International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 1310 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, LOUISVILLE
WORKS, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS AND FOUNDRY
WORKERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. L., PETITIONER
In the, Matter Of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, FOUNDRY
WORKS, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, A. F. L., LOCAL No. 369, PETITIONER
Cases Nos . 9-RC-141 and 9-RC-464, respectively .Decided
September 14, 1949
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed and consolidated, hearing in these cases
was held on June 1, 1949, before William Naimark, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and
Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
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.
4. The Molders seeks a unit of production employees at the Em-
ployer's Louisville, Kentucky, foundry. It would not include main-
tenance employees. The I. B. E. W. seeks a unit of all cab crane
operators in the Louisville foundry.
' The United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of Americg , C. I. 0.,
and the United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, C . I. 0., were allowed to
intervene at the hearing.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 217.
1310
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 1311
The Employer moved to dismiss both petitions at the end of the
hearing, contending that only an "all-embrasive" unit is appropriate
in an integrated, mechanized foundry such as the one in question, and
that an election should not be directed earlier than September 1, 1949,
when it anticipates that 50 percent of the employees "to be employed
at the Louisville Foundry" will be in the employ of the Company:
The Employer's foundry at Louisville, which is a separate one-story
building about 1,000 feet from its Louisville manufacturing building,
started operating in January 1949. It was stated at the hearing that
completion of the foundry construction was anticipated in late June
or July 1949. As of the date of the hearing the Employer had on its
pay roll 258 production employees, including 4 crane operators, plus 1
maintenance employee and 27 pattern makers, the latter already bar-
gained for separately. Maintenance work in the foundry was being
done by the contractor, who was employing for this purpose elec-
tricians, iron workers, pipe fitters, sheet metal workers, millwrights,
carpenters, painters, laborers, and truck drivers. Almgren, the indus-
trial relations manager for the Employer, testified that the Employer
would probably begin doing some of its own maintenance work the
latter part of June, dropping some of the classifications of employees
employed by the contractor and adding a few others. He stated that
the Company will probably have about 75 maintenance employees in
September.
The foundry makes grey iron castings for the 3 types of farm tractors
manufactured at its Louisville Works. A superintendent is in charge
of the foundry; there are also an assistant superintendent and a foundry
maintenance engineer. Eight departments make up the foundry,
each with a general foreman, foreman, and assistant foreman : melting
department, employing at the time of the hearing 28 hourly paid em-
ployees, including crane operators, cupola tenders, cupola repair-
men, ladle repairmen, laborers, truck drivers, and sand mullers; core
room, employing 55 on a piecework basis, including core oven tenders,
learners, core machine operators, learner on core room crane, laborers,
and truck drivers; molding department, employing 90 on a piecework
basis, including sand muller operators, learners, molder squeezers,
testers molding sand, truck drivers, and laborers; mill (cleaning) de-
partment, employing 43 on both hourly and piecework, including hot
blast operator, tool crib attendant, mill operator tumbler, grinders,
chippers, and truck drivers; inspection and salvage department, em-
ploying 9 on an hourly basis, consisting of inspectors and laborers;
foundry labor department, employing 33 on an hourly basis, all of
whom are laborers; maintenance department, with only 1 employee
1312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the time of the hearing, classified as a repairman of all types of
equipment ; pattern shop , employing 27.
All the foundry employees have the same vacation benefits, use
common parking and locker facilities , and work the same 7 to 3: 30
shift, except a few cupola tenders who come in early to get the cupolas
fired. Almgren stated that a second shift was planned , with a third
shift for maintenance . He also stated that although no additional
departments were contemplated , additional classifications of produc-
tion employees were. Concerning each of the additional classifications
given as examples , however, the Molders later produced testimony by
employees that the foundry was already employing someone in that
capacity at the time of the hearing . Also, a representative of the Mold-
ers testified that at a conference held with representatives of the Em-
ployer in April 1949, the latter conceded that the expected foundry
expansion would simply mean more men in established classifications.
Plans for the foundry were made by the Employer in February
. 1946, having in mind a total employee complement of 1,500. Almgren
testified that the Employer expected an employee complement of 750
by September 1949, all of whom would be needed to supply castings for
the Louisville Works, then producing 200 tractors a day and expecting
to produce 437. Almgren also stated that a full complement of 1,500
was anticipated by January 1950, and that castings for equipment
manufactured at other plants of the Employer "may be made" in the
Louisville Foundry when full employment is reached.
The Molders introduced in evidence a letter from the Louisville
Works Manager addressed to "All Louisville Works Employees ," dated
May 6, 1949 , advising them of a change in business conditions since
the previous year, and stating that dealers were no longer "begging"
for equipment and a large backlog of unsold tractors was on hand. The
letter also advised the necessity of all employees striving for greater
efficiency so that the Company could meet competition with quality
tractors and maintain full production at Louisville . On cross-exami-
nation by the Molders the Employer admitted that "the Company"
had a "temporary no work condition " as of May 11 , affecting 3,400
employees , but stated that it had "called back all but 1,700."
It is apparent from the record that the foundry employee comple-
ment, which had gradually increased since January 1949, was at the
time of the hearing a representative and substantial segment of the
working force that the Employer contemplated having shortly after
the expected completion of the plant in June or July 1949. In addi-
tion it appears that the Employer recognized that a more competitive
market existed in May 1949 than obtained when plans for this foundry
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 1313
were made; hence the Employer's estimates of the number of employees
to be employed in the future appear uncertain of fulfillment. In view
of the representative and substantial character of the foundry work
force at the time of the hearing and the uncertainty of its expansion
we shall direct an immediate election in the unit found appropriate.2
The unit requested by the I. E. B. W.
With respect to the requested unit of cab crane operators, the Em-
ployer contends that not only should there be no distinction among
types of crane operators, but that crane operators are included in
industrial units at all of its plants. It appears that the I. B. E. W.
would include only the cab crane operators in the melting department;
of whom there were three or four employed at the time of the hearing,
and those in the core room where only a learner was employed at the
time of the hearing but it is expected that six operators will be em-
ployed. Thus they want only the operators of the large cranes which
place materials in the bins and hoppers in the melting department,
but not the operators of the charging cranes, which move the buckets
to the cupola. Likewise in the core room they want only the operators
of the monorail cranes that move core sand from a core muller to the
hoppers where the core-makers are stationed, but not the operators
of the hot metal carriers. These crane operators requested are super-
vised in the respective departments in which they work. Within
departments they may be shifted to other work. No knowledge of
electricity is required for the work, the cranes being operated by
manipulating levers or buttons in a manner similar to driving an
automobile. The Employer tries to hire experienced operators for
these jobs because an irresponsible person can retard production or
cause injury, and the evidence indicates that those now employed are
experienced and previously worked for the contractor. However,
the Employer contends that it can train a new employee in 1 to 3
weeks. From these facts we conclude that the employees petitioned
for cannot be considered skilled, and do not constitute a well defined
craft or functionally cohesive group.' Accordingly we shall dismiss
7 Matter of Ford Motor Co., Canton Forge Plant, 80 N . L. R. B. 1094 ; see also Matter
of Hurley Machine Division of Electric Household Utilities Corp ., 64 N. L . R. B. 1.181, in
which the Board observed that the group of employees which was to be expanded when
equipment could be procured was operating the foundry and therefore was "a sufficiently
substantial and representative group " in which to hold an election.
3 Matter of Bethlehem -Hingham Shipyard, Inc., 54 N . L. R. B. 631 ; Matter of Douglas
Aircraft Co., 54 N. L. R. B. 67; Matter of Sheffield Steel Corp. of Texas, 43 N. L. It. B.
956. Note also cases in which the Board has not included cranemen in requested units
of electrical workers: Matter of Air Products Inc., 61 N . L. It. B. 943 ; Matter of Ameri-
can Manganese Steel Div ., 50 N. L . It. B. 475 ; Matter of Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 49
N. L. It. B . 445, in which crane operators who train in a 10- to 15 -week period were not
considered skilled . Compare Matter of American Locomotive Co., 45 N. L . It. B. 1239;
Matter of Westinghouse Elec. S Mfg . Co., 53 N. L . It. B. 1.
1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the petition of the I. B. E. W. We think that these employees are
appropriately to be included in the foundry unit sought by the
Molders.'
The unit requested by the Molders
The Molders customarily seeks a unit of all foundry employees,
including maintenance employees unless the latter are already repre-
sented or are sought to be represented in a production and maintenance
unit 5 At the close of the hearing the Molders stated its willingness
to participate in an election among all the foundry employees includ-
ing the maintenance employees, as well as cab crane operators.
It appears that the maintenance workers, when employed at the
Louisville foundry, will work as a separate, third shift, and will be
separately supervised by the foundry maintenance engineer. So far as
the record indicates, however, they will do maintenance work only for
the foundry and not for the manufacturing portion of the Employer's
Louisville Works. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that
a unit of foundry production and maintenance employees is an ap-
propriate one.
We find that all production and maintenance employees in the
foundry of the Employer at the Louisville Works, including cab crane
operators but excluding pattern makers, guards, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and
certification of representatives filed in Case No. 9-RC-464 by the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., Local No.
369, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than forty
"Matter of Joh nson City Foundry, 75 N. L. It. B. 475; Matter of American Manganese
Steel Div., above.
5 chatter of Saclts-Rarlow Fornrdries, Inc., 79 N. L. It. B. 327, and cases cited in footnote
3 of that case. In Matter of Copper Clad Malleable Range Co., 77 N. L. R. B. 250, main-
tenance employees who worked both in the foundry and the enamel shop were excluded
from the foundry unit as not "peculiarly identified with the foundry."
"Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval
thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 1315
(40) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case
was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding October
14, 1949, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll
period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but
excluding temporary employees and those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by
International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North Amer-
ica, A. F. L., United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, C. I. 0., United Farm Equipment and Metal
Workers of America, C. I. 0., or by none.
857829-50-vol. 85-84