Oliver Machinery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 12, 1942

39 N.L.R.B. 722 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter Of OLIVER MACHINERY Co. BALDWIN TUTHILL DIVI-
SION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS LODGE
No. 475, AFFILIATED WITH A. F. L.
Case No. R-3493.-Decided March 12, 1942
Jurisdiction : woodworking and bakery machinery manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: refusal
to accord union recognition due to dispute as to appropriate bargaining unit;
election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all production employees at the
Company's Baldwin Tuthill Division, excluding supervisory, clerical, engineer-
ing and plant protection employees and truck drivers; apprentices included
over employer's objection; employees in one of Company's two machine shops
held to constitute an appropriate unit where union organization had not
extended beyond the one plant.
Mr. Stephen F. Dunn, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for the Company.
Mr. Carl F. Cederquist, of Grand Rapids, Mich., and Mr. L. 0.
Thomas, of Washington, D. C., for the I. A. M.
Mr. Robert C. Moore, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 21, 1941, International Association of 'Machinists
Lodge No. 475, affiliated with A. F. L., herein called the I. A. M.,
filed with the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit,
Michigan) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Baldwin
Tuthill Division of Oliver Machinery Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan,
herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On
January 8, 1942, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III,
Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the
Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice.
39 N. L. R. B., No. 137.
722
OLIVER MACHINERY CO. 723
On January 20, 1942, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which,. together with copies of the petition, were duly
served upon the Company andI upon the I. A. M. Pursuant to
notice a hearing was'held at Grand Rapids, Michigan, on January 29
and 30, 1942, before Jerome H. Brooks, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Company and the
I. A. M. appeared, were represented by counsel or by official-repre-
sentative, and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity, to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During
the hearing the Trial Examiner made rulings on motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On February 16 and 24, 1942, respectively, the Company and the
I. A. M. filed briefs, which the Board has considered. '
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Oliver Machinery Co. is. a Michigan corporation having its principal
office and plant in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Company manu-
factures woodworking machinery and machinery used in slicing and
.packaging bakery products. The principal raw materials used are
iron, steel, and non-ferrous metals. During the period from January
1, 1941, to July 1, 1941, the Company purchased raw materials valued
at about $296,000, of which approximately 80 percent was imported
from sources outside the State of Michigan. During, the same period
the total sales of the Company amounted to about $941,000, approxi-
mately 90 percent of which represented sales to customers outside
the State of Michigan
The Baldwin Tuthill, Division is one of two machine shops owned
by the Company, located in Grand Rapids, about one mile distant
from the Company's main office and plant. It is a department of the
Company and has no separate legal existence.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists Lodge No. 475, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization ad-
mitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The I. A. M. has requested recognition by the Company as exclusive
bargaining agent for its employees engaged in the Baldwin Tuthill
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Division.? The Company has refused to grant such recognition upon
the ground that said employees do not constitute an appropriate
collective bargaining unit.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
UPON COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The I. A. M. requests a unit composed of all production employees
at the Company's Baldwin Tuthill Division, excluding supervisory,
clerical, engineering, and 'plant protection employees and truck
drivers The Company contends that a unit composed of employees
at one of its two machine shops is not appropriate and that the peti-
tion should therefore be dismissed. In addition there is a dispute as
to apprentices, the I. A. M. desiring to include such employees while
the Company would exclude them.
In support of its contention that employees at one of its plants
should not be separated into a unit apart from employees in the other,
the Company directs attention to the following considerations, among
others: The Company's main plant, called the Coldbrook plant, is
but one mile distant from the Baldwin Tuthill plant; the equipment in
the two plants is similar, as are the operations performed therein;
employee classifications are about the same in the two plants; the
operations of the two plants are interdependent to a considerable
degree and there is a substantial interchange of work between them;
both plants are operated through a single office located in the Cold-
brook plant, and all personnel records are kept in that office; and gen-
eral labor policy is determined in the Company's main office.
On the other hand, the Baldwin Tuthill plant is geographically
separated from the Coldbrook l plant. It has a superintendent,
assigned exclusively to it, who handles personnel problems and has the
authority to hire employees. There is no substantial temporary inter-
I A report of the Acting Regional Director introduced into evidence respecting the representation claims
of the I A M discloses the following The I. A. M. submitted 59 signed applications for membership,
purportedly obtained from employees in the Baldwin Tuthill Division, all of which bore apparently genuine,
original signatures These applications were not checked against a Company payroll, inasmuch as no pay
roll had been received from the Company on the date bf the report On December , 30, 1941, the date of the
report, there were approximately 80 eligible persons in the unit alleged by the I . A M to be appropriate
OLIVER MACHINERY CO. 725
change of employees; in fact, there is a policy against such inter-
change. There is no history of collective bargaining in the Company's
plants. I
It appears that only the employees at the Baldwin Tuthill plant are
organized. Although a few employees from the Coldbrook plant
attended the first union meeting, there has been no further organiza-
tional activity among them. In these circumstances, giving due con-
sideration to the arguments advanced by the Company, we see no
reason for denying the employees at the Baldwin Tuthill plant their
right to self-organization and to collective bargaining through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing merely because under other circum-
stances a unit including employees at both plants might be deemed
appropriate. We find that the Baldwin Tuthill plant constitutes a
separate appropriate unit in view of the present state of self- organiza-
tion, but our finding in this respect does not preclude a later deter-
mination that a larger unit is appropriate when organization has
extended to employees at the Coldbrook plant.2
The Company opposes the inclusion of apprentices in'the bargaining
unit upon the ground that these employees serve under definite
written contracts with the Company while other employees do not. It
also points out that apprentices' rates of pay are different from those
of other employees, and that apprentices move about, shifting tem-
porarily between departments in order to obtain general experience.
It is our usual practice to include apprentices in an appropriate unit,
and there appears to be no reason in' this case to depart from that
practice. Their inclusion will not interfere with their indentures.
We shall include apprentices.'
We find that all production employees at the Baldwin Tuthill
Division, including apprentices, but excluding supervisory, clerical,
engineering, and plant protection employees and truck drivers, -con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and
that said unit will insure to the employees of the Company the full
benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining
and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot. We shall
direct that such an election be held among the employees within the
appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Election, subject
to the additions and limitations set forth in the Direction.
2 See Matter of Max Pollack & Company , Inc and Textile Workers Union of America (C 1 0 ), 38 N L
R B 966, Matter of Consolidated Paper Company and Consolidated Paper Workers' Local Industrial
Union #902, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , 21 N L R B. 125 , 128-139.
3 See Matter of Endicott Forging & Manufacturing Co and National Die Sinkers Conference , 29 N L R B.
218
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Oliver Machinery Co., Baldwin Tuthill
Division, Grand Rapids, Michigan, within the meaning of Section
9 '(c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All production employees at the Baldwin'Tuthill Division of the
Company, including apprentices, but excluding supervisory, 'clerical,
engineering, and plant protection employees and truck drivers, consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
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 Rela-
tions Act and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations--Series 2,. as amended,
it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board to
ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Oliver Machinery Co., Baldwin Tuthill Division, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 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 Seventh Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National
Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said
Rules and Regulations, among all production employees of the Com-
pany engaged at its Baldwin Tuthill Division, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction, including apprentices and employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or in
the active military service or training of the United States, or tempo-
rarily laid off, but excluding supervisory, clerical, engineering, and
plant protection employees, truck drivers, and employees who have
since quit or have been discharged for cause, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented by International Association of
Machinists Lodge No. 475, affiliated with A. F. L., for the purposes of
collective bargaining. -
MR. WM. M.' LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.