Grand Sheet Metal Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1654 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The parties agree, and we find, that the following employees of
the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Keokuk, Iowa, plant, excluding clerical, salaried, laboratory, technical,
sales, and medical department employees and other office employees,
and all guards, professional employees and supervisors (including
leadmen and leadwomen), as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN FARMER and MEMBER PETERSON, dissenting :
We disagree with the majority's decision to direct an election on
the present petition.
Since the hearing in this case, the Petitioner's parent organization,
International Chemical Workers Union, AFL, notified the Board that
it had revoked the Petitioner's charter and that it desired to withdraw
the petition herein. A similar request, which the International had
made to the Regional Director before the hearing, was denied. Al-
though duly served with notice of this second request, the Petitioner
has filed no opposition. Moreover, the Board has been administra-
tively advised that a petition to decertify the Intervenor (Case No.
18-RD-130) has been filed by an employee, which appears to be sup-
ported by the same individuals supporting the petition in the instant
proceeding. In these circumstances, we believe that it would effect-
uate the policies of the Act to permit the withdrawal of the petition
herein and to proceed with the processing of the pending decertifica-
tion petition.
GRAND SHEET METAL PRODUUFS Co. and LOCAL 1150, UNITED ELEC-
TRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER . Case
No. 13-RC-4066. December 16, 1954
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Raymond A. Jacobson, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
'Local 713, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, herein referred to
as Intervenor, intervened.
110 NLRB No. 225.
GRAND SHEET METAL PRODUCTS CO. 1655
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of production employees of the Employer at the Safgard Divi-
sion 2 of the Employer's Melrose Park, Illinois, plant, within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
of production employees of the Employer at the Vidrio Division 3 of
Employer's Melrose Park, Illinois, plant within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The Petitioner
made its initial request for representation among employees at Saf-
gard on September 1, 1954, and filed a petition for those employees
on September 7. Thereafter on September 13 the employer and the
Intervenor entered into their current agreement for the employees at
Vidrio, effective for a 2-year period. At the hearing herein, Peti-
tioner for the first time sought to represent the employees at Vidrio.
Accordingly, as the contract for the employees antedated Petitioner's
alternative unit request which included the employees at Vidrio, it
effectively bars an election among these employees.
4. Petitioner primarily seeks to add the production employees in
Safgard (approximately 15 or 16 employees) to the production and
maintenance employees in Employer's Stamping Division 4 (400-480
employees) at Melrose Park whom it has represented, and currently
represents, under contract with Employer. As an alternative, Peti-
tioner requests an election covering a combined unit of production
employees of Safgard and production employees of Vidrio (approxi-
mately 30-35 employees).-' Intervenor and Employer maintain that
a unit of employees at Safgard alone is inappropriate and that the
appropriate unit consists of the employees of Safgard and Vidrio
combined. Hence, Intervenor and Employer would agree to the pro-
priety of adding the employees of Safgard to those in Vidrio for the
purpose of common representation.
Prior to October 1952, Stamping. Vidrio, and Safgard operated
as independent entities in the manufacture of metal products. Stamp-
ing produced various stamped and pressed metal products, whereas
Vidrio and Safgard manufactured dissimilar products such as elec-
trical appliances and specialties for use in the home and on the farm.
At that time Safgard was moved to the Melrose Park plant. Ap-
proximately 11/2 years later, Vidrio was also moved to Melrose Park.
After being moved, Safgard continued to function as in the past in
many respects although working side-by-side with Vidrio and Stamp-
ing separated only by screen fencing. However, in other respects, Saf-
gard started to become integrated with both Stamping and Vidrio.
2 Herein referred to as Safgard
3 Herein referred to as Vidrio.
4 Herein referred to as Stamping.
5 As we have found that there is a contract bar to an election among the employees at
Vidrio, an election in the combined unit is precluded at this time.
1656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For example, Safgard now uses the maintenance, personnel, and tool-
room departments and other facilities of Stamping. Safgard and
Vidrio now have a common superintendent; employees of Safgard
and Vidrio punch in together; and Safgard and Vidrio have a small
amount of interchange of work and employees at this time, and their
products are somewhat comparable. Qualifications of Safgard and
Vidrio employees and their rates of pay are now roughly comparable
also, and appear to be increasingly more uniform.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, we conclude that the em-
ployees of Safgard may properly be added either to the existing unit
of production and maintenance employees at Stamping, or to the
existing production unit at Vidrio.
In view of the foregoing, we shall make no final unit determination
at this time, but shall direct that the question concerning representa-
tion be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the employees
in the following voting group : All production employees in the Saf-
gard Division of the Employer's Melrose Park, Illinois, plant, exclud-
ing office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
If, in the election herein directed, a majority of the employees vote
for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to be combined with the unit of Stamping Division employees cur-
rently represented by the Petitioner and the Regional Director is in-
structed to issue a certification of results of election to this effect. If,.
on the other hand, a majority vote for the Intervenor, the employees
will be taken to have indicated their desire to be combined with the
unit of Vidrio Division employees currently represented by the In-
tervenor and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certificate
of results of election to that effect. If a majority vote for no union;
the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certificate of results of
election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
THE BRASS RAIL INC. and BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case NO>
2-RC-6768. December 16,1954
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Aaron Weissman, hearing
110 NLRB No. 255.