Lyons Machine & Tool Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1942

38 N.L.R.B. 745 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of LYONS MACHINE & TOOL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , LODGE No. 670, A. F. L.
Case No. 11-3397.-Decided January 30,19-11,1,
Jurisdiction : tool, special machinery, and die manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : refusal
to accord union recognition until certified by the Board ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all employees of the Company,
excluding supervisory, clerical and office employees, and engineers.
Mr. C. N. Sessions, of Muskegon, Mich., for the Company.
Mr. Carl Cederquist, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for the Union.
Mr. Thomas B. Sweeney, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 30, 1941, International Association of Machinists,
Lodge No. 670, affiliated with A. F. L., herein called the Union, filed
with the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Mich-
igan) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of Lyons Machine & Tool
Company, Muskegon, Michigan, herein called the Company, and re-
questing an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant
to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. On November 26, 1941, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section
9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered an inves-
tigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to pro-
vide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On November 28, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing and on,December 1 and 15, 1941, respectively, notices of post-
ponement of hearing, copies of-all of which were duly served upon the
Company and the Union. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on
December 17, 1941, at Muskegon, Michigan, before Woodrow J.
38 N. L. R. B., No. 143
745
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sandler, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Exam-
iner. The Company and the Union were represented and participated
in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing, the Trial
Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the
admission of evidence. The Board 'has reviewed the rulings of the
Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial ,errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes, the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company is a Michigan corporation, having its office and prin-
cipal place of business in Muskegon, Michigan, where it is engaged
in the manufacture `of tools, jigs,- fixtures, special machinery, punches,
and dies. During the period from January 1 to October 1, 1941, the
Company purchased raw materials valued at $72,415.01, of which
$17,423.49 represented purchases of raw materials shipped to the Com-
pany from points outside the State of Michigan., During the same
period, the Company sold finished products valued at $444,723.13, of
which $285,486.37 represented sales of merchandise shipped to points
outside the State of Michigan.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 670, is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admit-
ting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company refuses to recognize the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the unit claimed by the Union to be appro-
priate unless and until the Union is certified as such representative by
the Board. It appears from a statement of the Regional Director that
the Union represents a, substantial number of employees in the unit
herein found to be appropriate."
We find that a question has arisen' concerning the representation of
employees of,the Company.. .
1 A statement of the Regional Director introduced in evidence at the hearing shows that
the Union submitted application ' cards bearing apparently genuine signatures of 42 of the
employees in the alleged appropriate unit, which consists of 90 employees as shown by a
pay roll of the Company for the period ending November 6, 1942.
LYONS MIAC-IINE •& ' TOOL' COMPANY 747
W. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question' concerning representation 'which`' ha:
arisen, occurring in connection' with. the 'operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate; and substantial'rela-
tion to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tends
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commer`ce'and the
free flow of commerce.
V. ' THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union alleges that the appropriate unit should consist of all
employees of the Company, excluding supervisory, clerical and office
employees, and engineers. The Company does not dispute the appro-
priateness of the unit except insofar as the terms "supervisory" and
"engineers" are concerned. ,
The Company seeks to include the` following employees whom the
Union would exclude as supervisory : Frank Wenk, Edward Edson,
Carl Johnson, and Lyman Hermanson. The evidence discloses that
they have no right to hire or, discharge. Their sole duty is to lay
out work for the men and assist those who are less experienced in•
carrying out the duties assigned to them. They spend a majority
of their time doing ordinary tool and die work and are paid on an
hourly basis the same as the other employees who are similarly :en-
gaged. We are of the opinion and find ,that these four employees aie
not supervisory employees and that they should, be included in the
appropriate unit. I .
The Company would also - include' William A. Young and Harry
Rambow. The Union would exclude them on the ground that they
are engineering employees. "The Company contends that they are
ordinary tool and die workers. It appears from the record' that
both of the afore-mentioned employees were hired as' tool and, die
makers and that they are paid on an hourly basis. However, the
record also indicates that Young has been employed -as a draftsman
for the 3 months next preceding the date of, hearing, and that Rambow
has 'occupied a similar position, for, 2 years next preceding the, date
of the hearing. We are of the opinion that both of these men should
be excluded from the appropriate unit as engineering employees.
We find all employees of the Company, excluding supervisory,
clerical and office employees; find engineers, constitute a unit appro-,
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit
will insure to employees ' of the Company the full benefit of their
right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise
will effectuate the policies of the Act.'
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question which has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Company can best be resolved by an
election by secret ballot. We shall direct that an election by secret
ballot be held among the employees of the Company in the appropriate
unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately pre-
ceding the date of this Direction of Election, subject to the limitations
and additions set forth in the Direction.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Lyons Machine & Tool Company, Muske-
gon, Michigan, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All employees of the Company, excluding supervisory, clerical
and office employees, and engineers, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as a part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Lyons Machine & Tool Company, Muskegon, Michigan, an elec-
tion by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not
later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh
Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations
Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regula-
tions, among all employees of the Company who were employed by
the Company during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not
work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or in the active military service or training of the United States, or
temporarily laid off, but excluding supervisory, clerical and office
employees, and engineers, and employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by International Association of Machinists, Lodge No.
670, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes
of collective bargaining.