International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 5, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 212 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, TRACTOR
WORKS, EMPLOYER-PETITIONER and FARM' EQUIPMENT WORKERS
ASSOCIATION, DIVISION OF AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF IRON,
STEEL, AND TIN WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA, LODGE 1320, AFFIL-
IATED WITH THE CIO, UNION
In the Matter of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, TRACTOR
WORKS,' EMPLOYER and DISTRICT No. 8, INTERNATIONAL Asso-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 13-RM-64 and 13-RC-980.-Decided April 5, 1950
DECISION
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed, a hearing was held before Robert Acker-
berg; hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear=
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 2 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. The questions concerning representation :
a. The Employer filed a petition for an election to be conducted
among its production and maintenance employees, alleging that, due
to certain events, it is no longer able to identify the labor organiza-
tion that was certified by the Board or that is entitled to bargain
collectively on behalf of its employees.
On March 15, 1938, following an election directed by the Board,
Farm Equipment Workers Association, Division of Amalgamated
I The petition In this case referred to the Employer as "International Harvester Company,
Gas Power Engineering Division ." The record shows that the correct name is as indicated
above.
2 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 Reynolds , Murdock, and Styles.]
89 NLRB No. 26.
212
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 213
Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge
No. 1320, CIO, herein called Lodge 1320, was certified as the exclusive
bargaining representative for certain of the Employer's employees.3
Thereafter, the Employer entered into a series of bargaining con-
tracts with Lodge 1320 and several of its successors. The last of
the successor organizations, the formation of which is not in dispute,
was the United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America,
Local 101, CIO, herein called FE-CIO. On April 28, 1949, the
Employer and FE-CIO amended and extended their contract of
April 15, 1946, so that by its terms it will expire on June 30, 1950.
The events that occurred subsequent to April 28, 1949, are now impor-
tant in considering the Employer's petition.
In October 1949, a referendum of all members of all the locals
of United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America was
conducted to determine whether that organization should merge with
the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America,
herein called the UE. A large majority voted in favor of such merger
and both of these organizations became known as Farm Equipment
and Metal Workers Council of UE. On October 27, 1949, the latter
organization issued a charter to the FE-CIO group, which then
became FE Local 101, UE. On November 2, 1949, the CIO, at its
national convention, expelled the FE and UE. On November 9,
1949, in accordance with a formal resolution passed by a majority
of officers of the executive board of FE Local 101, UE, a referendum
was conducted among the membership of approximately 3,000 em-
ployees. Of the approximately 1,000 who voted, a large majority
was in favor of affiliating with the CIO. Each faction of the execu-
tive board, one claiming to represent the employees as Local 101,
FE-UE, and the other as Local 101, CIO, made demands upon the
Employer as the exclusive bargaining representative .4 The Employer
has met with both groups concerning grievances. . Because of the rival
claims, the Employer has suspended payments to either group, dues
which have been checked off in accordance with an existing bargaining
contract.
It is on the basis of the foregoing events that the Employer has re-
quested the Board to conduct an election. The joint position of Local
101, CIO, and UAW-CIO are in accord with that of the Employer.
Local 101, FE-UE contends that no election should be held because it
International Harvester Company, Tractor Works, 5 NLRB 192, 201.
Local 101, CIO, has applied for a charter from the United Automobile , Aircraft, and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, herein called the UAW-CIO. Although
no charter has been issued , the UAW-CIO has advised the Employer that it was the
successor to Local 101 , CIO. For ballot purposes , those organizations request their joint
appearance as Tractor Local, UAW-CIO.
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is satisfied that its identity is clear, that it has been administering,
the contract which does not expire until June 30, 1950, and that the
contract constitutes a bar to any election.
Upon consideration of the entire record, we find, for the reasons
stated by the Board majority in the Boston Machine case, that the
contract is not a bar to an immediate election.5
b. A further question concerning representation was raised by the
Pattern Makers League of North America, Chicago Association,
herein called the Pattern Makers; the Chicago Die Sinkers Lodge No.
100, International Die Sinkers Conference, herein called the Die
Sinkers; and District No. 8, International Association of Machinists,
herein called the IAM. These organizations assert that a contract
which is found to be no bar to an election in the production and mainte-
nance unit is also not a bar to an election in any segment of that unit.
All of the other parties, however, contend that although the contract
may not constitute a bar to an election in the larger unit, the contract
remains a bar to any election in a smaller group covered by that unit.
This issue has recently been decided in the Pratt c6 Letchworth
case.' For the reasons stated in that case, we find that there is no
contract bar to immediate elections in appropriate units that are en-
compassed within the production and maintenance group.' Accord-
ingly, we find that questions affecting commerce exist 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.
4. The appropriate units; the determination of representatives:
a. The IAM seeks to represent a group of approximately 300 em-
ployees who are comprised of blacksmiths, electricians, sheet metal
workers, machinists, janitors, laborers, production stockmen, and
several other classifications, and who work in the experimental engi-
neering department. This request is opposed by the Employer, Local
101, FE-UE, Local 101, CIO, and UAW-CIO on the ground that
the unit sought by the IAM is inappropriate.
The employees sought by the IAM have been represented in a pro-
duction and maintenance unit since 1938. It is evident that these em-
ployees constitute a heterogeneous group of multiskilled and un-
skilled workers. Moreover, the IAM does not seek to represent many
other employees who have the same classifications and perform similar
duties elsewhere in the plant. The Board has held that groups, as
the one requested by the IAM, may not be severed from an over-all
plant-wide unit for which established collective bargaining has been
Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59.
Pratt d Letchworth Co., Inc., 89 NLRB 124.
i Board Member Reynolds issued a dissenting opinion in the Pratt d Letchworth case, but
deems himself bound by the majority decision in that case.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 215
conducted. Accordingly, we find that the unit sought by the IAM is
.inappropriate and we shall dismiss its petition.'
b. The Pattern Makers seek to represent all metal patternmakers
and their apprentices, either in a separate unit or as part of an existing
unit of wood patternmakers. The Employer, Local 101, FE-UE,
Local 101,. CIO, and UAW-CIO, contend that the unit sought is
inappropriate because these employees are now a part of the produc-
tion and maintenance unit.
The record shows that the Pattern Makers is the bargaining repre-
sentative for'all wood patternmakers and their apprentices as the result
of a consent election held in November 1946.' The metal pattern-
'makers perform the usual duties of their craft and, like the wood
patternmakers, are required to serve a 4-year apprenticeship before
attaining journeyman status. In view of the similarity in their duties
and skills, the Board has found that wood and metal patternmakers
may constitute a single appropriate unit.10 Accordingly, we shall
direct that an election be held among all metal patternmakers and their
apprentices. If a majority of these employees select the Pattern
Makers as their bargaining representative, they may be represented
by the Pattern Makers for the purposes of collective bargaining as a
part of the unit of wood patternmakers it currently represents.
c. The Die Sinkers, as the result of a Board certification,ll currently
represents the following employees who work in the die shop : Die
sinkers and their apprentices, trimmer die makers and their appren-
tices, Keller Machine operators, upset die sinkers, edger men, and die
repairmen. It now seeks to represent, as part of the existing unit, the
remaining employees in the die shop who work on dies or parts of dies :
,all-around engine lathe operators, die lock men, planer hands, shaper
hands, drill press hands, turning impression die makers, and tool
shaper grinder hands. The Employer, Local 101, FE-UE, Local 101,
CIO, and UAW-CIO, contend that the unit sought by the Die Sinkers
is inappropriate because of the prior bargaining history.
The parties opposing the Die Sinkers' request argue that the classi-
fications of some of these employees are also used in other departments
of the Employer's operations and that they are now part of the larger
production and maintenance unit. The record shows, however, that
the other departments do not perform any work on dies or parts of
dies, Both groups of employees, the one now represented by the Die
'Armour and Company, 84 NLRB 813. In its brief, the IAM relied on international
Harvester Co. (Memphis, Tenn .), 82 NLRB 185, wherein the Board found appropriate a
similar unit as the one requested herein. In that case, however, such employees consti-
tuted the only group in the plant without bargaining representation.
'Case No. 13-R-4002.
" American Steel Foundries , 85 NLRB 19 ; Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Company, 74 NLRB 603.
2137 NLRB 628.
216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sinkers and the group sought to be added thereto, work under common
supervision, and perform duties in a trade which the Board has held
to Constitute a single skilled and functionally cohesive group, appro-
priate for bargaining purposes. In view of the foregoing, we find that
the employees currently represented by the Die Sinkers together with
the additional group sought to be represented may-constitute a single
appropriate unit.12
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be held among the addi-
tional group of employees in the die shop who work on dies or parts
of dies. If a majority of these employees select the Die Sinkers as
their bargaining representative, they may be represented by the Die
Sinkers for the purposes of collective bargaining as a part of the unit
it currently represents.
We shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall
first ascertain the desires of the employees as expressed in the separate
elections hereinafter directed among the employees at the Employer's
Tractor Works plant, within the voting groups described below :
(a) All metal patternmakers and their apprentices, excluding
supervisors as defined in the Act ;
(b) All all-around engine lathe operators," die lock men, planer
hands, shaper hands, drill press hands, turning impression die makers,
and tool shaper grinder hands who are employed in the die shop,
excluding supervisors as defined in the Act;
(c) All remaining production and maintenance employees, exclud-
ing salaried employees, foremen, assistant foremen, watchmen,'chem-
ists, employees located at Phoenix, Arizona, or Hinsdale, Illinois,
clerical and office employees, wood patternmakers and their appren-
tices, die sinkers and their apprentices, trimmer die makers and their
apprentices, Keller Machine operators, upset die sinkers, edger men,
die repairmen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed by District No. 8, Inter-
national Association of Machinists, in Case No. 13-RC-980 be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
u The Atwater Manufacturing Company , 76 NLRB 542 ; Trimont Manufacturing Com-
pany, 74 NLRB 959.
11 Excluded from this group is Gus Pelka, a lathe operator , who does not work on dies
or parts of dies.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 217
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 14
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, elections 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 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
voting groups described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Elections, including employees who did not work
during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding 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 elections, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine :
(1) Whether the employees in voting group (a) desire to be repre-
sented for purposes of collective bargaining by Pattern Makers League
of North America, Chicago Association; by Local 101, FE-UE; by
Tractor Local, UAW-CIO ; or by none of them.
(2) Whether the employees in voting group (b) desire to be repre-
sented for purposes of collective bargaining by Chicago Die Sinkers
Lodge No. 100, International Die Sinkel;s Conference; by Local 101,
FE-UE ; by Tractor Local, UAW-CIO ; or by none of them.
(3) Whether the employees in voting group (c) desire to be repre-
sented for purposes of collective bargaining by Local 101, FE-UE;
by Tractor Local, UAW-CIO ; or by neither.
is Any participant in any election directed herein may, upon its prompt request to and
approval thereof by the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.
The full compliance status of Local 101, FE-UE, and Tractor Local, UAW-CIO, has not
been effected. The Regional Director is herewith instructed to delete these organizations
from the ballot if they have not , within 2 weeks from this date, effected compliance with
Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h). No election shall be scheduled within the 2-week period
allowed, until and unless full compliance has been determined.