Harnischfeger Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 252 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of HARNISCHFEGER CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 10
Case No. 13-R-3154.-Decided March 4, 1946
Mr. T. W. Korb, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the Company.
Mr. E. J. Reid, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. George Gratz, of Mil-
waukee, Wis., for the I. A. M.
Mr. John D. Giacomo, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the C. I. O.
Messrs. Padway efi Goldberg, by Mr. A. G. Goldberg, and Messrs. R.
J. Kendall, Harvey E. Anderson, and Louis Majtan, of Milwaukee,
Wis., for the Carpenters.
Mr. Sidney Grossman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Association of Machin-
ists, District No. 10, herein called I. A. M., alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Ilarnischfeger Corporation, Port Washington, Wisconsin,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board
provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Robert
T. Drake, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Port Washing-
ton and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on September 28, and October 9,
1945. The Company, the I. A. M., the United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0., herein called the C. I. 0., and the Carpenters District
Council of Milwaukee County and Vicinity, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. L., herein called the Car-
penters, appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Exam-
iner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to
file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
66 N. L . R. B., No. 26.
252
HARNISCHFEGER CORPORATION 2. 3
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Harnischfeger Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation, with its
principal offices and place of business at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, op-
erates various plants in Wisconsin and New Jersey. It principally
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of electric motors, electric
overhead cranes, hoists, are welders, welding positioners, power
shovels, trench machines, truck cranes, and welding electrodes. This
proceeding is concerned with the Company's Port Washington, Wis-
consin, plant, where the Company's Diesel engine division produces
Diesel motors and engines used in conjunction with and incorporated
into other products manufactured by the Company, and its houses
division manufactures pre-fabricated houses and parts of houses.
During the year 1944, the Company purchased raw materials for
use at its Wisconsin plants in excess of $10,000,000 in value, of which
approximately 75 percent was secured from sources outside the State
of Wisconsin. During the same period, the Company's gross sales
of products manufactured at the Wisconsin plants were in excess of
$30,000,000 in value, of which approximately 90 percent was shipped
to points outside the State of Wisconsin.
The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.'
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, District No. 10, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Carpenters District Council of Milwaukee County & Vicinity,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, is a labor
organization, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, ad-
mitting to membership employees of the Company.
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 QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On June 6, 1945, the I. A. M. addressed a letter to the Company
requesting therein recognition as the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative of the employees at the Company's Port Washington plant.
1 For the reasons stated in Section IV, infra, we shall not direct an election for the
pre-fabrication employees in the houses division , concerning which a jurisdictional issue
was raised by the Company at the time of the hearing.
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Company responded by letter dated June 12, 1945, in which it
refused to accord the I. A. M. recognition.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the I. A. M. represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The I. A. M. seeks to represent the employees of the Company's
houses division and Diesel engine division in a single unit, excluding
office, clerical, and supervisory employees. The C. I. 0. desires to
represent only the employees of the Diesel engine division, whereas
the Carpenters seeks a unit confined to pre-fabrication employees in
the houses division. The Company contends that a single unit com-
prising the employees of both divisions is inappropriate, but does
not oppose the-holding of an election for employees in the Diesel
engine division.
The Diesel engine division conducts its operations on the first floor
of the Port Washington plant. Under separate supervision, it manu-
factures products substantially different from those produced by the
houses division. It maintains independent records, employs separate
clerical personnel, and enjoys the use of separate lockers and other
facilities for its employees. Its production personnel possesses dif-
ferent skills from those of the houses division, and no interchange
takes place between the two groups. Under these circumstances, we
are of the opinion, in the absence of any history of collective bar-
gaining to the contrary, that the employees of the Diesel engine divi-
sion may constitute a separate appropriate unit apart from those
of the houses division.
As indicated above, the houses division is engaged in the manu-
facture of pre-fabricated houses and parts of houses. Since its in-
ception in the fall of 1943, its personnel requirements have been negli-
gible, because of the experimental nature of its operations. However,
the houses division now is prepared to engage in full production.
2 The Field Examiner reported that the I . A. M. submitted 21 authorization cards which
bore dates in May and June 1945 , in an alleged appropriate unit consisting of 29 em-
ployees. Of the cards submitted , 13 represented the names of employees in the unit
alleged by the C. I. O. to be appropriate . The cards were not checked against a company
pay roll. The Trial Examiner reported that at the hearing the C I. O. submitted 20
authorization cards, bearing the names of 19 persons on a company list of 25 employees
in the unit alleged by the C. I. 0 to be appropriate , and that the cards bore dates in
July and September 1945; and that the Carpenters submitted an application for a charter
filed with its parent organization, bearing the names of 13 persons on a company list
of 14 employees in the unit alleged to be appropriate by the Carpenters.
HARNISCHFEGER CORPORATION 255
The Company, therefore, anticipates a substantial increase in its
pre-fabrication personnel which will then require enlarged facilities.
The pre-fabrication employees obviously function as a homogeneous
group under separate supervision, and ordinarily we would find that
such employees might properly function as a separate unit. How-
ever, under the circumstances here disclosed, we are of the opinion
that an election at this time when less than 50 percent of the con-
templated group is employed would have little likelihood of reflect-
ing a representative choice.3 Accordingly, we shall not conduct any
election at this time among these employees. Our finding in this
respect, however is made without prejudice to the entertainment of a
new petition covering these employees at such time as a representa-
tive group will have been employed.4
Apprentices. The I. A. M. would include, and the C. I. O. and the
Company would exclude, the two indentured apprentices in the Diesel
engine division. These employees are minors employed by the Com-
pany under contracts of indenture between the Company and the
parents or guardians of the minors, subject to the approval of the
Industrial Commission of Wisconsin. Such employees are ordinarily
included in a production and maintenance unit; we shall include the
indentured apprentices.5
We find that all production and maintenance employees in the
Diesel engine division of the Company's Port Washington, Wiscon-
sin, plant, including indentured apprentices, but excluding office and
clerical employees, technical employees, and all supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the.
Direction.
S The Company plans to engage at least 100 employees in the houses division within the
immediate future.
4 See Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 54 N. L. R. B. 1029 ; Matter of Lukas-
Harold Corporation , 44 N. L. It. B. 730.
6 See Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 54 N. L. It. B. 1587.
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions 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 Harnischfeger
Corporation, Port Washington, Wisconsin, 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 Thirteenth Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among employees in the unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period imme-
diately 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 per-
son 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 they desire to
be represented by International Association of Machinists, District
No. 10, or by United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, or by neither.-
4 Inasmuch as the carpenters does not desire to represent the employees of the Diesel
engine division , we shall not accord it a place on the ballot