Manhattan Coil Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 187 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of MANIIATTAN COIL CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMER-
ICA, CIO, PETITIONER 1
Case Nos. 10-R-2694 and 10-RC-37.Decided August 07, 1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon amended petitions duly filed, a hearing was held before a hear-
ing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing of-
ficer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. The request of the Rubber Workers Local Union
No. 21255, AFL, herein called the AFL, for oral argument is hereby
denied, as the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present
the issues and the positions of the parties. The motions to dismiss
made by the AFL and by International Association of Machinists,
Lodge No. 2, herein called the IAM, are denied for the reasons here-
inafter stated.
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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of Amer-
ica, CIO, herein called the Petitioner; Rubber Workers Local Union
No. 21255, AFL; and International Association of Machinists, Lodge
No. 2, are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
3. The questions concerning representation :
The Employer's operations at its Atlanta, Georgia, plant are di-
vided into two divisions : Holfast Division, where it manufactures
On January 23, 1948, the Petitioner filed an amended unfair labor practice charge (Case
No. 10-CA-152), and on February-2,19¢.8, it filed a waiver in these representation cases
* Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Gray.
79 N. L. R. B., \o. 23.
187
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rubber automotive products, and Manhattan Division, where it niauu-
factures electrical automotive apparatus and parts. The Holfast Di-
vision is essentially a continuation of the operations of the former Hol-
fast Rubber Company, which the Employer took over sometime in
the spring of 1947. The Manhattan Division comprises substantially
those operations in which the Employer was engaged before the addi-
tion of Holfast. Since 1939, the AFL has been recognized as the rep-
resentative of all Holfast employees, except about six machine-shop
employees represented by the IAM. The IAM has been recognized
as representative of all the Manhattan production and maintenance
employees since 1946.
On April 1, 1947, and on October 17, 1947, the Petitioner advised the
Employer of its claim to represent the Holfast Division and Man-
hattan Division employees, respectively, and on May 9, 1947, and
October 30, 1947, it filed petitions for certification as the representa-
tive of such employees.
A. Holfast Division 2
1. The AFL's contract covering the Holfast production and mainte-
nance employees and the IAM's contract covering the six Holfast
machine-shop employees were automatically renewed 30 days before
July 1 and July 18, 1947, respectively. The AFL and the JAM urge
that the Holfast petition be dismissed, contending that under the
Board's General Electric X-ray doctrine,3 their contracts bar the Hol-
fast petition because it was not filed within 10 days after the Peti-
tioner's claim of representation was made on April 1, 1947. The peti-
tion, having been filed on May' 9, 1947, before the respective "Mill B"
dates of the AFL and IAM contracts, clearly is not barred by the
-contracts.' The motions to dismiss are denied.
2. The TAM further contends that its current contract, as renewed
to July 18, 1948, bars the Holfast petition because an amendment of
2 At the hearing, the AFL moved to dismiss the amended petition on the ground that
there was no showing of interest to support it. This motion is hereby denied, as a sufficient
showing of interest was made when the original petition was filed on May 9, 1947. This
showing is not invalidated by the fact that the hearing herein was not held until Februany
12, 1948. See Matter of American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, 71
N. L. R. B. 503. Furthermore, the prima facie showing of interest is an administrative
matter not subject to direct or collateral attack. Matter of 0. D. Jennings and Company,
-68 N. L. R B. 516.
3 Matter of General Electric X-Ray Corporation, 67 N. L. R. B. 997.
+'Matter of Drewrys Limited U. S. A. Inc., 74 N. L R. B 31. The AFL further argues,
however, that Section 8 ( d) (1) of the amended Act creates a new 60-day "Mill B" date.
In the recent case of Matter of International Harvester Co, 77 N. L. R B. 242, we decided
against this contention . Moreover, the' AFL contract does not fix the period of time for
which it becomes automatically renewed, ana therefore the current contract is one for an
indefinite period and cannot be raised as a bar. See Matter of Steivartstown Furniture
Company, 75 N. L. R.B. 344.
MANHATTAN COIL CORPORATION 189
the petition, made on February 12, 1948, at the hearing, adding to
the proposed unit maintenance employees who had before been specifi-
cally excluded, substantially changes the original unit claim and, in
effect, constitutes a new petition, citing the Hyster case.5 However, as
the, anniversary date of the IAM's contract has already passed, we
find, apart from any other considerations, that the JAM contract is
not a bar to the amended Holfast petition.6
B. Manhattan Division
As indicated above, the Petitioner made its claim to represent Man-
hattan Division employees of the Employer on October 17, 1947, and
filed its petition more than 10 days later, on October 30, 1947. The
IAM's contract covering the Manhattan Division employees was ef-
fective as of November 28, 1946, for a period of 1 year and "thereafter
from year to year, subject to thirty (30) days notice before the expira-
tion of any yearly period" by either party of a desire to abrogate or
change the agreement. The TAM contends that its contract, which
automatically renewed itself, constitutes a bar to the present election
under the General Electric X-Ray doctrine.? Ordinarily the peti-
tion, having been filed on October 30, 1947, after the operative date
of the automatic renewal clause, would be barred by the contract and
dismissed. However, the record discloses that the Petitioner's rep-
resentative had prepared a petition on October 28, 1947, before the
operative date of the automatic renewal clause, in the Regional Di-
rector's office, but was advised by a Regional Office employee that it
would be useless to file the petition because the petition would be
dismissed, unless the Petitioner thereafter met the filing requirements
of the amended Act within 48 hours." The Petitioner's representative
did not file the petition, but returned to the Petitioner's office to get
advice from another official. The latter official was out, but returned
on October 30, 1947, when, after a telephone call to the Regional Di-
rector, the petition was filed .9 As the delay in filing the petition ap-
pears to be ' attributable to the error of a Board agent, it would be
inequitable to penalize the Petitioner for the delay.- We find, ac-
5 Matter of Hyster Company, 72 N. L . R. B. 937.
E Matter of Schwartzbaugh Mfg. Co., 73 N. L R. B. 538; Matter of Paramount Flag Com-
pany, 73 N. L . R. B. 262; Matter of White Furniture Company, 73 N. L . R. B. 805.
4 The IAM 's other contention , that Section 8 ( d) (1) of the amended Act creates a new
60-day "Mill B" date, is without merit. See footnote 4, supra.
8 In fact, the petition would not have been dismissed under then existing Board policy, if
the Petitioner began in good faith by October 31, 1947, to effect compliance , as it did.
0 The Petitioner initiated compliance on October 30, 1947 , and thereafter , on November
11, 1947, fully qualified under the filing requirements of the amended Act.
10 Cf. Matter of Chicago Mill and Lumber Company, 69 N. L. R. B. 855.
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cordingly, that the General Electric X-Ray doctrine is not applicable
here, and that the IAM's contract is not a bar to the instant petition 11
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 Petitioner contends that all-the, production and maintenance
employees of the Employer, in both the Holfast and Manhattan Di-
visions, constitute a single appropriate unit,'or, in the alternative, that
separate production and maintenance units of the Holfast and Man-
hattan Divisions may be appropriate. The AFL and the TAM urge
that the units remain the same a those for which they have held
contracts during the past 9 years, viz, (a) a unit of the production
and maintenance employees in the Holfast Division, excluding six
machine-shop machinists, apprentices, helpers and specialists; (b)
a unit composed of the six xriachinists, apprentices, helpers, and spe-
cialists excluded from the previous unit; and (c) a unit of the pro-'
duction and maintenance employees in the Manhattan Division,
excluding those. maintenance employees presently covered by the
AFL's Holfast contract. The L4M is willing to include. in the sep-
arate unit of machinists mentioned under (b), above, the other ma-
chine-shop employees, who are presently covered by its Manhattan
contract. Because the Employe'r's reorganization is still in 'a state
of flux, it also would prefer to maintain the units recognized in the
existing contracts. However, it admits that the present arrange-
ment is not functional and that it would be preferable to have sep-
arate units of production employees in the Ho]fast and Manhattan
Divisions,- plus a further separate unit for the maintenance and
machine-shop employees in both divisions. '
After the Employer took over the Holfast Rubber Company, it'
consolidated all'its operations in a single rectangular building in the
middle of which is an office and machine shop. This shop separates
the Holfast and Manhattan operations, that are located at either end
of the plant. As operating entities, the Holfast and Manhattan Divi-
sions are separate and functionally distinct: Holfast manufactures'
rubber products such as fan belts,- radiator hose, and vulcanizing
patches; Manhattan manufactures electrical products, such as ignition
coils, starters, etc. Each division has its own bookkeeping system,
pay roll, and shipping department. There is a,,general manager in'
"11 See Matter of Kirby Lumber Corporation, 71 N. L. R B. 688. But cf. Matter of L. O.
Koven t Brother, Inc., 77 N. L. R. B. 1253, *bere we held that "extenuating circum-
stances" were not present.
MANHATTAN COIL CORPORATION '19.1
charge of each division, under whom are foremen and supervisors in
charge of different operations. There is no personnel department
for the entire plant. Each division does its own hiring and dis-
charging of employees, through its foremen and supervisors, although
the respective general managers have the final word. There is no
interchange of personnel. There are separate time clocks and dif-
ferent hours of employment for each division and for the machine
shop. The approximately 115 employees in the Holfast Division,
and the approximately 55 employees in the Manhattan Division, have
separate seniority and group insurance plans. However, both divi-
sions, being in the same building, are serviced by the same group' of
approximately 16 maintenance employees.12 These employees operate
out of the machine shop in the center of the plant and under the
separate supervision of the master mechanic. In the machine shop
are also the 11 mechanics presently represented by the IAM.13
While common ownership and maintenance service, and location in
a single plant building, tend to make appropriate a single plant-
wide unit, other factors compel a contrary conclusion. Thus, the
history of collective bargaining, and the diversity of operations, super-
vision, and interests of the production employees of the Holfast and
Manhattan Divisions, are indicative of the appropriateness of sep-
arate units of the production employees of the two divisions. The
maintenance and machine-shop employees, whose supervision is sep-
arate from that of the production groups, but who serve both divi-
sions, possess interests which do not appear to be aligned with those
of the employees of either of the two divisions.
Upon the basis of the entire record and because of the foregoing
considerations, we find the following units appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act :
(a) All production employees in the Holfast Division of Manhattan
Coil Corporation, excluding production employees in the Manhattan
Division, maintenance and machine-shop employees, salesmen train-
11 These consist of watchmen, firemen, electricians, janitors, and laborers. There are also
a print shop, paint shop, and carpenter shop, which service both divisions.
Is Five of these employees, a toolroom clerk, a tool and die maker, and 3 tool and diemaker
apprentices, are assigned to the Manhattan Division ; and 6 of these employees, 3 machinists
general, a pipe fitter, an oiler, and a hotpatch clamp specialist, are assigned to the Holfast
Division. The former are presently included in the IAM's contract for the Manhattan
Division ; the latter are the 6 mechanics covered by a separate contract for the IAM. The
record indicates that tbe"e employees work almost exclusively for the division to which
they are assigned
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ees, office and plant clericals, guards,- professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act;
(b) All production employees in the Manhattan Division of Man-
hattan Coil Corporation, excluding production employees in the Hol-
fast Division, maintenance and machine-shop employees, salesmen
trainees, office and plant clericals, guards,15 professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act;
(c) All maintenance and machine-shop employees, including fire-
men, electricians, janitors, laborers, the toolroom clerk, the tool and
die maker, tool and die maker apprentices, machinists general, pipe
fitters, oilers, the hotpatch clamp specialist, and employees in the
print, paint, and carpenter shops, but excluding all production em-
ployees in the Holfast and Manhattan Divisions, office and plant cler-
icals, guards,"' professional employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 17
As part of-the investigation, to ascertain representatives for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining with Manhattan Coil Corporation, At-
lanta, Georgia, separate 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 supervision of the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5,
among the employees in the units found appropriate in paragraph
numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Elections, includ-
ing employees who did not work during said pay-roll 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 reinstated prior to the date of the elections,
and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to rein-
statement,-to determine whether the employees in unit "(a)" desire to
be represented by United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and 'Plastic Work-
ers of America, CIO, or by Rubber Workers Local Union No. 21255,
14 The two watchmen , who, although they do not carry firearms, make rounds to protect
the plant and punch time clocks , are guards within the meaning of the amended Act, and
are therefore excluded.
15 See footnote 14, supra.
19 See footnote 14, supra.
1T Any participant in the elections directed ' herein may , upon prompt request to, and
approval thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.
MANHATTAN COIL CORPORATION 193
AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither, to deter-
mine whether the employees in unit "(b)" desire to be represented by
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,
CIO, or by International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 2, for
the purposes of collective bargaining , or by neither ; and to determine
whether the employees in unit " ( c) " desire to be represented by United
Rubber , Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, CIO, by
Rubber Workers Local Union No. 21255, AFL, or by International
Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 2 , for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by none.