Oliver Machinery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 440 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of M. D. BALDWIN,'R. F. BALDWIN, FRANCES M. BALD-
; WIN, H. B. TUTHILL, V. M. TU1'HTLL, A. S. KURIcJIAN, CO-PARTNERS,
DOING BUSINESS AS OLIVER MACHINERY COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE No. 475, AFFILIATED WITH TIM
A.F.L.
Case No. C-2483.-Decided February 1'd, 1943
Jurisdiction : machinery manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Collective Bargaining: parties stipulated that respondents refused to bargain
with certified- union, which had requested it to bargain, because of respond-
ents' claim that unit previously found appropriate by the Board was inappro-
priate-Board found unit appropriate and accordingly found a refusal' to
bargain.
Remedial Orders : upon request, to bargain collectively.
Unit, Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : unit established in prior repre-
sentation case, confined to production employees at one of respondents' plants
held appropriate notwithstanding respondents' contention that the unit should
embrace two of its plants.
Mr. Harold A. Crane field, for the Board.
Mr. Stephen F. Dunn, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for the respondents.
Mr. Carl Cederquist, of Grand Rapids, Mich., and Mr. Paul R.
Hutchings, of Washington, D. C., for the Union.
Mr. Eugene R. Thorrens, of counsel to the Board.
a
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International
Association of,Machinists, Lodge No. 475, affiliated with the A. F. L.,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region
(Detroit, Michigan), issued its amended complaint dated December
17, 1942, against M. D. Baldwin, R. F. Baldwin, Frances M. Baldwin,
H. B. Tuthill, V. M. Tuthill, A. S. Kurkjian, co-partners, doing busi-
ness as Oliver Machinery Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, herein
called the respondents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in
and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
47 N. L. R B., No. 62.
440
OLIVER MACHINERY COMPANY 441
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. Copies of the amended complaint accompanied by notice
of hearing were duly served upon the respondents and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint
alleged in substance that on or about April 22, 1942, and thereafter,
the respondents refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of their employees within an appropriate
bargaining unit, although the Union represented a majority of such
employees; and that by such refusal, the respondents interfered
with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondents, the
Union, and the Regional Attorney for the Seventh Region entered
into a stipulation, dated December 30, 1942, waiving hearing and
necessity for an Intermediate Report, proposed findings of fact, and
other proceedings before the Board except the privileges of filing
briefs and requesting oral argument, and agreeing that the Board
may make findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter its
Decision and Order upon facts agreed to in the stipulation and upon
the record described therein.1
On January 9, 1943, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Sec-
tion 36 (a), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 2, as amended, transferred the case to itself. On the
same day, the respondents filed a brief with the Board.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of presenting oral
argument was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on Jan-
uary 26, 1943. The respondents and the Union appeared by counsel
and participated in the-argument.
Upon the entire record in the case,'the Board snakes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE RESPONDENTS
The respondents, a copartnership, having their principal office and
place of business in Grand Rapids, Michigan, are engaged- in the
manufacture. of woodworking machinery and machinery used in slic-
ing and packaging bakery products. The principal raw materials
used are iron, steel, and non-ferrous metals. Annually the respond-
ents purchase for use in such manufacturing operations raw materials
and other supplies valued in excess of $400,000, of which approxi-
mately 80 percent in value is shipped to the respondents' plants from
outside the State of Michigan. During a similar period, the respond-
1 In the stipulation the respondents denied the allegations of the amended complaint
uth respect to the unfair labor practices and counsel for the Board agreed to accept
such denial in lieu of an answer.
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ents sell finished products manufactured at said plants valued in
excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 90 percent in value is
shipped to purchasers outside the State of Michigan. The respond-
ents concede that they are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act and subject to the Board's jurisdiction.
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 respondents.
III. TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
The respondents operate two machine shops in Grand Rapids, Michi-
gan. Their main plant, called the Coldbrook plant, is about 1 mile
distant from the other, known as the Baldwin Tuthill plant.' Upon
a petition for investigation and certification of representatives filed
by the Union on October 21, 1941, the Board, on March 12, 1942,
issued its Decision and Direction of Ffection,3 finding that the em-
ployees at the Baldwin Tuthill plant constitute an appropriate unit.
The respondents deny the allegation of the, amended complaint
that the employees at the Baldwin Tuthill plant constitute an appro-
priate unit, and contend, as they did in the representation case, that
the employees at the Baldwin Tuthill plant and at the Coldbrook
plant together constitute the appropriate unit. In the representation
case, the Board recognized, as the evidence showed, that the two
plants were similar with respect to equipment, type of operations
performed, and employee classifications; that the operations of the
two plants were interdependent to a considerable degree and there
was a substantial interchange of work between them; that both plants
were operated through a single office located in the Coldbrook plant,
and all personnel records were kept in that office ; and that general
labor policy was determined in the company's main office. How-
ever, we also found that no history of collective bargaining existed
at the respondent's plants; that the Baldwin Tuthill plant, geo-
'The respondents also operate a foundry adjacent to the Coldbrook plant where cast-
ings are made for use at the two machine shops.
'Matter of Oliver Machinery Co., Baldwin Tuthill Division and International Associa-
tion of Machinists, Lodge No 475, affiliated weth A. F. L., 39 N. L. R . B. 722. At the
time of the representation proceeding the business of the employer was operated as a
Michigan corporation . Sometime thereafter , the corporation was dissolved and a co-
partnership was formed . In all other respects, the business enterprise involved in the
representation case and herein is identical Hereinafter we refer to the corporation and
to the copartnership interchangeably as the-respondents:
OLIVER MACHINERY COMPANY 443
graphically separated from the Coldbrook plant, had a superintend-
ent, assigned exclusively to it, who handled personnel problems and
had authority to hire employees ; that there was no substantial tempo-
rary interchange of employees , but, in fact , there existed a policy
against such interchange ; and that only the employees at the Bald-
win Tuthill plant were organized for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing. Under the circumstances , we concluded that self-organization
and collective bargaining should not be denied to employees at
the Baldwin Tuthill plant "merely because under other circum-
stances a unit including employees at both plants might be deemed
appropriate." ''
In the instant case, the respondents do not dispute the facts found
by.the Board in the representation proceeding . However, they con-
- tend that the Board erred in its conclusion that the employees at the
-Baldwin Tuthill plant constitute an appropriate unit. In support
,of their contention , the respondents cite, among others, the Board's
-decision in Matter of Triangle Publications, Inc., and Chicago Edi-
torial Association , Federal Union 21690,5 decided May 13, 1942, where,
-in 'dismissing a petition for investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives , we rejected a request for a unit composed of radio pro-
-gram checkers in the editorial department of a magazine publisher,
on' the ground that the nature of the checkers ' work was indistin-
-guishable from that of other employees in the editorial department.
The respondents argue that the Triangle case represents a departure
from the viewpoint expressed by the Board in the representation case
from which the instant proceeding stems. The cases are plainly dis-
tinguishable . Pursuant to Section 9 (b) of the Act , the Board may
properly find that a subdivision of an employer, craft, or plant con-
stitutes an appropriate unit . In exercising its authority , however, the
Board has refused= to -set apart as-aA, appropriate , unit any subdi-
vision or group of employees the nature of whose work is indistinguish-
able from that of other employees or whose work is not functionally co-
herent and distinct ., In observance of this policy the Board has
recognized the unity of interests and functions of editorial workers
in the publishing industry and the frequent interchange of duties
among , such employees . Consequently , as in the Triangle case, the
* In its Decision, the Board also stated that its finding that the employees at the Bald-
win Tuthill plant constitute an appropriate unit did not preclude'a later determination
that a larger unit is 'appropriate "when organization had extended to employees at the
Coldbrook plant." At the oral argument before the Board in this proceeding, counsel for
the respondents conceded that organization for the purpose of collective bargaining had
not been extended to employees at the Coldbrook plant.
° 40 N. L. R. B. 1330.
° Cf. Matter of Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., et at. and Local Union 466, I. B. E TV., et al.,
34 N. L. R. B. 40; Matter of The New York Times Company and American Newspaper
Writers Association, et al, 32 N. L. R. B., 928; Matter of The National Sanitary Company
and International Brotherhood, of Foundry Employees, Local 101, (Independent), 31 N. L.
R. B., 824.
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board has refused to entertain petitions of labor organizations seek-
ing to break down into artificial subdivisions traditional editorial-
staff employees. On the other hand, as here, the Board has enter-
tained petitions for separate plant representation of employees being-
organized on an industrial basis on the principle that organization
of the employees has not been extended beyond such plant. In no
case, however, has this principle been applied to the determination as.
an appropriate unit of an arbitrary and artificial grouping of em-
ployees. The Triangle case, therefore, does not represent a departure-.
from policies theretofore established'by the Board.
The respondents further contend that circumstances have changed
since the conclusion of the hearing in the representation proceeding-
and that the present situation emphasizes the merit of the respond-
ents' contention as to unit. As a result of the changed circtim-
stances,7 there is greater similarity between the two plants as to type
of operations, equipment, and employee classifications now than at
the time of the hearing in the representation case. In our Decision,
however, we considered the similarity between the two plants in
making our unit determination, and for that purpose we treated the
two plants as being similar with respect to type of operations, equip-
ment, and employee classifications. Nevertheless, we have reviewed
our decision of the appropriate unit in the light of the ' contention
advanced by the respondents and the evidence in the case now before
us, and we see no reason to alter our previous determination.,
We now find in accordance with our previous determination that
all production employees at the Baldwin Tuthill plant, including
apprentices, but excluding supervisory, clerical, engineering, and
plant protection employees and truck drivers, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We further find
that said unit insures to the employees of the respondents the full
benefit of the right to self-organization and to collective bargaining
and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate
unit
Pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election, dated
March 12, 1942, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the
'r It was stipulated , in substance, that manufacture of baking -machinery has been re-
duced and manufacture of woodworking machinery has been increased at the Baldwin
Tuthill plant , thus making production of the latter type of machinery currently the
principal industry at both plants.
8 At the oral argument before the Board , counsel for the respondents abandoned the
position taken in their biief that the proceeding should be dismissed in view of the re-
spondents ' good faith in uiging a contention with respect to unit contrary to that deter-
mined by the Boaid In any event, we find` no-merit in such a position Good faith in
these circumstances is immaterial.
OLIVER MACHINERY COMPANY 445
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh
Region (Detroit, Michigan), among the employees in the aforesaid'
appropriate unit. Based upon the results of the election, the Board,
on April 15, 1942, issued its Certification of Representatives,9 certi-
fying the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in
said unit. - The Certification clearly establishes the majority status
of the Union, and this is not questioned by the respondents.
We find that, on and at all times after April 15, 1942, the Union
was the duly designated bargaining representative of a majority of
the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and that, pursuant'
to the-provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was on
April- 15, 1942, and at all times thereafter has been and is now the
exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
The parties have stipulated in substance, and we find, that on
April 15, 1942, and at all times thereafter, although requested by the
Union, the respondents refused to bargain with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the unit hereinabove
found appropriate on the ground that such unit was inappropriate.
We find that, on April 15, 1942, and at all times thereafter, the
respondents have refused to bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of their employees in an appropriate unit
and have thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced their em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since we have found that the respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices, we will order that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act. We have found that the respondents have refused to
9 40 N. L. R. B 578.
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative.
of their employees in the appropriate unit. We will , therefore, order
that the respondents , upon request , bargain collectively with the
Union.
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. International Association of Machinists , Lodge No. 475, affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
2. All production employees employed by the respondents at the
Baldwin Tuthill plant, including apprentices , but excluding super-
visory, clerical , engineering , and plant protection employees and truck
drivers, at all times material herein constituted and now constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining , within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 475, affiliated
% with the American Federation of Labor, was on April 15, 1942, and
at all times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, ivithin the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on April 15 , 1942, and at all times thereafter, to
bargain collectively with International Association of Machinists;
Lodge No. 475, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as
the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appro-
priate unit, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in
unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 ( 5) of the
Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law
and upon the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondents , M. D. Baldwin , R. F. Bald- -
win, Frances M. Baldwin , H. B. Tuthill , V. M. Tuthill, A. S. Kirkjian,
OLIVER MACHINERY COMPANY 447
co-partners, doing business as Oliver Machinery Company, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, and their agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Association
of Machinists, Lodge No. 475, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, as.the exclusive bargaining representative of all production
employees at the Baldwin Tuthill plant, including apprentices, but
excluding supervisory,•clerical,.enbineering,,and plant protection em-
ployees and truck drivers ;
(b) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct interfering with,
restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right
to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage rn concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7, of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Associa-
tion of Machinists, Lodge 475, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, as the exclusive representative of all production employees
at the Baldwin Tuthill plant, including apprentices, but excluding
supervisory, clerical, engineering, and plant protection employees and
truck drivers;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places at the Baldwin Tuthill
plant, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and maintain for a period of at least
sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to their
employees stating: (1) that the respondents will not engage in the con-
duct from which they are ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs
1 (a) and (b) of this Order and (2) that the respondents will take the
affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region within
ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondents
have taken to comply herewith.