Hupp Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 561 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

GIBSON REFRIGERATOR COMPANY 561
to different tasks. Under the circumstances, we find that the plastic
supervisors are supervisors.2 We shall accordingly exclude them
from the unit.
The group leaders, of whom there are 10, work in the garden hose
assembly department which employs a normal complement of 30
employees. The employees in this department assemble, cut mate-
rials to their proper length, coil, tie, wind, and pack the finished
product. The record discloses that the group leaders spend approxi-
mately 98 percent of their time in the performance of fitting, coupling,
measuring, and winding operations. The remainder of their time is
spent in the routine assignment and direction of employees in their
section. They possess no authority to hire, discharge, or otherwise
affect the terms and conditions of employees in this section. In view
of the foregoing, we find that the group leaders are not supervisors.3
We shall therefore include them in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that a unit of all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's plant in Pawtucket, Rhode Island,
including the shipping clerk, the receiving clerk, shipping and receiv-
ing employees, and group leaders, but excluding truckdrivers, truck
mechanics, warehouse employees, warehouse shipping and receiving
employees, office clerical employees, laboratory technicians, guards,
the plastic supervisors, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 See Plastic Molding Corporation, 112 NLRB 179, 181-182.
3 See Eagle Iron and Brass Company, 110 NLRB 747, 748, footnote 2; Gary Steel Prod-
ucts Corporation, 116 NLRB 1192.
Gibson Refrigerator Company Division of Hupp Corporation and
International Union, Association of Tool Craftsmen, NITC,
Petitioner . Case No. 7-RC-3290. March 8,1957
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 Myron K. Scott, hearing of-
ficer. 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,orgauzations involved herein claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
117 NLRB No. 86.
423784-57-vol. 117 37
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer and the Intervenor, International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 137, hereinafter referred to as the
UAW, contend that their current contract constitutes a bar to this
proceeding. Their motion to dismiss on this ground and on the
UAW's further ground that the unit proposed is inappropriate was re-
ferred to the Board by the hearing officer. For reasons hereinafter
stated, we deny the motion.
The UAW has had contracts covering the production and main-
tenance employees with the Employer for many years. The last con-
tract which was renewable annually contained the usual 60-day
automatic renewal provision and expired August 31,1956. The negoti-
ations for a new contract began sometime prior to the expiration of the
old contract. Not being able to reach an agreement, the parties agreed
to extend the contract on a day-to-day basis pending completion of the
negotiations. Agreement was reached on Friday, September 14, at
which time a memorandum 1 on the terms of the new contract was pre-
pared but was not signed or initialed by the parties.
The memorandum was submitted to the Intervenor's membership
Saturday morning, September 15, when it was ratified, and the Em-
ployer was notified of this fact. The attorney for the Employer was
out of town on September 17 and 18. When he returned on September
19, he had the new formal agreement drafted, following which it was
submitted to the Employer on the 20th, and the document executed on
the 21st. In the meantime, on Monday morning, September 17, the
Petitioner made its demand for recognition of a unit of tool- and die-
makers. The instant petition was filed September 25.
The UAW and the Employer, relying on our decisions in Natona
Mills, Inc.; 2 Oswego Falls Corp.,' and Mervin Wave Clip Company,
Inc.,4 urge that the memorandum agreement is a bar to this proceeding
The memorandum recites the following :
1 Freeze 1¢ cost of living
2. Change cost of living schedule to read : 117.1 or below=none ; 117.2-117.6=1¢ ;
1177-1181= 20; 118.2-118 6=30; 118.7-119. 1=4¢ and so forth with It increase
for each 5 point change in the Index.
3. Increase in insurance from $25 per week to $35 per week.
4. Eliminate reference to insurance carrier in present contract but guarantee that
new carrier will not mean reduced benefits
5. Extend present contract ( as is except as changed above ) with a provision for
a G¢ Annual Improvement Factor ( across the board) effective first pay period begin-
ning on or after Sept. 1, 1957; and with an additional 2¢ (effective same date) to
be spread on inequities, pensions , insurance or other fringes through negotiations
prior to Sept. 1, 1957.
6. Contract expiration date-Aug. 31, 1958
f 112 NLRB 236.
8110 NLRB 621.
' 114 NLRB 157.
GIBSON REFRIGERATOR COMPANY 563
on the ground that the parties believed they were bound by the memo-
randum and that nothing more was required to be, done except the
preparation of the formal document and its signing by the proper
authorities. We do not agree. A comparison of the facts in the
present case with those in the above-cited cases clearly shows that
the latter are inapplicable. In those cases, the record shows that while
the agreements had been neither signed nor initialed,5 certain im-
portant provisions such as those relating to checkoff, wages, and in-
surance benefits had been put into effect immediately. Under the cir-
cumstances, the Board found in each of the cases relied upon that the
unsigned agreement had sufficiently stabilized bargaining relations to
bar a representation proceeding. In the instant case, however, there
is no evidence that any of the provisions in the unsigned agreement
had been put into effect pending the execution of the final document.6
On the contrary, the final document recites that the effective date of the
.wage-rate adjustment, which was the main object of the agreement,
should be the first payroll period beginning or or after December 1,
1956, thus negating, any inference that such wage adjustment should
become effective immediately.
The record establishes that the Employer had actual knowledge of
the Petitioner's claim prior to the formal execution of the current con-
tract; furthermore it appears that no signed contract was entered into
prior to the Petitioner's claim to recognition and that the instant peti-
tion was filed within 10 days after the presentation of such claim.' Ac-
cordingly, we find that neither the unsigned agreement, nor the formal
contract executed in the interim period, may operate as a bar to an
election.8
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner's original request was for severance from the exist-
ing production and maintenance unit- of a group of craft employees
working on tools, dies, jigs, fixtures, etc., at the Employer's Greenville,
Michigan, plant. At the hearing, the petition was amended to add
8 Cf Bemis Bag Company . 97 NLRB 1 , where the Board found that an initialed agree-
ment was sufficiently executed to constitute a bar
9 At the hearing, the UAW's president testified with no hesitation that he believed the
parties operated under the old contract until the new one was finally and properly exe-
cuted On cross-examination , he stated that he was confused as to the real meaning of
the question put to him by Petitioner and that he meant to state the parties operated
under the memorandum agreement as soon as it was ratified . However , we find on the
basis of the record no credible evidence that any provisions of the memorandum agree-
went had been put into effect prior to the execution of the formal document
• 7 The filing of a petition within 10 days from the presentation of a timely claim for
representation satisfies the requirements of the General Electric X-Ray rule See General
Electric X-Ray Corp , 67 NLRB 997. The case of Spencer Kellogg R Sons , Inc, 115
NLRB 838, 839 , cited by the Intervenor is not applicable. In that case we held that
where the contracting parties execute a new contract during the "usual and natural"
period for doing so, viz, the Mill B period of their prior contract , the new contract will
bar a subsequent petition , even though a rival claim is made prior to the execution of the
contract and is followed by a petition within 10 days as ordinarily permitted by the
General Electric X-Ray rule In the instant case, the memorandum agreement on which
Intervenor relies was not executed during the Mill B period.
8 The Brewer-Ttitchener Corporation Crandal-Stone Division , 112 NLRB 518.
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
several toolroom machinists, cutter grinders, and tool bit grinders at
both the Greenville and Belding plants, the latter plant being some
9 miles from Greenville. In the alternative, the Petitioner would
accept a unit of tool and die departments at the two plants. The
Intervenor took the position that all the units requested are inappro-
priate for severance purposes.'
In its original petition, Petitioner sought a craft unit of tool- and
die-makers at the Greenville plant. The employees in this classifica-
tion are skilled craftsmen of the type to whom the Board customarily
grants severance. They are required to have a 4-year apprenticeship
program and have a separate specific seniority for their classification
which is not interchangeable with other classifications. They work
at close tolerance with micrometers, drill blocks, and feed blocks. We
find that these workers constitute a craft and may, if they so desire,
be separately represented as an appropriate unit.io
We shall direct an election among the following group of em-
ployees: All tool- and die-makers working on tools, dies, jigs, and
fixtures at the Employer's Greenville and Belding," Michigan, plants,
excluding all other employees, professional employees, guards, and all
supervisors, as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the above voting group vote for
the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con-
stitute a separate appropriate unit, which the Board finds under the
circumstances to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of rep-
resentatives to the Petitioner for such unit. In the event a majority
do not vote for the Petitioner, these employees shall remain a part of
the existing unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a
certification of results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MuRDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
9 The Intervenor urges that the petition should be dismissed for the further reason that
Petitioner is not the real party in interest , but that the Socley of Skilled Trades of Genesee
County, an organization not qualified to represent employees for severance purposes, is
the real petitioner We find no merit in this contention, as the evidence shows that the
proposed merger of the labor unions is presently in the formative stage We find, further-
more, that the Petitioner is qualified to represent craftsmen for severance purposes.
International Harvester Company, Farmall Works, 111 NLRB 606, 607.
19 Although, as indicated above, the Petitioner suggests two,alternatives to the original
unit requested, we find these alternative units inappropriate. In the first place, the
enlarged craft unit is clearly inappropriate as there is no evidence that the employees in
the added classifications are required to have an apprenticeship or other formal training
or that they otherwise qualify as skilled craftsmen. Moreover, the requested depart-
mental unit is likewise inappropriate as it covers only a segment of the employees within
the departments claimed as basis for such unit.
71 The original petition sought to represent tool- and die-makers only at the Greenville
plant However, as the amended petition seeks to include the tool- and die-makers who
work at the Belding plant and as it is clear that Petitioner 's showing of interest is suf-
ficient to cover the latter, we include them in the voting group for whom an election will
be directed.