Nordberg Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 13, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 75 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of BUSCH-SULZER BROS. DIESEL ENGINE COMPANY
DIVISION OF NoRDBERG MANUFACTURING COMPANY,i EMPLOYER and
OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL UNION 13, AFL,
PETITIONER
Case No. 14-R-1789.-Decided April 13, 1948
Mr. R. H. McRoberts, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Employer.
Mr. Frank E. Morton, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Russell L. Davis, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Intervenor.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at St. Louis,
Missouri, on November 13 and 18, 1947, before Harry G. Carlson,
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 consisting of the undersigned.*
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS' OF TIIE EMPLOYER
Busch-Sulzer Bros. Diesel Engine Company Division of Nordberg
Manufacturing Company, a Wisconsin corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture of diesel engines and other products at its St. Louis,
Missouri, plant. During 1946, the Employer purchased for use at
its: St. -Louis plant raw- materials valued in excess of $500,000, of
which more than 90 percent represented shipments to this plant from
sources outside the State of Missouri. During the same year, the
Employer sold from its St. Louis plant in excess of $1,000,000 worth
I Tile name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
*Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Gray.
77 N. L. R. B., No. 12. 75
76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of finished products, of which more than 90 percent represented ship-
ments to points outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
International Association of Machinists, District No. 9, herein called
the Intervenor, is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.2
III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists 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.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all production clerks em-
ployed at the Employer's St. Louis plant, including the chief clerk,
expediters, material and spare parts wrapping clerk, window men,
routing clerk, routing and disbursement clerk, blueprint clerk, produc-
tion control record clerks, inspection records clerk, and production
process typists and file clerks. The Employer contends that the
proposed unit is inappropriate, on the grounds that (1) it is hetero-
geneous; (2) the work and interests of the employees included therein
are dissimilar; and (3) due to a contemplated change in the Employer's
manufacturing operations, some of the job classifications may be
altered or discontinued. The Employer further contends that even
if the Board should find the proposed unit appropriate, employees J.
Fisher and Earl Tillock should not be included, because of their mem-
bership in, and past representation for collective bargaining purposes
by, the Intervenor.
The Intervenor made no contention regarding the appropriateness
of the unit sought by the Petitioner, and asserted that Fisher and Til-
8 The Intervenor was not originally made a party to this proceeding . At the hearing it
developed that two employees (Tillock and Fisher ) within the requested unit are members
of the Intervenor . The hearing was therefore adjourned , and notice served upon the Inter-
venor, which thereafter appeared and participated in the hearing.
BUSCH-SULZER BROS. DIESEL ENGINE COMPANY 77
lock are not in fact within the coverage of its current collective bar-
gaining contract with the Employer .3
The Employer conducts its manufacturing operations in 3 main
groups of buildings and several smaller structures. It employs
approximately 650 production and maintenance employees, not in-
cluding the approximately 21 production clerks whom the Petitioner
now seeks to represent. The production clerks are all located within
the 3 main factory building groups; some work directly in the
production shops and others in offices attached to these shops. With
the exception of 3 clerks,4 all work under the general supervision
of the plant production manager who, in turn, reports to the plant
works manager. All, except 2,5 are paid on a salaried basis and
receive from $115 to $200 per month. The duties performed by the
employees in the several classifications of production clerk are as
follows :
The chief clerk checks specifications with storeroom employees,
informs the typists what kind of work tickets to prepare and handles
all order changes and rejections. The record reveals that the chief
clerk is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The expe-
diters line up work for the various machining operations, handle
records of shortages affecting orders, and compile information for the
purpose of expediting certain orders, such as repair parts, through the
shops. Window men issue job tickets to production employees and
perform some routine filing. The production control record clerks
post the number of hours worked to individual operation record cards
and post the totals from individual operation cards to master routing
cards. In addition, they determine deductions from individual
operations because of rejected parts. The inspection records clerk
compiles information concerning rejections and maintains master
reference files of rejections, drawing change notices, and shop draw-
ings. The other classifications of production clerks sought by the
Petitioner, such as the materials record and spare parts wrapping
clerk, routing clerk, routing and disbursement clerk, blueprint clerk,
and production process typists and file clerks, perform clerical work
typical of their respective classifications.
'The Intervenor's contract covers a unit consisting of the Employei's tool and die
makers, toolroom specialists, journeyman machinists, specialists, production workers, crane
operators, and hitchers, and helpers and apprentices in the afore-mentioned categories. The
term "production workers" appearing in this contract does not refer to any category of
employees presently employed, but was inserted, in view of a contemplated change in
operations, to cover any employees who might be engaged in "assembling and fitting parts
on small units on a production line basis for future work to be brought into the plant."
4 Two of these employees are under the supervision of the chief tool designer, who, in turn,
reports directly to the works manager. The third, the foundry clerk, works under the
foundry foreman who is also responsible to the works manager.
6 Tillock and Fisher.
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, we find, con-
trary to the Employer's contention, that the production clerks at the
Employer's St. Louis plant constitute a homogeneous group perform-
ing similar work functions and possessing a substantial community of
interest.6 We have heretofore held that factory clericals, such as
these production clerks, who work in proximity to and under the same
supervision as the production and maintenance employees, should, in
case of dispute, be included in a production and maintenance unit,7 or,
if there is a history of bargaining for the production and maintenance
employees from which the factory clericals have been excluded, that
they should be given an opportunity in a self-determination election
to voice their desire for or against representation in the production and
maintenance unit.8 In this case it appears that the Employer's pro-
duction and maintenance employees are represented in a number of
separate units by unions organized along craft lines.9 In the absence
of any presently existing over-all unit embracing the production and
maintenance employees, we find that the production clerks constitute
a separate appropriate unit .10
The only question remaining for consideration is whether J. Fisher
and Earl Tillock should be included in the unit. As stated above,
the Employer urges that these employees be excluded because of their
membership in and representation by the Intervenor. Both Fisher
and Tillock are paid on an hourly basis and are designated on the
Employer's pay roll as "helpers." It is clear, however, that Fisher
performs substantially the same.duties as are performed by the Em-
6 The Employer also contends that a contemplated change of operations would result in
the discontinuance of some job classifications and that the duties of certain classifications
would be affected so that they would no longer be related to others in the proposed unit
The record discloses that the Employer expected to effect a change on or about January
1, 1948, from a "jobbing -type" to a "production line " basis of operations . The record,
however , further shows that the new type of production will not substantially affect the
number of employees in the unit , although the classification of assembly routing clerk
would be abolished , the duties of the blueprint clerk would be changed to some extent,
and the methods used by the expediters and window men in performing their functions
might also be changed As it is not shown that the contemplated change in production
methods . will. result in any material change either in the size of the unit or in the duties
of the respective classifications , we find no merit in the Employer's contention.
7 Matter of Goodman Manufacturing Companij , 58 N. L. R B . 531 ; Matter of Wichita
Falls Foundry & Machine Co , 69 N. L. R B 458 , and cases cited therein.
8 See Matter of Art Metal Construction Company, 75 N. L it. B. 80, and cases cited
therein.
9 The various categories of the Employer ' s production employees are represented by labor
organizations , in addition to the Intervenor, referred to in the record as the Blacksmiths,
Electricians , Molders and Foundry Workers , and the Pattern Makers, respectively. The
Petitioner currently represents a unit of timekeepers , having been designated by the
Board's= Regional Director on August ' 9, 1944, as the -result of a consent' pay-roll check.
10 See Matter of Wilson & Co , Inc (Chicago Plant ), 68 N. L. R. B. 592, 598 ; and Matter
of Detroit Aluminum and Brass Corporation, 61 N. L. R B. 1415, 1418.
BUSCH-SULZER BROS. DIESEL ENGINE COMPANY 79
ployer's expediters," while Tillock performs practically the same work
as that performed by the window men. The wages paid to Fisher
and Tillock are substantially equivalent to the salaries paid the-Em-
ployer's expediters and window men, respectively. The record dis-
closes that the Intervenor does not claim to represent these employees.
On the above facts, we perceive no cogent reason for the exclusion of
these employees, and we shall, therefore, include them in the unit.12
We find that all production clerks'13 including •the chief clerk, ex-
pediters, material and spare parts wrapping clerk, window men, rout-
ing clerk, routing and disbursement clerk, blueprint clerk, production
control record clerks, inspection records clerk, and production process
typists and file clerks, but excluding all supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaniiag of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 14
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Busch-Sulzer Bros. Diesel Engine
Company Division of Nordberg Manufacturing Company, St. Louis,
Missouri, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as
possible, but not latter than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for the Fourteenth 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 unit found appropriate in Section
ITT, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did
not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on va-
cation 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 election, and also excluding'em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by Office Employees Inter-
national Union, Local Union 13, AFL, or by International Association
of Machinists, District No. 9, for the purposes of collective bargaining,
or by neither.
11 The only discernible difference between Fisher ' s work and that of the other expe-
diters is that he frequently transports small items of material from one plant location to
another, whereas the latter - only. occasionally are required "to handle materials , if at all.
ii Although it is not clear from the record what positions the parties have taken with
respect to the foundry clerk, we shall include this employee in the unit because he per-
forms duties similar to those performed by the window men described above.
ii J. Fisher and Earl Tillock are included within this category.
i4Any participant, in the election herein may , upon its prompt request to , and approval
thereof by, the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.