Pressed Steel Car Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 18, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 629 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of PRESSED STEEL CAR COMPANY, INC., DOMESTIC
APPLIANCE DIVISION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN-
ISTS, TOOL AND DIE MAKERS LODGE No. 113, DISTRICT No. 8
Case No.13-R-3154.-Decided July 18,1946
Mr. Arthur J. Kuhn, of Chicago , Ill., for the Company.
Messrs. P. L. Siemiller and Benjamin Skidmore, both of Chicago,
Ill., for the IAM.
Messrs. Irving Meyers and Pat Greathouse , both of Chicago, Ill.,
for the UAW-CIO.
Mr. B. M . Ettenson , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Association of Machin-
ists, Tool and Die Makers Lodge No. 113, District No. 8, herein called
the IAM, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of Pressed Steel Car Com-
pany, Inc., Domestic Appliance Division, Chicago, Illinois, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Benjamin B.
Salvaty, Jr., Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Chicago,
Illinois , on April 30, 1946. The Company, the IAM, and Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, Local Union No. 166, CIO, herein called the
UAW-CIO, appeared and participated. All parties were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Exam-
iner'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.
Under the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDING OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Pressed Steel Car Company, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation with
its principal offices located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is licensed to
69 N. L . R. B., No. 77.
629
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
do business in the State of Illinois. The Domestic Appliance Division
of the Company, located at Chicago, Illinois, which is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of domestic appliances, is the only plant involved
in this proceeding. The Domestic Appliance Division was formerly
the Company's Armored Tank Division at which it was engaged in
the manufacture and sale of armored tanks for the United States
Army. During the calendar year 1945 the Company at the Armored
Tank Division purchased raw materials such as steel, valued in excess
of $1,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent was shipped to the
Armored Tank Division from points outside the State of Illinois.
During the same period the Company's sales exceeded $1,000,000, of
which approximately 90 percent was shipped by the Company to points
outside the State of Illinois. Since January 1946 the Company at
the Domestic Appliance Division purchased raw materials and ma-
chinery in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 50 percent was
shipped to the Company from points outside the State of Illinois.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, Tool and Die Makers Lodge
No. 113, District No. 8, is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local Union No. 166, is a labor or-
ganization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION; THE ALLEGED
APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the TAM as the
exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees in the Com-
pany's Domestic Appliance Division until the IAM has been certified
by the Board in an appropriate unit. The UAW-CIO contends that
there is an existing contractual relationship between it and the Com-
pany which should effectively bar this proceeding, and moreover, that
the unit sought by the IAM is inappropriate.
The IAM petitions for a collective bargaining unit of all the em-
ployees of the toolroom of the Company's Domestic Appliance Di-
vision, Chicago, Illinois, except for office and clerical employees, and
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action. The UAW-CIO desires the con-
tinuance of the plant-wide production and maintenance unit which
PRESSED STEEL CAR COMPANY, INC . 631
it has represented since its certification by the Board in 1943. The
Company is neutral with regard to this contention.
The Company's Domestic Appliance Division was formerly the
Company's Armored Tank Division. The Armored Tank Division
began operations in 1940, when the Company received contracts for
the production of armored tanks for the United States Army. The
number of employees grew from 300 to a maximum of approximately
3,300 in August 1944. In June 1945, as a result of the curtailment
of war production, the number of employees was cut to 2,000. In
August of that year there was a further decrease in the number of
employees to 1,000. This last decrease was the result of the cancella-
tion of the war contracts. The Armored Tank Division ceased mak-
ing that product at that time. Recently, and as a result of the cancel-
lation of the war contracts, the Armored Tank Division was converted
to the Domestic Appliance Division., and it concerned itself with the
manufacture of domestic appliances and in particular electric ranges.
At the time of the hearing the Company was still in the experimental
stage and had not begun to manufacture domestic appliances for sale
on the open market. The physical structure of the Domestic Appli-
ance Division is similar, in the main, to that of the Armored Tank
Division. The situation and physical lay-out of the toolroom is identi-
cal with the exception of some different machines replacing the older
machines utilized to produce armored tanks. The toolroom is en-
closed within a larger building, and a separate entrance is utilized by
the employees of the toolroom.
At the present time, there are 33 tool and die makers, 8 machinists
special purpose, 2 tool crib attendants, and 3 sheet metal model mak-
ers, employed in the toolroom. This is essentially the same depart-
mental group as has existed since the Armored Tank Division began
operations with the exceptions of the 3 sheet metal model makers.
The IAM argues that the change of production from armored tanks
to electrical appliances is such a conversion as to cause the employees
of the toolroom to constitute a different group and that this circum-
stance supports its request for severance. We do not agree. The
evidence shows that the tool and die maker in the present division is
substantially the same as the tool and die maker under the armored
tank era. It is true that the tool and die maker today is required
to perform the duties of heat treat, tool grinding, and tool inspection.
These added duties, which are normally included within the classifi-
cation of tool and (lie maker, have resulted from the discharge of less
skilled employees who formerly performed these duties. The fact that
a different product is being manufactured does not, in our opinion,
constitute a sufficient ground, standing alone, for severance o: this
craft.
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The UAW-CIO contends, and we believe its contention is correct,
that the history of collective bargaining precludes the establishment
of the toolroom employees as a separate unit.
The UAW-CIO won a Board election held among the employees of
the Armored Tank Division in 1942, and it was certified as the col-
lective bargaining representative for the plant-wide production and
maintenance unit." Asa result of this, on June 24, 1943, a contract was
entered into between the Company and the UAW-CIO. A second elec-
tion was held among the employees in 1944, and a second contract was
entered into for the same unit between the UAW-CIO and the Com-
pany.2 During this entire period the UAW-CIO bargained for all
employees in the plant-wide production and maintenance unit which
included the employees in the toolroom, and it presented several
grievances to the Company an behalf of the toolroom employees.
Some time in 1943 the UAW-CIO requested the establishment of a tool
and die maker classification, which would result in raising the rates of
pay of qualified employees in the toolroom, but no agreement was
reached. This grievance was again revived in March or April 1944,
at which time the employees in the toolroom engaged in a brief work
stoppage in furtherance of a renewed effort to have the tool and die
makers classification established. Thereafter the UAW-CIO nego-
tiated an agreement with the Company that the classification should be
established and that the employees should qualify for the new jobs
by taking certain examinations. On May 25, 1944, the War Labor
Board approved the creation of the classification. Whether or not it
is entitled to sole credit for this achievement, it is clear that the UAW-
CIO gave the project full support and material aid. There is evidence
to the effect that the employees of the toolroom met with the Company
on one other occasion in an attempt to reinstate employees who had
been discharged, but, on the other hand, the record also indicates that
the UAW-CIO filed grievances with the Company regarding the rein-
statement of these same individuals. The UAW-CIO has in the past
had a shop steward among the toolroom employees. At the present
time, a tool and die maker is a member of the UAW-CIO bargaining
committee. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the IAM attempted
to enlist the toolroom employees until late in 1945 or early 1946.
The IAM attempted to show that an industry pattern in the Chicago
area supports its request for severance of the toolroom. We are not
See Matter of Pressed Steel Car Company, Inc., 46 N. L. R. B. 262.
a This contract expired on March 1, 1945, but its provisions continued to be observed
by the parties during the period of negotiations which followed. Between January 1945
and January 1946, the Company and the UAW-CIO signed memoranda of agreement con-
cerning lay-offs, reemployment rights of servicemen, check- off and maintenance of mem-
bership. Since the 1944 contract as orally extended and the written supplemental agree-
ments are for an indefinite term, we find no merit In the UAW-CIO's contention that
there is a contractual bar to this proceeding.
PRESSED STEEL CAR COMPANY, INC. 633
persuaded by the evidence adduced that any relevant custom exists in
this area or industry.
In view of the facts set forth above, we are of the opinion that the
employees in the unit proposed by the IAM have been effectively repre-
sented for several years as part of the plant-wide bargaining unit, and
that no sufficient justification exists for disturbing the historical pat-
tern by setting apart the toolroom at this time.' We, therefore, find
that the unit sought by the IAM is not an appropriate bargaining unit,
and we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, the Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation
and certification of representatives of the employees of the Pressed
Steel Car Company, Inc., Domestic Appliance Division, Chicago, Illi-
nois, by the International Association of Machinists, Tool and Die
Makers, Lodge No. 113, District No. 8, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
3 Matter of American Can Company, 13 N. L. It. B. 1252: ef. Matter of Goodyear Tire h
Rubber Company, 55 N. L. R. B. 918 ; Matter of General Electric Company ( Lynn River
Works and Everett Plant ), 58 N. L. It . B. 57; and Matter of L. E. Shank Latex Products,
Inc., 67 N . L. R. B. 552.