Parris-Dunn Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 9, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 310 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of PARRIS-DuNN CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE No. 1300
Case No. 18-R-1494.-Decided July 9, 1946
Swarr, May, Royce , Smith do Storey, by Messrs. A. E. Royce and
Edison Smith, of Omaha, Nebr., and Mr. W. G. Dunn., of Clarinda,
Iowa, for the Company.
Messrs. James Ashe, of St. Paul, Minn., and Joseph L. Dreier, of
Omaha, Nebr., for the Union.
Mr. Arthur Christopher, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Association of Machin-
ists, Lodge No. 1300, herein called the Union, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Parris-Dunn Corporation, Clarinda, Iowa, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board on April 16,
1946 , conducted a prehearing election pursuant to Article III, Sec-
tion 3,1 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, among employees of
the Company in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether
or not they desired to be represented by the Union for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 39 eligible
voters and that 36 of these eligible voters cast ballots, of which 28
were for the Union, 3 were against the Union, and 5 were challenged.
Thereafter, pursuant to Article III, Section 10,2 of the Rules and
Regulations , the Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon
1 By amendment of November 27, 1945, this Section of the Rules now permits the conduct
of a secret ballot of employees prior to hearing in cases which present no substantial issues.
2As amended November 27, 1945 , this Section provides that in instances of prehearing
elections, all issues, including issues with respect to the conduct of the election or conduct
affecting the election results and issues raised by challenged ballots , shall be heard at the
subsequent hearing
69 N. L. It. B.; No. 39.
310
PARRIS-DUNN CORPORATION 311
due notice before Stephen M. Reynolds, Trial Examiner. The hear-
ing was held at Clarinda, Iowa, on-May 3, 1946. The Company and
the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing 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 opportunity to file briefs
with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Parris-Dunn Corporation is an Iowa corporation with its office and
plant located at Clarinda, Iowa. It is engaged in the manufacture of
mechanical devices known as windchargers which generate electricity
through the utilization of the power of the wind. The Company's
annual purchases of raw materials exceed $25,000, approximately all of
which represents shipments to its plant from sources outside the State
of Iowa. Its annual sales of finished products exceed $50,000 in value,
approximately 95 percent of which represents sales and shipments to
points outside the State.
The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1300, is an un-
affiliated labor organization admitting to membership employees of
the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to recognize the Union as the collective
bargaining representative of its employees in the alleged appropriate
unit.
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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union seeks a unit consisting of all production and mainte-
nance employees of the Company, including tool and die makers, and
working foremen, but excluding clerical employees and all supervisory
employees.,' The sole disagreement between the parties relates to the
8 The election was held among employees in this alleged appropriate unit.
312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
working foremen, whom the Company would exclude from the unit
on the ground that they are supervisory employees within the Board's
customary definition of that term.
This disagreement was reflected at the election in the five ballots
which were challenged by the Company. However, inasmuch as the
Company at the hearing withdrew its challenge to the ballot of Rufus
Douthit, admitting that he was a production and maintenance em-
ployee and eligible to participate in the election, there remains for
disposition only the challenged ballots of Clyde Anderson, M. L.
Smith, Roy Palmer, and Milton Cooper.
These 4 working foremen are assigned to the tool and die, pro-
peller, welding, and machine shop departments, respectively. Each
one, in addition to spending a substantial portion of his time in manual
work, during normal plant operations oversees the work of from 3
to 10 employees, allocating work to them and arranging for their
transfer within the department when necessary. The working fore-
men also have the power effectively to recommend changes in the
status of their subordinates.4 Accordingly, we find that Clyde An-
derson, M. L. Smith, Roy Palmer, and Milton Cooper are supervisory
employees within our customary definition of that term and we shall
exclude them from the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Company, including tool and die makers but excluding clerical em-
ployees, working foremen,,' and all supervisory employees with author-
ity to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held previous to the hearing show that
the Union has secured a majority of the valid votes cast and that the
challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of
the election. Under these circumstances, we shall not direct that any
of the challenged ballots be opened and counted but instead we shall
certify the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit.
+ At the time of the hearing , the Company was operating with a somewhat diminished
staff of employees , but was anticipating an increase in the size of its employee complement
when materials become available . Of the four working foremen in issue, Palmer was prob-
ably the most seriously affected by the reduction in staff in that his subordinates were
reduced in number from three to one It is , however, clear that he has in the past effec-
tively recommended changes in the status of his subordinates , and that his authority in
this respect has not been revoked because of this seemingly temporary reduction in the
number of his subordinates.
5 Employee Rufus Douthit is not included within this category.
PARRIS-DUNN CORPORATION
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
313
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, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended,
IT IS HERESY CERTIFIED that International Association of Machinists,
Lodge No. 1300, has been designated and selected by a majority of all
production and maintenance employees of Parris -Dunn Corporation,
Clarinda , Iowa, including tool and die makers , but excluding clerical
employees , working foremen , and all supervisory employees with au-
thority to hire, promote , discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect
changes in the status • of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, and that , pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organiza-
tion is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay , wages,
hours of employment , and other conditions of employment.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.