Interstate Metal Products Inc. of Indiana

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 10, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 95 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

INTERSTATE METAL PRODUCTS INC OF INDIANA 95
protection duties .9 We exclude senior fire patrolmen , police
sergeants , police lieutenants , police captains , and all other
supervisors from the unit.
We find that the following employees constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the Act:
All plant-protection employees at the Employer's plants at
Farmingdale , Port Washington , Mineola , and Greenlawn on
Long Island and at its plants at 99 Church Street and 41 Park
Place in New York City, including patrolmen , investigators,
chauffeurs , receptionists , and fire patrolmen , but excluding
the 99 Church Street telephone operator-receptionist, the bus
driver , senior fire patrolmen , police sergeants , police lieu-
tenants, police captains , and other supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
9 Wiley Mfg. Inc , 92 NLRB 40.
INTERSTATE METAL PRODUCTS INC. OF INDIANAandIN-
TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT
NO. 72 , Petitioner . Case No. 13-RC-3366. July 10, 1953
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 Marie A.
Pierce, hearing officer .' The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board had delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Styles , and Peter-
son].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
i Although served with notice of hearing , Federal Labor Union if22268 , American Federa-
tion of Labor , hereinafter called Local # 22268 , which presently represents the Employer's
production and maintenance employees , including those sought by Petitioner , did not appear
at the hearing
At the hearing , the Employer moved to dismiss the petition , on the grounds , in substance,
(1) that there is no proof in the record that the Petitioner has complied with Section 9 (f) of
the Act; and ( 2) that the employees sought herein by the Petitioner as a separate appropriate
unit may not constitute such a unit at this time The hearing officer referred ruling on the
motion to the Board . The motion is denied
As to (1): The fact of compliance with Section 9 of the Act by a labor organization which is
required to comply is a matter for administrative determination and is not litigable by the
parties. Swift R. Company , 94 NLRB 917 Moreover , we are administratively informed that
the Petitioner is in compliance.
As to (2): For reasons stated below in paragraph numbered 4 of this Decision , we find no
merit in this contention
106 NLRB No 13.
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists 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.3
4. At its Michigan City, Indiana, plant, the Employer is
engaged in the production of metal products. The Petitioner
seeks to sever toolroom employees from the existing unit of
production and maintenance employees at the plant. The Em-
ployer, alleging , in substance , the integration of its operations
and the history of bargaining on a broader basis , contends that
toolroom employees may not constitute a separate appropriate
unit at this time.
The 4 toolroom employees sought by the Petitioner4 make
new tools and dies and repair old dies, broken parts, and
machinery, under the supervision of the plant superintendent.
They work to close tolerances and are highly skilled. They
spend about 90 percent of their working time in the Employer's
toolroom and the remainder in production areas. They do no
production work as such.
At the time of the hearing, held on May 29, 1953, most of
the Employer's production employees worked from 8 a. m. to
4:30 p . m. per day ; the remainder of these employees and all
the toolroom employees worked from 7 a. m. to 4:30 p. m. At
the hearing, the Employer's plant superintendent testified, in
substance , that employees would go on their summer schedule
the following week and work from 7 a. m. to 3:30 p. m.
Since about 1940, the Employer and Local #22268 have entered
into written contracts , covering the Employer ' s productionand
maintenance employees, including toolroom employees. Their
last contract, effective from June 30, 1952, to June 30, 1953,
and thereafter in the absence of notice, provided, among other
things , for a common vacation schedule , insurance program,
and grievance procedure for all permanent employees. The
Petitioner ' s effort to represent toolroom employees as a
separate unit is the first such effort in the bargaining history.
Toolroom employees constitute an identifiable , homogeneous,
highly skilled group of craft employees.5 The instant record
does not, in our opinion, disclose that the Employer's opera-
tions are so highly integrated as to persuade us to deny craft
severance. 6 Nor is such severance, where feasible, precluded
by a history of bargaining on a broader basis. 7 We therefore
find that toolroom employees may, if they so desire, constitute
a separate appropriate bargaining unit.
2 The Petitioner exists for the purpose of bargaining collectively with employers with
respect to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. R J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company, 88 NLRB 600.
3 Upon due notice to the Employer for changes and modifications of its terms, a contract
between the Employer and Local #22268, covering employees involved herein, was not auto-
matically renewed and, by its terms, expires on June 30, 1953. Therefore, contrary to the
Employer's contention, it is no bar to this proceeding West Coast Bus Lines d/b/a West
Coast Trailways, 88 NLRB 1227
4 The record does not disclose whether there are other maintenance employees at the
plant
5 The Cornelius Company, 93 NLRB 368.
6Cf The Cornelius Company, supra
7liudson Pulp & Paper Corporation, 94 NLRB 1018
THE NATIONAL SURVEY 97
We shall direct an election by secret ballot among the
following employees at the Employer's metal products plant
at Michigan City, Indiana: All toolroom employees, excluding
all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a
majority of employees in the voting group vote for the Peti-
tioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the RegionalDirec-
tor conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue
a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such
unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If,under
the circumstances set forth below in footnote 8, the name of
Local #22268 appears on the ballot in the election hereinafter
directed, and if a majority of employees in the group vote for
Local #22268, the Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate,
and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results
of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election8 omitted from publication.]
Member Peterson, dissenting:
Except for the acknowledged craft status of the toolroom
employees, there are present here no other factors which I
consider a necessary prerequisite to their severance from the
production and maintenance unit in which they have been
included since 1940. Accordingly, I would dismiss the petition
herein.
8Although served with notice, Local #22268 did not appear at the hearing. In view of its
present contractual relationship with the Employer, Local #22268 may appear on the ballot if,
within 10 days of the date of issuance of this Decision and Direction of Election, it notifies
the Regional Director of its desire to participate in the election.
9 See my dissenting opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627.
LAWTON V. CROCKER & HENRY F. CROCKER, d/b/a THE
NATIONAL SURVEY and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE), INDEPENDENT,
Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-3238. July 10, 1953
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 Sidney A.
Coven, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Peter-
son].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
106 NLRB No. 19.