National Automatic Tool Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 565 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of NATIONAL AUTOMATIC TOOL COMPANY , INC. and
PATTERN MAKERS LEAGUE OF NORTI-I AMERICA, A. F. L.
In the Matter of NATIONAL AUTOMATIC TOOL COMPANY , INC. and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , A. F.' L.
Cases Nos. 9-R-1471 and 9-R-1571, respectively.Decided
-February 12, 1945
Mr. Will W. Reller, of Richmond , Ind., for the Company.
Mr. C. D. Madigan , of Cleveland , Ohio, for the PML.
Mr. D. J. Omer, of Cincinnati , Ohio, and Mr. W. H . Winko, of Indi-
anapolis, Ind., for the IAM.
Mr. Earl Keisker, of Richmond , Ind., for the Association.
Mr. Joseph C. Wells, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASES
Upon petitions duly filed in Case No. 9-R-1471 by Pattern Makers
League of North America, A. F. L., herein called the PML, and in
Case No. 9-R-1571 by International Association of Machinists , A. F. L.,
herein called the IAM , alleging that questions affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of National Auto-
matic Tool Company, Inc., Richmond , Indiana, herein called the Com-
pany, the National Labor Relations Board provided for appropriate
hearings upon due notice before Louis Penfield, Trial Examiner. The
hearing in Case No. 9-R-1471 was held at Richmond , Indiana, -on
August 21 , 1944, and the Company, the PML, and Natco Employees'
Association , Inc., herein called the Association , appeared and partici-
pated therein . In Case No . 9-R-1571, the hearing was held at Rich-
mond, Indiana, on October 9, 1944; and the Company, the IAM, and
the Association appeared and participated . At both hearings the
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. The rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearings are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were af-
forded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Cases No. 9-R-1471
60 N. L. R. B, No. 107.
565
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and No. 9-R-1571 are hereby consolidated for the purpose of this
decision.
Upon the entire records in the cases, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
National Automatic. Tool Company, Inc., an Indiana corporation
having its principal place of business at Richmond, Indiana, is 'en-
gaged in the manufacture of machine tools. During the past year the
Company used raw materials having a total value of approximately
$1,000,000, of 'which about 85 percent was shipped to it from points
outside the State of Indiana. During the same period, about 90
percent of the Company's finished products, which had a total value
in excess of $11,000,000, was shipped to points outside the State.
The Company-admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Pattern Makers League of North America, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
Natco Employees' Association, Inc., is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees_of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The PML and the IAM have each requested the Company to recog-
nize it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in
the unit which it alleges to be appropriate, and the Company has
refused to accord such recognition to either union until certified by the
Board in an appropriate unit.
Statements of Board agents, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ings, indicate that the PML_and the IAM each represents a substan-
tial number of employees in the unit alleged by each to be appro-
priate.'
'In Case No . 9-R-1471, the Board agent stated that the PML submitted nine member-
ship cards dated April 1944 ; and that eight of these bore the names of pattern makers or
pattern maker apprentices listed on the Company ' s pay roll for the period ending June 9,
1944, which indicated that the Company employed nine persons in the alleged appropriate
unit
In Case No . 9-R-1571 , the Board agent stated that the IAM-submitted 356 authorization
cards , that 122 were dated July 1944 , 99 dated August 1944, and 32 were undated ; that
NATIONAL AUTOMATIC TOOL COMPANY, INC. 567
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 2
TV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
In Case N. 9-R-1471, the PML alleges that all wood and metal
pattern makers and pattern maker apprentices employed by the Com-
pany constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.
In Case No. 9-R-1571, the IAM contends that all production and
maintenance employees at the Company's Richmond, Indiana, plant
excluding the pattern-maker group described above, office and clerical
employees, and supervisory employees, constitute an appropriate bar-
gaining unit.
The Company contends that in view of the history of collective
bargaining on a plant-wide basis between the Company and its em-
ployees, the pattern-maker group may not properly constitute a sepa-
rate bargaining unit, and requests the Board to dismiss the petition
of the PML in Case No. 9-R-1471 for that reason. The Company
disagrees with the IAM with respect to the unit sought by the latter
in that it would include engineering and drafting employees, certain
clerical employees, and the pattern-maker group,- whom the IAM
would exclude.
The Association opposes the establishment of the unit of pattern
makers and pattern maker apprentices sought by the PML and other-
wise disagrees with both the Company and the IAM with respect to
the composition of the unit.
A. The pattern makers
It is clear that employees such as those sought here by the PML
may constitute a separate appropriate unit, or, on the other hand, may
be bargained for as a part of a plant-wide unit which includes other
skilled craftsmen and unskilled employees. The Board usually de-
termines such an issue only after ascertaining the desires of the em-
ployees involved.3 However, where craftsmen, in the process of exer-
cising.their rights of collective bargaining, have participated in such
253 of these bore names of employees on the Company's pay roll for the period ending
September 1, 1944 ; and that there were 589 employees in the unit alleged by tin IAM to
be appropriate.
The Association relied on its contract with the Company as evidence of its status as rep-
resentative of employees of the Company.
2 On March 2, 1942, the Association and the Company executed a contract which provided
that it be effective for the duration of the war and 6 months thereafter. It is clear that
this contract presents no bar to a present determination of representatives See Matter of
Basic Refractories, Incorporated, 55 N L. R. B 391
2 See Matter of General Steel Castings Corporation, Armor Plant, 52 N L R B 143;
Matter of Cramp Shipbuilding Company, 53 N. L. It. B. 762.
568 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-bargaining as a part of an appropriate plant-wide unit, the Board
ordinarily will reject a proposal that it certify a representative for a
unit the scope of which is less than plant-wide and confined to only
the particular craft involved 4 Therefore, in the instant case, the
issue presented is whether or not the history of collective bargaining
is determinative with respect to the composition of the appropriate
bargaining unit.
The Association was organized in 1937, and was successful in se-
curing recognition by the Company as bargaining representative.
The first written collective bargaining agreement between' ,the Com-
pany and the Association was executed in 1939. This agreement pur-
ported to cover all employees of the Company, including clerical, en-
gineering, and pattern-shop employees, excluding only supervisory
employees. In the spring of 1940, the IAM filed a petition for certifi-
cation with the Board. Thereafter on June 16, 1940, the Board con-
ducted a consent election pursuant to an agreement among the Com-
pany, then IAM, and the Association which excluded pattern shop,
clerical, engineering department, and supervisory employees from the
list of those eligible to vote.' The Association won the election, and
in 1941 and again in 1942 it entered into collective bargaining
contracts with the Company, which, like the 1939 contract, covered
all employees of the Company except supervisory employees. Some of
the pattern-shop employees were members of the Association before
the 1940 consent election, and at least one other who testified for the
PML at the hearing in Case No. 9-R-1471, became a member of the
Association after that election. Pattern-shop employees each year
have elected a representative to serve on the Association's grievance
committee. Certain grievances of the pattern-shop employees have
been considered, and in some instances acted upon, by the Company.
The PML contends that these grievances were presented by the
pattern-shop employees, acting individually while the Association
alleges that it handled said grievances. In March 1944, the pattern-
shop employees secured membership in the PML, which thereupon -
requested recognition of the Company as their representative.
We have in many cases involving this craft held that neither a;-prior
Board determination of the appropriate unit nor the existence of
written contracts purporting to cover all employees on a plant-wide
basis Were necessarily conclusive with respect to the resolution of the
4 See Matter of American Can Company, 13 N. L R B 1252; Matter of Harnischfeger
Corporation, 55 N L. It. B. 909
The only explanation which the record affords with respect to the exclusion of pattern
makers from the voting group is that given by the Association , i e., that the IAM insisted
that they be excluded in order to obviate any jurisdictional dispute between it and the PML.
NATIONAL AUTOMATIC TOOL COMPANY, INC. .569
issue presented here.6 The broad principle upon which these cases
were predicated is not limited by any particular formula of fact and
derives from considerations-of policy designed to effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act.
We are of the of `uion that in the instant case, particularly in view
of the'exclusion of pattern makers from the list of employees eligible
to vote in the 1940 consent election, the bargaining between the Com-
pany and the Association on a plant-wide basis does not preclude a
finding that the group sought here by the PML may constitute an
appropriate bargaining unit. Accordingly, before making a final
determination with respect to the unit proposed by the PML we shall
first determine the desires of the employees themselves.
B. The plant-wide group
As stated above, the IAM in Case No. 9-R-1571 seeks a unit com-
prised of all production and maintenance employees, including plant
clerical employees, but excluding pattern makers, plant-protection
employees, office clerical employees, engineering and drafting depart-
ment employees and supervisory employees. The Company and the
Association urge that pattern makers, and engineering and drafting
department employees be included in the unit. All parties agree that
plant clerical employees should be included in the unit, but disagree
with respect to the definition of the term plant clerical.
The Company's operations are conducted in a main plant building,
which also houses its main offices, a pattern shop located several
hundred yards away from the main plant building, and a welding
shop which is located in another part of the town of Richmond, In-
diana. A few engineering, sales, and office employees are located in .
another city.
Departmentally the Company's functions are organized as follows :
The shops, including the pattern and welding shops, are under the
supervision of the shop superintendent. The employees in the shops
perform only manual operations involved in the production process.
The only plant clericals under the direct supervision of the shop
superintendent are the schedule clerk-assemblers. We shall include
all non-supervisory employees in the shops who are under the super-
6 See Matter of Bendix Products Division of Bendix Aviation Corporation , 39 N L R B.
8j; Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company (Boston Yard ), 39 N. L. R . B. 1230; Matter of In-
dianapolis Drop Forging Company, 40 N. L R. B 1294; Matter of Goodyear Aircraft Corp.,
45 N. L R. B. 369 ; Matter of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 55 N L R. B 918;
Matter of General Electric Company (Lynn River Works and Everett Plant), 58 N. L. R B.
57.
" None of the parties desires the inclusion of these employees.
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vision of the shop superintendent excluding pattern makers and pat-
tern maker apprentices, within the plant-wide voting group herein-
after set forth."
The production department i's under the direct supervision of the
production manager and is engaged in planning the work in the shops,
receiving raw materials, tool and supplies, trucking materials from
place to place in the shops, and preparing the finished product for -
shipment. A company witness testified at the hearing in Case No., 9-
R-1571 to the effect that this department was designed to relieve the
workers in the shops of all detail and clerical work in order'to simplify
the actual manufacturing process. The Company and the Association
would include all non-supervisory employees in this department,'
while the JAM would include some but exclude others 10 It is clear
that the department as a whole functions as a plant clerical depart-
ment, and that the interests and duties of the employees therein are
more closely allied with those of the production and maintenance
employees in the shops than with those of the clerical-employees in the
administrative offices of the Company. Accordingly, we shall include
all non-supervisory employees in this department within the plant-
wide voting group."
The standards and routing department,'2 under the supervision of a
manager, functions by designating the particular machine upon which
a job is to be performed, sets time standards for production operations,
and adjusts or settles employee grievance's relating to time standards.
The Association would include and the IAM exclude all employees in
this department, while the Company would exclude all employees
except the routers. - Since the duties of the employees in this depart-
ment are entirely clerical or professional in nature, we shall exclude.
them from the plant-wide groupl3
The shop tool design department designs tools and the fixtures for
the Company's use in the shops, and is under the supervision of the
tool designer who is a professional engineer. The machine engineer-
ing design department and the tool and fixture engineering, depart-
ment design the tools and fixtures for production in accordance with
customers' orders, and are under the direction of the chief engineer. A
8 The Association and the Company agree that group leaders are supervisory employees,
while the IAM takes no position on this question. We shall exclude group leaders from
the unit.
° The record discloses, inter alia, that purchase order clerks, stock record clerks, shipping
and receiving clerks, schedule clerks, follow-up clerks, truckers, and stock chasers are em-
ployed in this department.
11 The IAM would exclude the stock record clerks, schedule clerks, purchase order clerks,
and follow-up clerks.
11 See Matter of Goodman Manufacturing Company, 58 N L R B 531; Matter of J. S.
Abercrombie Company, 58 N. L R B. 1013.
12 Routers, rate setters, standard engineers, and adjusters are employed in this
department. -
11 See Matter of Boston Edison Company, 51 N L R. B 118.
NATIONAL AUTOMATIC TOOL COMPANY, INC. 571
large percentage of the employees in, these three departments are
graduate engineers and draftsmen who are req>_iired to _possess a pro-
fessional education or special technical training in order to perform
their duties, e. g., development designers, designers, and shop tool
designers. The Company and the Association would include these
employees in the unit, while the IAM would exclude them. In accord
with our usual practice, we shall exclude these employees from the
unit since their duties, background, and training indicate that their
interests are dissimilar to those of the other production and mainte-
nance employees.14 On the other hand, since other employees in the
three engineering and designing departments, such as the inspectors
and, the blueprint file clerk'15 do not possess a professional or techni-
cal background nor perform duties of a professional or technical
nature, we shall include these employees in the plant-wide voting
group.
The personnel, accounting, sales, pay-roll, and purchasing depart-
ments are each under the direction and supervision of a different ad-
ministrative manager. The duties of the employees in these depart-
ments are entirely clerical in nature, and their functions, interests, and
working conditions appear to be notably dissimilar to those of the
production and maintenance employees within the unit. The parties
disagree with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of some of these
employees, but agree that timekeepers should be included and that
buyers, sales clerks, sales estimators, repair order clerks, mail clerk, and
accounting clerks should be excluded. In view of the clerical nature
of the duties of these employees and the fact that they are supervised
by administrative rather than production chiefs, we shall exclude all
employees in these departments from the voting group hereinafter
set forth 70 -
All parties agree that employees at the Company's Detroit, Michigan,
office, special police, the nurse, the educational director, the activities
director, the priorities analyst, secretaries to executives, and the
photographer should be excluded from the bargaining unit, and that
non-deputized watchmen-firemen, and ,janitors should be included
therein.
Since it appears that the employees in the unit proposed by the PML
might constitute-a separate appropriate bargaining unit or be merged
in the production and maintenance unit as urged by the Association, we
shall direct that separate elections by secret ballot be conducted among
the employees in the following voting groups :
14 See Matter of Boston Edison Company , footnote 13, supra.
15 Except for the blueprint file clerk, whom the IAM would exclude, the parties agree that
these employees should be included in the unit.
14 See Matter of Boston Edison Company, footnote 13, supra.
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(1) All wood and metal pattern makers and pattern maker appren-
tices, excluding supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action;
(2) All employees of the Company at its Richmond, Indiana, plant
and shops , including , inter alia , employees in the production depart-
ment, inspectors , the blueprint file clerk in the engineering department,
non-deputized watchmen -firemen, and janitors, but excluding em-
ployees in the standards and routing, accounting , personnel , sales, pay-
roll, and purchasing departments , the development designers, de-
signers, and shop tool designers in the engineering departments, the
special police, the educational director, the nurse, the activities direc-
tor, the priorities analyst, secretaries to executives , the photographer,
group leaders , assistant foremen, and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote , discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status -of employees, or effectively recommend sucF
action.
Upon the,results of the elections will depend, in part, our determina-
tion of the appropriate unit. If the employees in voting group (1)
select the PAIL as their bargaining representative , they will have
thereby indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit. If, how-
ever, these employees choose the Association, they will have thereby
indicated -their desire to be part of the production and maintenance
unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS.
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 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that , as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with National Automatic
Tool Company , Inc., Richmond, Indiana, an election 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 supervi-
sion of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations,
among the employees in the voting groups set forth in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction , including employees who did not
work during the said pay -roll period , because they were ill or on vaca-
tion or , temporarily laid off , and including employees in the armed
forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the
NATIONAL AUTOMATIC TOOL COMPANY, INC. 573
polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been dis-
charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the
date of the election, to determine whether the employees in voting
group (1) desire to be represented by the Pattern Makers League of
North America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or
by Natco Employees' Association, hIC., for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither; and to determine whether the en oloyees in
voting group (2) desire to be represented by International Association
of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or
by Natco Employees' Association, Inc., for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither.