Krueger Sentry Gauge Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 29, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 420 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL ' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
KRUEGER SENTRY GAUGE CO. AND KRUEGER METAL PRODUCTS INC. and
LODGE No. 1289, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 13-RC-2183. February 29, 195'
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 Ivan C. McLeod, 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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor 'organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employers.
3. The Employers urge as a bar to this proceeding their contract
with Federal Labor Union No. 24078, AFL, executed on July 28, 1947,
covering employees in substantially the same unit sought by the Peti-
tioner. This contract was to remain in effect until May 5, 1948, and
from year to year thereafter, unless either party gave notice of its
desire to terminate the contract 30 days before the end of any contract
year. As the petition was filed before the automatic renewal date
set forth in the contract, and as the contract will terminate in less than
45 days, we find that the 1947 agreement is not a bar to this petition.,
A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent all the production and mainte-
nance employees of both Employers in a single unit. The Employers,
on the other hand, contend that the employees of each Employer
should constitute a separate appropriate unit.
Both Employers are Wisconsin corporations. The top three execu-
tive offices of each Employer are occupied by the same three individ-
uals. Krueger Sentry Gauge produces floating gauges and Krueger
Metal Products produces steel furniture and general metal stampings.
Both companies conduct their operations in the same building.,
The Heeksn Can Company, 88 NLRB 726 , 727 In view of the finding that the contract
is not a bar because of its approaching termination , we need not pass upon the Petitioner's
contention that the contract is not a bar for the further reason that the Federal Labor
Union No. 24078 , the contracting union, has abandoned the contract.
98 NLRB No. 65.
KRUEGER SENTRY GUAGE co. 421
Employees of each Employer ,have access to the operating areas of
the other, the respective operations being separated only by a low
partition with an unobstructed passageway.
The two-employer unit which the Petitioner seeks to represent is
substantially the same unit which the Employers in 1947 agreed was
appropriate and which the Board at that time found appropriate. '
The Employers, however, urge that changed circumstances require a
different unit finding. The Employers rely principally upon the
change in management ownership of Krueger Sentry Gauge and the
absence of interchange of employees between the two Employers.
In 1948 Krueger Sentry Gauge became an incorporated enterprise.
Hence, instead of being the sole proprietorship of one Winfred S*
Krueger, it is now a corporation wholly owned by Winfred S. Krueger.
This change in ownership is therefore solely a matter of form which,
in our opinion, is not material to the issue of the continued appro-
priateness of the two-employer unit.
The record shows that the last instance of interchange of employees
occured in the fall of 1950. There is, however, no evidence to show
that frequent interchange of employees was a determinative factor in
the Board's 1947 decision. Apart from employee interchange, there
are ample reasons for reaffirming the two-employer unit finding of
that decision. As noted above, the Employers have common corpo-
rate officers, their operations are in the same building and are adjacent
to each other. In addition, both Employers utilize the same office;
have similar employee health and life insurance programs; and have
the same overtime policies. And finally, as a result of the election
held pursuant to the 1947 decision of the Board, a bargaining repre-
sentative was elected and a collective bargaining contract was executed
in 1947 covering the employees of both Employers. This contract,
although subject to termination by the Employers annually, was con-
tinued in effect for 4 years and, as already noted, is even now urged
as.a bar to this proceeding by the Employers.
Accordingly, we find that the production and maintenance employees
of both Employers constitute a separate appropriate unit.
There remains only the question of the unit placement of sheet metal
workers. About June 1951, Krueger Metal Products acquired the
assets and business of Contractors Supply Company, a corporation 3
owned by the principal owners of the Employers, and engaged in the
installation of roofing and the fabrication and installation of sheet _
metal. Sheet metal mechanics and apprentices, roofers, and common
71 NLRB 1434.
s At the time of the hearing , Contractors Supply Company was in process of dissolution
in accordance with the laws of the State of Wisconsin.
998666-vol. 98-53-28
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
laborers employed by the Supply Company have been retained, and its
operations are now located in the same building housing the operations
of the Employers herein. Whereas the Employers would include all
the afore-mentioned employee classifications in the unit, the Petitioner
would include only roofers and common laborers, leaving representa-
tion of the sheet metal mechanics and apprentices to the Sheet Metal
Workers, AFL, which has represented them for more than 10 years
on a craft basis. The Sheet Metal Workers' current contract, which
was executed with Contractors Supply Company, but was assumed by
Krueger Metal Products upon its acquisition of the former, expires
April 31, 1952. Sheet Metal Workers appeared at the hearing and
expressed its desire to continue as bargaining representative of the
sheet metal mechanics. No one requests a separate election among the
sheet metal mechanics. Accordingly, as the Petitioner does not desire
to represent these employees, as it appears that they constitute a craft
group which has been accorded separate representation in the past,
and as their present bargaining representative desires to continue their
representation on a craft basis, we shall exclude the sheet metal
mechanics and their apprentices from the production and maintenance
unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of Krueger
Sentry Gauge Co. and of Krueger Metal Products, Inc., Green Bay,
Wisconsin, including roofers and common laborers, but excluding
sheet metal mechanics and their apprentices, guards, professional
employees, and 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 in this
volume.]
STIBBS TRANSPORTATION LINES, INC. an l THOMAS CROGAN AND
JOHN H. LENNON, JR. Case No. 1-CA-8?9. March 4, 1952
Decision and Order
On August 15, 1951, Trial Examiner Bertram G. Eadie, issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and
the General Counsel filed exceptions to parts of the Intermediate
Report and supporting briefs.
98 NLRB No. 74.