transfer of employees. The assistant foreman in the
acorn nut department was acting foreman at the time of the hearing,
the foreman having retired. From the foregoing facts, we find that
assistant foremen responsibly direct, and make effective recommenda-
tions concerning the employment status of, the employees in their
respective departments, and we shall therefore exclude them from the
unit as supervisors.
All the parties stipulated that any unit found appropriate should
include factory clericals in the departments covered by the unit, but
should exclude the outside truck driver and the spot laborer. Ac-
cordingly, we find that all the production and maintenance employees
at the Employer's Cleveland, Ohio, plant, including factory clericals,
but excluding the outside truck driver, the spot laborer, office and
clerical employees, guards, professional employees, assistant foremen,
and all other supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purpose of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election 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 Election, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior
to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to
be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by District 54,
International Association of Machinists, or by Federal Labor Union,
Local 19468, or by neither.