Magnode Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 596 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
change in the seasonal pattern of the Employer's business and indicat-
ing that peak periods now occur monthly rather than semiannually.
In the circumstances it appears that an immediate election may be
appropriate. Accordingly, we incorporate in this Supplemental De-
cision an order directed to the parties to show cause why an election
should not be held within 40 days of this Supplemental Decision-
allowing 10 days for response to the show cause order-on a date of
peak employment as determined by the Regional Director.
[The Board amended the Direction of Election previously issued in
this case to include on the ballot the International Mailers Union,
and to delete from the ballot the Independent Mailers' and Addressers'
Union, which was disestablished subsequent to the said Direction of
Election.]
[The Board ordered that the parties herein shall show cause why
an immediate election should not be held and the Decision previously
issued herein amended to find that the peak seasons occur monthly
rather than in April and October. If no cause be shown within the
said period, the Board's Decision shall be so amended.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER BEAN took no part in the considera-
tion of the above Supplemental Decision on Motions, Order Amend-
ing Decision and Direction of Election, and Order To Show Cause.
Magnode Products , Inc. and District 13, Lodge No. 1850, Inter-
national Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 9-RC-3585. August 19, 1959
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 John H. Arbuckle,
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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
IF or reasons set forth below, the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition is denied.
Its request for oral argument is also denied , because in our opinion the record and the
Employer 's brief adequately set forth the issues and the positions of the parties.
124 NLRB No. 78.
MAGNODE PRODUCTS, INC. 597
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 parties generally agree, and we find, that a unit of the
Employer's production and maintenance employees is appropriate.
They fail to agree as to the unit placement of shift leaders and the
leadman.
The Employer, with approximately 80 production and maintenance
employees, is engaged at its Trenton, Ohio, plant in the manufacture
of aluminum and magnesium extrusions and of magnesium anodes.
All employees work under the overall supervision of the plant super-
intendent and company officers.
The three shift leaders work in the extrusion operation. The Em-
ployer conducts this operation on a three-shift basis, and each of the
three shift leaders is in charge of one of the shifts. They direct em-
ployees in their work and have authority to transfer them from one
job to another. The leadman works in the anode operation. There is
no other supervisor in this operation, except one of the company
officers. The leadman directs employees in their work, assigns work
to them, and transfers them from one job to another. In these cir-
cumstances, and particularly because it appears that shift leaders are
the only persons who direct the employees on their respective shifts
in the extrusion operation and that, apart from the company officer,
the leadman is the only person who directs the employees in the anode
operation, we find that the shift leaders and the leadman responsibly
direct employees in a manner involving the exercise of independent
judgment, and are therefore supervisors. Accordingly, we exclude
them from the unit.'
Upon the entire record in this case, we find that the following em-
ployees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's ex-
trusion and anode plant at Trenton, Ohio, excluding all employees in
the main office, all salaried employees not directly connected with pro-
duction and maintenance, office clerical employees, part-time janitors,
tool designers, co-op students, part-time employees not regularly
scheduled, professional employees, guards, shift leaders in the extru-
2 On November 21, 1956, the Employer and Magnode Employees ' Independent Union,
hereinafter called the Independent , entered into a contract , covering employees sought
herein , effective from September 23, 1956, to September 22, 1959 , and thereafter, in the
absence of notice of a desire to negotiate a new contract. The instant petition was filed
in February 1959. It is not clear whether this contract is urged as a bar. In any event,
as the contract has been in effect for more than 2 years , we find that it is not a bar.
Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers , 121 NLRB 990.
$ Massachusetts Mohair Plush Company, 115 NLRB 1516 at 1523 and 1524.
598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sion operation, the leadman in the anode operation, and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Employer contends that no election should be directed be-
cause (1) the Independent was not properly served with notice of the
instant hearing, and (2) the officers of the Independent, without
authorization of its members, are seeking to oust the Independent as
the representative of the employees. The record shows that in Janu-
ary or February 1959, at a meeting of about 40 of the 65 to 70 mem-
bers of the Independent, a majority voted to obtain representation by
another union 4 On or about March 23, 1959, in response to an in-
quiry from the Board as to whether the Independent claimed to rep-
resent any employees in the unit, the officers of the Independent
advised the Board that they had "no desire to represent any part of
the present Independent Union and that it will not be considered a
bar in negotiating for an outside union." The president of the Inde-
pendent appeared at the hearing but failed to intervene. He stated,
in effect, that the Independent did not wish to participate in the elec-
tion, and that, if the Petitioner won the election, the Independent
would dissolve, but that otherwise the Independent would continue
to administer the existing contract.
On these facts, we find as to the question of the validity of service
of the notice of hearing on the Independent through its officers, that
the letter of March 23 does not, as the Employer contends, invalidate
such service. In the light of its context and the other circumstances
cited above, we construe such letter, though inartistically phrased, as
not disavowing any desire on the part of the officers to act for the
members of the Independent, but as merely disclaiming any desire on
the part of the Independent to act as the representative of the em-
ployees in the unit. Accordingly, for this reason, apart from any
other consideration, we reject the Employer's contention that service
on the Independent through its officers was not binding upon the
Independent. As to the Employer's contention that the activities of
the Independent's officers on behalf of the Petitioner preclude the
holding of a free election, we find that such activities, including the
decision not to intervene herein or appear on the ballot, were con-
sistent with the wishes of the members of the Independent as ex-
pressed at the meeting described above.5
Accordingly, we find no merit in any of the Employer's foregoing
contentions.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 We note that , in support of its petition , the Petitioner submitted authorization cards
signed by 40 employees , representing a majority of the employees in the unit.
5 The Employer contends that the action taken at such meeting was not in accord with
the Independent ' s constitution and bylaws . However, it is not the policy of the Board to
inquire, under such circumstances , into the conformity of a union 's action with its internal
regulations . See Benjamin Air Rifle Company , 107 NLRB 104.