Plastimold, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1943

53 N.L.R.B. 152 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of PLASTIMOLD , INC., and UNITED RUBBER WORKERS or
AMERICA (CIO)
Case No. 1-R-1587.Decided October 27,1943
Mr. John W. McIntyre, of Attleboro, Mass. , for the Company.
Mr. Francis Quinn, of Cranston, R. I., and Mr. Rex Murray, of New
Haven , Conn., for the CIO.
Mr. Edward A. Raleigh, of Boston, Mass., and Mr. Hardy D. Wilson,
for the Molders.
"Mr. William C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition and amended petition duly filed by United Rubber
Workers of America (CIO), herein called the CIO, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Plastimold, Inc., Attleboro, Massachusetts, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for
an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Robert E. Greene, Trial
Examiner., Said hearing was held at Attleboro, Massachusetts, on
October 5, 1943. The Company, the CIO, and International Molders
and Foundry Workers Union of North America, Local No. 320 (AFL),
herein called the Molders, appeared, participated, and were afforded
full 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 an 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
Plastimold, Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation engaged at Attle-
boro, Massachusetts, in the manufacture of plastic products. Dur-
53 N. L. R. B., No. 31.
152
PLASTIMOLD, INC. 153
ing the first 6 months of 1943, the Company purchased raw materials
valued at approximately $130,000 and sold approximately $602,000
worth of finished products. Approximately $105,000 worth of the
raw materials purchased by the Company during this period was
shipped to its Attleboro, Massachusetts, plants from points outside the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and about $333,000 worth of finished
products sold by the Company during the same period was transported
to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.' The Com-
pany does not deny that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Rubber Workers of America is a labor organization affil-
iated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North
America, Local No. 320, is a labor organization affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees
of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The parties stipulated that on or about August 26, 1943, the CIO
requested the Company to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees within an alleged appropriate unit
and that the Company refused to accord the CIO such recognition
because of the alleged existence of a collective bargaining contract
between the Company and the Molders.
The contract which the Molders contends is a bar to this proceeding
was executed on March 31, 1942, and according to its terms was to
remain in effect' until March 31, 1943, and thereafter, until a new
agreement was made. It is a closed-shop contract covering the em-
ployees of the Company's molding department. On April 22, 1943,
by an endorsement on the back of the original agreement, the con-
tracting parties extended its term for a period of 90 days. Thereafter
on June 21, 1943, a second endorsement on the contract' purported to
extend its effective term to March 31, 1944. Each of these endorse-
ments provided that the agreement should continue for the specified
period unless sooner terminated by the negotiation of a new contract.
On August 15, 1943, the Company and the Molders entered into nego-
tiations for a new contract. As a result, a new agreement was reduced
to writing, signed by the Company, and presented to the Molders for
ratification. This new agreement has never been executed by the
Molders. As previously noted, the CIO requested the Company to
grant it recognition on or about August 29, 1943. Thereafter, on
154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
August 31, 1943, the CIO filed the original petition in this proceeding
and on September 16, 1943, the amended petition was filed. On Sep-
tember 28, 1943, after the petition and amended petition herein had
been filed and the notice of hearing issued, the Molders and the Com-
pany entered into an amendment to the original contract, as extended,
altering certain of its conditions. Evidence adduced at the hearing
indicates that this amendment constituted the changes which had been
made in the old contract by the negotiations of August 15, 1943.
The Molders argues that the contract of March 31, 1942, as ex-
tended and amended, constitutes a bar to a determination of repre-
sentatives. We cannot agree with this contention. The original
contract, by its terms, was an agreement of indefinite duration which
has been in effect over 1 year and would not constitute a bar to' an
immediate determination of representatives.' Each of the extentions
endorsed on the original' contract contemplates the negotiation of a
new agreement. Moreover, the proposed contract of August 15, 1943,
and the amendment to the original contract of September 28, 1943,
represent actual negotiation of new terms, as to which no formal
agreement was executed until after the CIO had asserted its claim.2
In view of the lack of finality in the effective term of the contract and
the extensions thereto, we find it to be no bar to a present determina-
tion of representatives.
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced in evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of
employees within the unit which it alleges to be appropriate .3
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 DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The CIO contends that all production and maintenance employees
of the Company, excluding executives, supervisors, and clerical -em-
ployees, comprise an appropriate bargaining unit. The Molders
takes the position that the unit set forth in its contract with the Com-
pany, comprised of all mechanics, molders, preformers, set-up men,
expediters, and janitors employed in the Company's molding depart-
ment, excluding supervisors and clerical employees, comprise the
appropriate unit.
I See Matter of General Electric Company, 48 N L. R B 1044.
2 See Matter of Eicor, Inc., 46 N. L. R. B. 1035.
2 The Regional Director reported that the CIO submitted 98 application -for-member-
ship cards bearing apparently genuine original signatures of persons whose names
appear on the Company ' s pay roll of August 23, 1943 , which contains 161 names of persons
within the alleged appropriate unit ; 61 of the 98 signatures are names of persons in the
unit covered by the alleged contract between the Molders and the Company , which unit
comprises 88 employees.
PLASTIMOLD, INC. 155
The Company's manufacturing operations are roughly divided into
two departments, namely, the assembling department and the molding
department. The employees covered by the Molders' contract work
for the most part in a building some 20 feet removed from the building
which houses the assembling department. The majority of the per-
sonnel, in the assembling department are female employees while all
of the molding department employees are male. There is very little
interchange of employees between the molding department and the
assembling department. However, the manufacturing operations of
the Company are closely integrated and the work performed in the
assembling department is the further processing of products fabri-
cated in the molding department. We are of the opinion that although
the employees of the molding department are an integral part of the
Company's entire operations, nevertheless they are an identifiable
group engaged in work sufficiently distinguishable from that of other
production employees to warrant establishing them as a separate unit.
Moreover, these employees have constituted a bargaining unit by virtue
of the contract between the Company and the Molders for the past
year, In view of these facts, we are of the opinion that the employees
of the molding department should be permitted to continue to bargain
as a separate unit if they so desire.
We shall make no final determination of the appropriate unit at
this time, but shall direct that the question concerning representation
which has arisen be-resolved by means of separate elections by secret
ballot among the employees in the voting units described below who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
the date of the Direction of Elections herein, subject to the limitations
and additions set forth in the Direction :
(1) All mechanics, molders, preformers, set-up men, expediters, and
janitors employed in the Company's molding department, excluding
supervisory employees with the authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, and clerical employees, to deter-
mine whether they desire to be represented by the Molders, the CIO,
or neither;
(2) The remaining production and maintenance employees of the
Company, excluding executives,, supervisory employees with the au-
thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, and,clerical employees, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented by the CIO.
Upon the results of the elections directed among the employees
designated in voting units (1) and (2), above, will depend, in part,
our determination of the appropriate unit or units, if any, governing
employees in such groups.
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Plastimold, Inc.,
Attleboro, Massachusetts, elections 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 Re-
gional Director for the First 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 groups
of employees described below who were employed by the Company
at its plant in Attleboro, Massachusetts, 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 cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior
to the election :
(1) All mechanics, molders, preformers, set-up men, expediters,
and janitors employed in the Company's molding department, ex-
cluding supervisory employees with the authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees, or effectively recommend such action, and clerical em-
ployees, to determine whether they desire to be represented by In-
ternational Molders, and Foundry Workers Union of North America,
Local No. 320 (AFL), or by United Rubber Workers of America
(CIO), or by neither;
(2) The remaining production and maintenance employees of the
Company, excluding executives, supervisory employees with the au-
thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, and clerical employees, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented by United Rubber Workers of America
(CIO), for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D.,REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.