Hannifin Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 5, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 965 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of HANNIFIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 13-R-2845.-Decided May 5,1945
Fyffe d Clarke, by Mr. Albert J. Smith, of Chicago, Ill., for the
Company.
Mr. Jess Gonzales, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
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 Hannifin
Manufacturing Company, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the Com-
pany, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before John R. Hill, Trial Examiner. Said
hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on February 19, 1945. The
Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the close of the
hearing, the Company moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that
the Union had not shown a sufficient interest among its employees to
justify an election. For reasons stated in Section III, infra, the
motion is denied. 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
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Hannifin Manufacturing Company is engaged in the business of
manufacturing machinery and artillery components. It operates three
plants, two of which, known as plants 1 and 2, are located at Chicago,
61 N. L. R. B., No. 160.
965
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Illinois. The third plant is located at St. Marys, Ohio. Plants 1 and
2 are the only plants directly concerned in this proceeding.
The principal raw materials purchased by the Company for its
Chicago plants consist of iron, steel, copper, and brass. During the
calendar year 1944 the Company purchased, for plant 1, raw materials
valued in excess of $150,000, approximately 50 percent of which was
shipped to the plant from points outside Illinois and, for plant 2, raw
materials valued in excess of $150,000, approximately 5 percent of
which was shipped to plant 2 froni points outside Illinois. During the
same period, the Company manufactured and sold products finished
at plants 1 and 2, respectively, valued in excess of $200,000, approx-
imately 50 percent of which was in each case shipped to points outside
Illinois.
The Company admits that at each plant it is engaged in commerce,
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about January 10, 1945, the Union asked the Company for
recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of production
and maintenance employees at plants 1 and 2. The Company declined
to grant such recognition.
A statement prepared by a Field Examiner of the Board and intro-
duced into evidence at the hearing indicates that the Union represents
a substantial number of employees in each of the units hereinafter
found appropriate.'
1 The Union submitted to the Regional Office 205 authorization cards, of which 88 were
undated and the remaining dated between November 1944 and February 1945. Of these
cards, 48 bore the names of employees at plant 1, listing 168 employees in the proposed
unit as of February 17, 1945, and 119 bore the names of employees at plant 2, listing 358
employees in the proposed unit at the same date During the course of the hearing the
Union submitted 7 additional cards , 2 of which were dated in February 1945, and the
remaining undated -
During the course of the heanng. it developed that on 25 of the cards submitted by the
Union to the Regional Office, International Union of Mine , Mill & Smelter Workers. herein
called the Smelter Workers , and not the Union, was the labor organization designated as
bargaining representative ; that the Smelter Workers had previously begun and then
abandoned organization of the Company's employees, and that these cards were delivered
to the Union by the Smelter Workers when the latter organization waived jurisdiction over
employees at the Company's plants in t.u or of the Union The record does not indicate at
which of the 2 Chicago plants of the Company are employed the signers of the cards
designating the Smelter Workers. The Company contends that, under these circumstances
the cards submitted by the Union fail to indicate a sufficient interest among the Company's
employees to justify further procedure on the basis of the petition filed by the Union
We do not agree . In view of the limited and administrative purpose served by the sub-
HANNIFIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 967
We find that questions affecting commerce have 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 UNITS
The Union contends that production and maintenance employees
at plants 1 and 2 constitute a single bargaining unit or, in the alterna-
tive, that such employees at each of these plants constitute a separate
unit. The Company agrees with the latter position.
Plants 1 and 2 are located in Chicago, about 4 blocks apart. The
Company's executives and its general office are located at plant 1. The
executives have general jurisdiction over all three plants of the Com-
pany, the two plants at Chicago and the one plant at St. Marys, Ohio,
and office employees within the general office are allotted to office work
particularly limited to one or another of the plants. The Company's
plant at St. Marys, Ohio, is not directly concerned in this proceeding.
Plants 1 and 2 are conducted as separate administrative units under
separate direct supervision. They differ in product. Plant 1 is en-
gaged in the manufacture of heavy machinery, the Company' s regular
commercial product, a part of which is sold to the Government under
contract. Plant 2 is engaged exclusively in ordnance work for Gov-
ernment use. Neither raw materials nor finished products are sent
from one plant to the other. In 1941, when operations were begun
at plant 2, a small nucleus of employees was transferred to the new
plant from plant 1. Such employees have, for the most part, now
become supervisors at plant 2. There is no present interchange of
employees between the two plants. Under these circumstances, we
find that production and maintenance employees at plant 1 and at
plant 2, respectively, constitute separate bargaining units.,
On the contingency that the Board should decide that employees at
the two plants should constitute separate bargaining units, the Com-
pany and the Union agreed with respect to classifications of employees
properly to be included in such units. In accordance with the sub-
stantial agreement of the parties, we accordingly find that the follow-
ing groups of employees constitute, respectively, separate units appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
mission of authorization cards by a petitioning union, we are of the opinion that a sufficient
number of employees In the appropriate units have indicated a desire for collective
bargaining and that there is a reasonable possibility that the Company's employees will
designate a bargaining representative if an opportunity is given them to do so. Since
the full name of the petitioning union and no other name will appear upon the ballot, there
will arise no misunderstanding on the part of the employees who participate in the elec-
tions with respect to the identity of the labor organization they may designate as their
bargaining representative.
2 Matter of Timm Aircraft Company, 48 N. L . R. B. 505.
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(1) All production and maintenance employees of the Company at
plant 1, including group leaders, but excluding office and clerical em-
ployees, engineering department employees, guards, the factory man-
ager, general foremen, foremen and assistant foremen, and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis-
cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action ; and
(2) All production and maintenance employees of the Company at
plant 2, including group leaders, but excluding office and clerical em-
ployees, engineering department employees, dispatch clerks, chief dis-
patcher, timekeeper, the receiving-room helper doing clerical work,.'
factory manager, superintendent, general foremen, foremen, chief
inspector, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among
the employees in the units respectively found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of the Direction of Elections, herein, subject to
the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.4
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
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 Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Hannifin Manu-
facturing Company, Chicago, Illinois, separate elections by secret bal-
lot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30)
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, acting in
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and sub-
ject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations„
among the employees in the units respectively found appropriate in
Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
3 Phillis Catanese occupied this position at the time of the hearing Other persons
classed as receiving -room helpers are engaged in manual work.
4 The Union requests that it be designated on the ballot as United Steelworkers of
America, CIO We shall grant the request.
HANNIFIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY r 969
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 election, to determine whether or not they desire to
be represented by United Steelworkers of America, CIO, for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
MR. JOHN M. Hous,rox took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.