Pittsburgh Stopper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1947

71 N.L.R.B. 1416 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of PITTSBURGH STOPPER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE No. 63,
PETITIONER
Case No. 6-R-1436.-Decided January 9,1947
Mr. Milton Straus, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Employer.
Mr. A. G. Skundor, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Carl Hubbell, of Pittsburgh Pa., for the Intervenor.
Ii[r. Melvin J. Welles, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, on August 15, 1946, before Henry Shore, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the
Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that a con-
tract with the Employer is a bar to an election, and that the unit
sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate. The hearing officer referred
this motion to the Board. For reasons stated in Sections III and IV,
infra, this motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Pittsburgh Stopper Company, a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal office and place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is
engaged in the manufacture of bottle stoppers. During the past 12
months, the Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of
$400,000, of which 40 percent was shipped to it from points outside
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the same period, the
Employer manufactured products valued in excess of $600,000, of
which 70 percent was shipped to points outside the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.
71 N. L. R. B., No. 227.
1416
PITTSBURGH STOPPER COMPANY 1417
The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization, claiming to represent employ-
ees of the Employer.
United Crown Workers Union, No. 20723, herein called the Inter-
venor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Pe-
titioner has been certified by the Board.in an appropriate unit.
The Intervenor contends that a contract between it and the Employer
is a bar to a present determination of representatives. This contract
was executed on December 5, 1945, provided that it was to expire on
December 5, 1946, and contained a 30-day automatic renewal clause.
Inasmuch as the petition in this case was filed before the operative date
of the automatic renewal clause, and the anniversary date of the con-
tract has passed, we are of the opinion that the December 5, 1945, con-
tract does not bar a determination of representatives at this tine.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the ineaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT ; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees in the machine shop
of the Employer, excluding the machine shop foreman. The Inter-
venor contends that such a unit is inappropriate because of the existing
plant-wide production and maintenance unit, which includes the ma-
chine shop employees, and the bargaining history in the plant on this
basis. The Employer takes no position with respect to the appropri-
ateness of the unit sought by the Petitioner.
The employees- sought by the Petitioner work in the machine shop,
which is located on the same floor as the rest of the plant, but is sepa-
rated by partition walls from the production areas. These employees
are all machinists, and are the highest paid hourly workers in the
plant. Their work consists of the repair and maintenance of the vari-
ous production and assembly machines, some of which is performed
3 During 1946 , the Employer and the Intervenor executed an "Amendatory Agreement,"
modifying the 1945 contract in many respects , and extending its term. This agreement
is not asserted as a bar, nor could it be , for the filing of the petition preceded its execution.
1418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on the floor of the plant, and some in the machine shop. All employees
in the machine shop are under the jurisdiction of the machine shop
foreman, a chief machinist, and there is little or no interchange of em-
ployees between the machine shop and the production department.
Although the Employer and the Intervenor have bargained collec-
tively since 1937, the machinists were not considered to be a part of
the Intervenor's unit until 1942. The machinists have, since 1942, re-
ceived benefits accruing from employee representation by the Inter-
venor, and have had their grievances handled by the Intervenor until'
about February 1946. From that time until the hearing, however.
the machinists have processed their own grievances on several
occasions.
When in 1942 the machinists were made part of the plant-wide unit
represented by the Intervenor, there were only approximately 5 em-
ployees in the machine shop. Since that time, the number of machine
shop employees has more than doubled ; there are now about 13 ma-
chinists. Moreover, it appears from the record that all employees
have been required for some time to join the Intervenor. This re-
quirement was "common understanding" until 1945, when -it was
formalized by the insertion of a union-shop clause in the 1945 con-
tract between the Employer and the Intervenor.'
Thus, it is apparent that a representative number of the machine
shop employees have never truly merged their interests with those of
the other production and maintenance employees in the plant. And
inasmuch as the machinists are a skilled craft group, we believe that
they should be given an opportunity at this time to indicate whether
they desire to be represented in a craft unit or in a plant-wide unit .3
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be held among all
employees of the Employer in the machine shop, excluding the ma-
chine shop foreman, and all other supervisory employees with au-
thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action.
Upon the results of this election will depend, in part, our determi-
nation of the appropriate unit. If the machinists choose the Peti-
tioner, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to constitute a
separate unit; if they choose the Intervenor, however, they will be
taken to have indicated a desire to be bargained for as part of the
all-inclusive unit of production and maintenance employees now
represented by the Intervenor.
2 The 1945 contract also established for the first time a specific wage scale for the ma-
chine shop employees.
8 See Matter of St. Johns River Shipbuilding Company, 59 N. L. It. B 415; Matter of
B F Goodrich Company ( Copolymer Plant ), 59 N. L. It. B. 1477. Cf . Matter of Sinclair
Refining Company , 64 N L. R B 611.
PITTSBURGH STOPPER COMPANY
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
1419
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Pittsburgh Stopper Company,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted 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 Sixth Region, acting in this matter as agent
for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55
and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 4, among the employees in the voting group described
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 per-
son at the polls, 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, to determine whether they desire to be
represented by International Association of Machinists, District
Lodge No. 63, or by United Crown Workers Union, No. 20723, A. F. L.,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.