Grede Foundries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 8, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 1246 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC., IRON MOUNTAIN DIVISION,
EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIR-
CRAFT, AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO,
PETITIONER
Case No. 18-R-1887.-Decided April 8, 1948
Messrs. 0. S. Iloebreckx and William J. Grede, of Milwaukee, Wis.,
for the Employer.
Mr. John Sabol, of Ironwood, Mich., and Mr. Ivan Brown, of Iron
Mountain, Mich., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, in
accordance with its Rules and Regulations-Series 4, on June 24, 1947,
conducted a prehearing election among employees of the Employer, in
a unit alleged to be appropriate, to determine whether or not they
desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. The Tally of Ballots shows the results of the election
as follows :
Approximate number of eligible voters------------------------ 77
Void ballots------------------------------------------------ 0
Votes cast for the Petitioner--------------------------------- 35
Votes cast against the Petitioner----------------------------- 33
Valid votes counted----------------------------------------- 68
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------ 4
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots-------------------- 72
Thereafter, a hearing was held on July 9, 1947, at Iron Mountain,
Michigan, before Clarence A. Meter, hearing officer.:'
At the hearing the Employer moved to set aside the election on the
grounds (1) that the election was improperly held because, at the time
of the election, substantial issues existed between the parties, particu-
larly with respect to the appropriate unit; (2) that, although the
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-man panel consisting of Board Members Houston, Reynolds, and Gray.
76 N. L. R. B., No. 181.
1246
GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC. 1247
Regional Director lacked the necessary authority, he nevertheless de-
cided unit issues in dispute between the parties; and (3) that collusion
existed between the Petitioner and personnel in the Board's Regional
Office.
We find no merit in the contentions. The holding of the prehearing
election was a matter within the discretion of the Regional Director,
and in this case we do not perceive an improper exercise of that dis-
cretion. In this case, as in all cases, the Board, and not the Regional
Director, makes the necessary findings respecting all unit issues. The.
hearing was held for the express purposes of affording to the parties
an opportunity to state their views with respect to any issues between
them, and to supply the evidence necessary for resolution by the Board
of all such issues. Preliminary rulings made by the Regional Director,
therefore, are not binding on the Board 2 No evidence has been ad-
duced which establishes the collusion alleged, or shows any action taken
prior to the hearing prejudicial to the Employer's interests. Accord-
ingly, the Employer's motion is denied.3
The rulings made by the hearing officer 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
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Grede Foundries, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation with its principal
offices and place of business at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, operates a plant
at Kingsford, Michigan, which is designated as the Iron Mountain
Division. At its Iron Mountain Division, which is the only plant in-
volved in this proceeding, the Employer is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of gray iron castings.
2 See Matter of Wood Embly Brass Company , 70 N L. R. B. 1318, and Matter of The
Borden Company, 69 N. L. R B. 947.
1In its brief, and again in its motion filed on March 19, 1948, the Employer contends
that the prehearing election should be set aside on the further grounds (1) that no evidence
was adduced at the hearing indicating that the Petitioner had made a substantial showing
of interest before the prehearing election was held , and (2) that the prehearing election
is rendered invalid by the recent amendments to the Act. We find no merit in either con-
tention. The requirement that a prima facie showing of interest be made by a petitioning
party is a matter of administrative expedience , and cannot be made the subject of collateral
attack by an employer Matter of O. D Jennings d Company, 68 N. L. R. B. 516. Nor is
the validity of a prehearing election conducted before the effective date of the amendments
to the Act affected by such amendments . Matter of NAPA New York Warehouse, Inc, 75
N. L. R. B. 1269, and cases cited therein ; see also N. L. R. B. v. Whittenburg, et at,
165 F. ( 2d) 102 (C. C. A. 5).
1248 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
- During the first 6 months of 1947, the Employer purchased for its
Iron Mountain Division raw materials valued in excess of $150,000, of
which more than 90 percent was shipped to the plant from points out-
side the State of Michigan. During the same period, the Employer
manufactured at its Iron Mountain Division finished products valued
in excess of $125,000, of which more than 90 percent was shipped to
points outside the State of Michigan.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
nrithin the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the, Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.4
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refused to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties agreed at the hearing that production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Iron Mountain Division plant, including
watchmen, but excluding office clerical employees and supervisors, con-
stitute an appropriate unit. The parties disagree regarding the unit
placement of shop clericals and plant janitors, both of which categories
the Petitioner would include, and the Employer would exclude.
At the time of the election and at the time of the hearing, the Em-
ployer listed on its pay roll two employees whom it classified as shop
4 The original petition named the moving party as United Automobile Workers , C. I. 0,
Competitive Shop Department The proper and full name of the organizing labor organi-
zation, however , was placed on the ballots in the prehearing election and on the Notice of
Hearing thereafter issued At the hearing , the hearing officer, on his own motion and over
the Employer ' s objection , amended the petition so that the full name of the Petitioner
might be set forth therein as the party in interest Because the proper name of the Peti-
tioner appeared on the ballots , and any certification which may issue in this proceeding will
bear the name of the labor organization as it appears on the ballots , and it is clear that
there is no misunderstanding with respect to the identity of the only labor organization
concerned , we believe that the amendment was not prejudicial to the interests of either
party in this proceeding, or to the employees of the Employer.
GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC. 1249
clerical employees, a pattern storage clerk and a shipping clerk. The
pattern storage clerk spends a major portion of his time in production
work involving manual labor. In addition, the pattern storage clerk,
under the direction of the production manager, fills out a daily report,
from which the Employer compiles a record of its inventory and esti-
mates its manufacturing costs, and maintains a record of the patterns
which are used in the plant. The shipping clerk, who performs a small
amount of manual labor, spends the major portion of his time at a desk
situated in the foundry. He prepares bills of lading and other docu-
ments and records pertaining to the movement of the Employer's
products. Because both the pattern storage clerk and the shipping
clerk have interests which are substantially aligned with the interests
of production employees in the plant, we shall, in accordance with our
usual treatment, include both categories in the production and main-
tenance unit.,'
At the time of the hearing, the Employer contemplated the employ-
ment of plant janitors and additional categories of shop clerical em-
ployees. These additions, however, have not been effected. Accord-
ingly, we shall make no specific unit finding with respect to the contem-
plated job categories at this time. If at some future date additional
job classifications are added to the pay roll at the Iron Mountain plant,
and a dispute arises with respect to them, we will, upon proper motion,
determine their unit placement with reference to the unit found ap-
propriate in this proceeding.
The duties of the Employer's watchmen require them to protect the
plant property against employees and other persons. Although the
parties agree that watchmen should be included in the unit, we shall,
in accordance with the provisions of the Act,6 exclude watchmen as
guards from the production and maintenance unit.'
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Iron Mountain Division plant, including the pattern storage
clerk and the shipping clerk, but excluding office clerical employees,
watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5 Matter o f W. C. Norris Manufacturer, Inc, 73 N L. R. B 838, Matter of Goodman
Manufacturing Company, 58 N. L R B 531.
e Section 9 (b) (3) of the amended Act states in pertinent part: "the Board shall not
decide that any unit is appiopriate . . if it includes together with other employees,
any individual employed as a guard to enforce against employees and other persons rules to
protect property of the employer
7 Matter of C V. Hill t Company, Inc., 76 N L . R B. 158.
1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
As noted above, a prehearing election in this proceeding was held on
June 24, 1947, among employees in the unit found appropriate above.$
The Tally of Ballots shows that of 72 ballots cast, 35 were for, and 33
against, the Petitioner, and that 4 ballots were challenged.
A. The motion to dismiss
On March 19, 1948, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on
the grounds that approximately 9 months have elapsed since the hold-
ing of the prehearing election, and that the election therefore does not
reflect the present desires of its employees. In support of its motion,
the Employer recites that there has been a turn-over of approximately
25 percent of its employees since the prehearing election, and that a
change has been effected in its management organization.
It is true that, because of unavoidable delay in processing this case,
9 months have intervened since the prehearing election. We note,
however, that a representative group of employees participated in the
prehearing election; that the number of employees at the plant has
remained almost constant; that the turn-over among employees has not
been unusually large; and that the changes in management organiza-
tion have not had any substantial effect on the general working condi-
tions of non-supervisory employees. Under these circumstances, we
believe that we should proceed with the determination of representa-
tives. Accordingly, the Employer's motion is denied.
B. The Employer's objections
At the hearing, and in its brief, the Employer objected to the conduct
of the election, and requested that the Board set aside the election.
The Employer contends that the election was defective (1) because
the Employer was not represented at the election by an authorized
observer, and (2) because the election results were improperly tallied.
Although the Employer did not assent to the propriety of holding
a prehearing election in this proceeding, it offered to cooperate with
the Regional Director by making plant space available and by provid-
ing a pay roll. When the Board agent requested the Employer's
president to designate an observer, one Haberman, the Employer's
production manager and supervisor of standards, was made available
"in the spirit of cooperation," with the reservation that the Employer
8 Watchmen , whom we exclude from the unit , did not participate in the balloting by
ruling of the Regional Director.
GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC. 1251
was not thereby to be deemed as "participating" in the election. The
Employer 's president , however, instructed Haberman to challenge
certain employees in the event that the Petitioner challenged em-
ployees in comparable categories . After the balloting , Haberman,
signing "for Grede Foundries , Inc.," certified the validity of the con-
duct of the election.
The Board agent opened the ballots cast in the presence of certain
of the Employer 's supervisory and managerial personnel , including
the Employer 's president . As he opened the ballots , he separated
them into two piles , and announced the votes . The observer for the
Petitioner tallied the "no" votes, and Haberman tallied the "yes " votes.
Haberman and the observer for the Petitioner were then each given
a separate stack of ballots to check. Haberman was given the stack
of "no" ballots. The Employer now specifically objects to the conduct
of the election based on the fact that Haberman did not examine the
stack of "yes" ballots, which contained the votes he had tallied.
We find the Employer's contentions without merit. Whether or
not Haberman was a "duly authorized" observer for the Employer,
the latter was admittedly afforded the opportunity of appointing such
an observer and having one present at the election . Although Haber-
man, under the better practice , would have examined both the "no"
and the "yes" ballots, no evidence was introduced to show that he
desired, and was denied , an opportunity of viewing all the ballots.
In fact, neither Haberman nor any of the Employer 's other man-
agerial and supervisory employees , who were present at the tallying
of the ballots, specifically requested or even indicated that Haberman
should be permitted to examine the "yes " ballots, or protested when
he did not . Under all the circumstances , accordingly , we do not
believe that the tallying of the ballots in the prehearing election
constitutes such irregularity as to warrant setting aside the election.
C. Challenges
The Employer and the Petitioner each challenged two of the four
challenged voters, the Employer challenging the ballots of Lee St.
Arnauld and Edward Ries, and the Petitioner challenging the ballots
of Howard Weecks, and William Bornfleth, Jr.
At the hearing the Petitioner withdrew its challenge to the ballot
of Weecks, who acts as the Employer's shipping clerk. Because Weecks
was employed in an eligible category at the time of the election, we
find that he is an eligible voter and that his ballot is valid.
St. Arnauld was employed as a pattern storage clerk and was chal-
lenged on the ground that he was a shop clerical employee. In
781902-48-vol. 76-80
1252 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
accordance with our unit finding above, which includes the pattern
storage clerk in the unit, the challenge to St. Arnauld's ballot is over-
ruled, and his ballot is declared valid.5
Ries was challenged on the ground that he was a supervisor. Ries
is listed on the Employer's pay roll as a cupola tender and super-
visor. He is responsible for the operations of the cupola, and approxi-
mately five men work under his direction. Two of these amen assist
Ries in his work around the cupola, and three of the men work outside
the foundry in a charging room where the "mix" of the metals for the
cupola charge is prepared. Ries spends most of his time in the per-
formance of hard manual labor, which requires a considerable amount
of skill. He receives a wage of $1.16 per hour, as compared with a
rate of $1.05 which is the highest rate received by any employee
working under Ries' direction. Although he has not exercised the
power, Ries has the power to hire and discharge other employees.
Ries also has the power to recommend wage increases for the em-
ployees working under his direction, and, in one instance, his recom-
mendation was acted upon favorably by the Employer. We are of the
opinion that Ries is a supervisor as defined in the Act. Accordingly,
the challenge to Ries' ballot is sustained, and the ballot is declared
invalid and it shall not be counted.
Bornfleth was also challenged on the ground that he exercised
supervisory powers. Eligibility to vote, in the prehearing, election
conducted on June 24, 1947, was determined according to the Em-
ployer's pay roll for the period ending June 14, 1947.
Bornfleth was hired by the Employer in early May 1947, for a period
of training. If he proved satisfactory, he was to become foreman
in the foundry core room. On and before June 14, 1947, Bornfleth
worked in the core room where he mixed cement, made cores, and
performed other manual labor. Bornfleth was paid an hourly rate
of $1.10 per hour. The wage paid to the approximately 15 non-
supervisory employees in the core room at that time varied from
$.85 to $1.95 per hour. As part of his duties during his training
period, Bornfleth transmitted the foreman's order to his fellow em-
ployees. He had no power to discipline, discharge, or to recommend
changes in the status of other employees in the core room. Oil July'3,
1947, after the election, Bornfleth was made foreman of the core room.
In its motion to dismiss the petition , the Employer asserts that the position of pattern
storage clerk has been discontinued since the election The eligibility of St . Ainauld to
vote in the election is not affected by this change , because , on the basis of our views
expressed above , and under our usual eligibility rules, St. Arnauld was an eligible voter
at the time of the election
GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC. 1253
Because it appears that on June 14, 1947, the date which is material
-with respect to the issue of his status, Bornfleth was a trainee engaged
in production work,.and at that time had not been given or assured
of supervisory powers, we find that on the eligibility date Bornfleth
was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act."' Accordingly,
the challenge to Bornfleth's ballot is overruled, and the ballot is de-
-Glared valid.
It appears that the counting of the valid ballots of Weecks, St.
Arnauld, and Bornfleth may affect the outcome of the election, and we
shall direct that their ballots be opened and counted.
DIRECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Grede Foundries , Inc., Iron
Mountain Division , Kingsford , Michigan, the Regional Director for
the Eighteenth Region shall , pursuant to the Rules and Regulations
of the Board , within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the ballots of Lee St. Arnauld , Howard Weecks, and
William Bornfleth , Jr.; and thereafter prepare and cause to be served
upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots embodying therein his
findings as to the outcome of the election ; and take such further steps
in the investigation as may be necessary in accordance with the Rules
and Regulations of the Board.
MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction.
10 Matter of The Plaster Corporation, 72 N L. R B 1341 ; Matter of Bell anti Howell
Company, 49 N. L R. B. 42.