Fraser Furnace Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 637 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of FRASER FURNACE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and STOVE
MOUNTERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, A. F. L., PETI-
TIONER
Case No. 20-B-1732.-Decided February 14, 1947
Mr. Thomas E. Merritt, of Stockton,, Calif., for the Employer.
Mr. John D. Roberts, of San Francisco, Calif., for the Petitioner.
Messrs. J. Earl Coolc and Ray Seidner, both of San Francisco,
Calif., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Emil C. Farkas, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Stockton,
California, on August 2, 1946, before Charles Y. Latimer, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Fraser Furnace Company, a California corporation, is engaged at
its plant at Stockton, California, in the business of manufacturing gas
heating appliances. During the 6 months preceding the hearing the
Employer purchased raw materials valued at about $250,000, of which
approximately 80 percent represented shipments from points outside
the State of California. During the same period approximately 60
percent of the finished products manufactured by the Employer was
shipped to points outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
72N L II B,No.121
637
1-1
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 1
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 355, herein
called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer has refused to recognize the Petitioner as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer in the
alleged appropriate unit in view of the conflicting claim to certain of
the employees therein by the Intervenor, a coaflil i ate of the same parent
body.
The Employer has had collective bargaining relations with the
Petitioner and the Intervenor since 1936 and 1940, respectively. The
first collective bargaining agreement was entered into by the Employer
and the Petitioner in 1936 and covered virtually the same unit as is
now sought by the Petitioner. This bargaining relationship continued
until 1940. At that time, a jurisdictional dispute which had been
precipitated by the Intervenor's assertion of jurisdiction over all
employees of the Employer working on sheet metals of No. 10 U. S.
gauge, its equivalent or lighter, was settled by the two unions in a
conference held on January 9, 1940, with repi esentatives of the Metal
Trades Council at San Francisco. Thereafter, the Employer pro-
ceeded to bargain with both the Petitioner and the Intervenor for the
employees accorded by the agreement to their particular jurisdictions.
On January 17, 1940, the Employer entered into a collective bar-
gaining contract with the Intervenor, effective February 1, 1940, for an
initial period ending December 31, 1940, and containing a 90-day re-
newal clause. At an undisclosed date in 1940, the Employer also
executed a contract with the Petitioner for a period of 1 year and
containing a 30-day renewal clause. From that time. and coiltinuing
to the present, these contracts have been renewed annually.
On April 2, 1946, the Petitioner filed its petition herein, and on the
following day notified the Employer, by telegram, that it was in-
stituting this proceeding because "the Sheet Metal Workers Union has
1 Subsequent to the heailug the International Association of Nachinrsts, herein called
the IAM, filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of protecting its interests in the
Employter's tool and (he makers, maintenance machinists, journeymen machinists, helpers,
apprentices, and leadmen or working foremen, which emplol•ees were covered by its con-
tiact with the Emplovei of December 18, 1946 However, inasmuch as the parties hereto
have agreed to exclude these employees from the unit sought herein, we find it unnecessary
to pass upon the motion to ratci vene
FRASER- FURNACE COMPANY 639
not lived up to our agreement of 1940.',2 Thereafter, on April 4,
1946, the Employer entered into a collective bargaining agreement
with the intervenor covering the same employees as theretofore. This
contract was made effective retroactively to January 28, 1946, was for
an initial period expiring December 31, 1916, and provided for auto-
matic renewal for animal periods thereafter in the absence of written
notice to change given by either party to the other at least 30 days be-
fore the anniversary date of any year. This contract is not urged as a
bar to this, proceeding. Moreover, it is clear that under well-estab-
lished principles of the Board it cannot bar an election at this time. a
Under the foregoing circumstances and because it appears that effec-
tive resolution of the existing jurisdictional dispute between the Peti-
tioner and the Intervenor cannot be had without resort to the
Administrative processes of the Act, we shall proceed with the
i nvestlgati011.4
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the-meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Iv. TILE APPROPRIATE UNIT; TILE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
At the hearing the Petitioner sought a unit of all production and
maintenance employees, excluding office and clerical employees and
supervisory personnel. The Intervenor, however, contended that a
separate unit is appropriate for all employees engaged in the manu-
facture, fabrication, and assembling of gas furnaces, and working on
sheet metal of No. 10 U. S. gauge, its equivalent or lighter. The Em-
ployer took no position with respect to the appropriateness of the re-
quested units. Subsequent to the hearing and the motion of the TAM
to intervene,' it was stipulated by all the parties that all tool and die
makers, maintenance machinists, journeymen machinists, helpers, ap-
prentices, and leachnen or working foremen covered by the contract
entered into by the Employer and the International Association of
Machinists on December 18, 1946, should be excluded from the unit
or units hereinafter found appropriate.
In this connection it appears that on December 28, 1944, the Intervenor, by letter,
informed the San Francisco Labor Council that it was terminating the jurisdictional
agreement of January 9, 1940, and that all sheet metal work involving the manufacture,
fabrication or assembly of wain air furnaces, evaporated coolers, fans, and blowers would
theieafter be done by members of its union
3 Matter of Ste Creneaoeve Lime eC Quarry Company, 70 N L R B 1259 ; Matter of Fifth
Ave Shoe Corporation, 69 N L R B 400.
4 Matter of U. S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc, 71 N L R B 940 , Matter of Medwest Pi nrt-
rng Co , 58 N L R B 673, Matter of Con 1' Cu, ran Printing Company, 57 N L R lt,
L85 , Matter of The W II Kistler Stationery Company, 51 N L R B 978
5 See footnole 1, supra
7 31 2 42-47-vol 72-42
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The unit issue which has now arisen and with which we are herein
concerned, appears, for the most part, to be attributable to the break-
down of the 1940 jurisdictional agreement. As indicated above, the
Employer bargained with the Petitioner on a plant-wide basis from
1936 to 1940 and since that time has dealt with both the Petitioner
and the Intervenor on the basis of their jurisdictional settlement of
1940. The sheet metal workers, in the unit for which the Intervenor
has been the recognized bargaining representative, and whom it now
seeks, are well recognized and highly skilled craftsmen. They are
required to qualify for their trade by serving a period of apprentice-
ship, and are not inte'rchangeable with other employees. Indeed, the
unit as described herein by the Intervenor appears to conform to the
jurisdictional grant of that union from its parent organization.
In view of the foregoing circumstances and upon the entire record
in the case, we are persuaded that either a unit of production and
maintenance employees as requested by the Petitioner or two sepa-
rate units as urged by the Intervenor are appropriate. We shall,
therefore, make no final unit determination at this time but shall, in
part, be guided by the desires of the employees as expressed in the
elections directed hereinafter. If at such elections the employees of
both voting groups set forth below select the Petitioner, they will be
taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a single bargaining
unit; otherwise they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
constitute separate bargaining units.
Accordingly we shall direct separate elections by secret ballot among
the employees of the Employer in each of the following voting groups,
excluding office and clerical employees, tool and die makers, main-
tenance machinists, journeymen machinists, helpers, apprentices, lead-
men or working foremen (machinists), and all supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, subject to the limitatibns and additions set forth in the
Direction :
1. All employees engaged in the manufacture, fabrication, and as-
sembling of gas furnaces and working on sheet metal of No. 10 U. S.
gauge, its equivalent, or lighter;
2. All remaining production and maintenance employees.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Fraser Furnace Company,
Stockton, California, elections 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
FRASER FURNACE COMPANY 641
Director for the Twentieth Region, acting in this matter as agent for
the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55
and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 4, among the employees in the voting groups described
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 said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in
the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person
at the polls, 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 elections, (a) to determine whether employees in
Group 1, above, desire to be represented by Sheet Metal Workers Inter-
national Association, Local 355, A. F. L., or by Stove Mounters Inter-
national Union of America, A. F. L., for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither; and (b) to determine whether or not em-
ployees in Group 2, above, desire to be represented by Stove Mounters
International Union of America, A. F. L:, for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
1