Ohio Chemical and Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 9, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 776 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of HEIDBRINK NVISION OF THE OHIO CHEMICAL AND
MANUFACTURING COMPANY and LOCAL 101, INTERNATIONAL FEDERA-
TION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS , ARCHITECTS, AND DRAFTSMEN'S
UNION, A. F. OF L.
Case No. 18-R-1354.-Decided November 9, 1945
Messrs Bergman Richards and Frank J. Janes, both of Minneapolis,
Minn., for the Company.
Messrs. Roy W. TVier and Vern McFair, both of Minneapolis, Minn.,
for the Draftsmen.
Mr. George Prouty, of Minneapolis , Minn., for the Machinists.
Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Local 101, International Federation
of Technical Engineers, Architects, and Draftsmen's Union, A. F.
of L., herein called the Draftsmen , alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Heidbrink Division of the Ohio Chemical and Manufacturing Com-
pany, Minneapolis, Minnesota, herein called the Company, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before Stephen M. Reynolds , Trial Examiner. The
hearing was held at Minneapolis , Minnesota , on July 30 , 1945. The
Company, the Draftsmen, and Local Union No. 382, District No. 77,
International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, herein called the Machinists , appeared and par-
ticipated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties
were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
64 N. L. R. B, No. 136.
776
lk
OHIO CHEMICAL AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 777
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Ohio Chemical and Manufacturing Company is a Delaware
corporation. Its Heidbrink Division, with which we are solely con-
cerned operates a plant at Minneapolis, Minnesota, which manufac-
tures various types of technical and medical equipment, including
anaesthesia, oxygen, therapy, resuscitation, aerial and diving equip-
ment. Each month the Company purchases at its Minneapolis plant
raw materials valued at approximately $200,000, of which about 85
percent is obtained from points outside the State of Minnesota. The
Company's monthly sales of products finished at the Minneapolis
plant approximates $400,000, in value, of which between 90 and 95
percent is shipped to points outside the State of Minnesota.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 101 International Federation of Technical Engineers, Archi-
tects and Draftsmen's Union, and Local Union No. 382, District No. 77,
International Association of Machinists, both affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, are labor organizations admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Draftsmen as
the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees
until the Draftsmen has been certified by the Board in an appropriate
unit.
A statement of Field Examiner for the Board, introduced into evi-
dence at the hearing indicates that the Draftsmen represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appro-
priate.'
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.
1 The Field Examiner reported that the Draftsmen submitted six designations , and that
there were six employees in the unit sought.
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Draftsmen seek a unit consisting of all draftsmen, technical
engineers and tool designers engaged at the Company's Minneapolis
plant,2 excluding the chief draftsman and all other supervisory em-
ployees. The Company asserts that these employees have been bar-
gained for as part of a plant-wide unit represented by the Machinists,
and contends that they should not be separated therefrom. The Ma-
chinists is agreeable to the establishment of a separate unit of the
employees sought by the Draftsmen.
On July 10, 1944, the Company executed a contract with the Machin-
ists, effective until May 17, 1945, in which it recognized the Machinists
as the representative of all its factory employees. Other than the min-
imum wage provisions, nothing in this contract provided for any con-
ditions of employment relative to the employees sought herein by the
Draftsmen. Furthermore, although all factory employees were re-
quired, as a condition of employment, to become and remain members
of the Machinists, this was not required of the draftsmen or the tool
designer.
On November 2, 1944, the Machinists informed the Company that
it no longer represented the draftsmen and the tool designer, and
that it was cooperating with the Draftsmen, which "now represent"
them. Thereafter, the Draftsmen presented a proposed contract to
the Company covering these employees, and, in a series of conferences,
endeavored to obtain recognition from the Company as their repre-
sentative. The Company refused to negotiate with the Draftsmen •
as the representative of these employees in a unit separate from the
unit of factory employees, and, as a result of this impasse, the Drafts-
men filed the petition herein.
In view of the foregoing circumstances, and since the record in-
dicates that the draftsmen and the tool designer are technical em-
ployees, with special skills and training s, we are of the opinion that
they comprise a separate appropriate unit.3
We find that all draftsmen and tool designers employed by the
Company at its Minneapolis, Minnesota, plant, excluding the chief
draftsman, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
,of employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2 The Company employs five draftsmen and one tool designer at this plant. It has no
technical engineers in its employ.
3 See Matter of Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 47 N. L R B 264 ; Matter of General
Motors Corporation , 53 N L. It. B. 1325; Matter of Phelps Dodge Corporation, 56 N. L. R B.
1560 ; Matter of Paeafic States Steel Corporation, 57 N. L. R B. 1084.
OHIO CHEMICAL AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 779
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein , subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
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 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 Heidbrink Divi-
sion of the Ohio Chemical and Manufacturing Company, Minneapolis,
Minnesota , 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 supervision of the Regional Director
for the Eighteenth 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
unit found appropriate 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 said pay-
roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid
-off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States
who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding any who
have since quit or been discharged for caluse and have not been rehired
or reinstated prior to the date of the election , to determine whether or
not they desire to beorepresented by Local 101, International Federa-
tion of Technical Engineers, Architects , and Draftsmen 's Union, affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
ubove Decision and Direction of Election.
6