Schuler Axle Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 740 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of SCHULER AXLE COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OP
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. 9-R-1891.-Decided November 7,1945
Mr. Louis Seelbach , of Louisville , Ky., for the Company.
Messrs. Jess B. Moss and Frank Bruno, of Louisville , Ky., for the
C. I. O.
Mr. D. J . Omer, of Cincinnati , Ohio, and Mr. F. C. Becker , of Louis-
ville, Ky., for the A. F. of L.
Mr. Glenn L. Moller , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called
the C. I. 0., alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of Schuler Axle Com-
pany, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky, herein called the Company, the
National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before Janies A. Shaw, Trial Examiner. The hearing
was held in Louisville, Kentucky, on September 7, 1945: The Com-
pany, the C. I. 0., and International Association of Machinists, affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the A. F.
of L., 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 Examiner's
l ulings 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.
'At the hearing , the Trial Examiner granted a motion to intervene by the A F. of L.-
64 N L R B, No. 128.
740
SCHULER AXLE COMPANY, INC. 741
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Schuler Axle Company, a Delaware corporation with its principal
office and place of business in Louisville, Kentucky, is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of axles, truck and trailer axles,
assemblies, and miscellaneous forgings. During the 12 months preced-
ing the hearing, the Company purchased raw materials consisting
chiefly of steel billets, having a value in excess of $1,000,000, 90 percent
of which was, shipped to the Company from points outside the State
of Kentucky. During the same period, the value of the Company's
finished products was in excess of $3,000,000, 90 percent of which was
shipped to points outside the State of Kentucky.
The Company admits, for the purpose of this proceeding only, that
it is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act.2
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, and International Association of Machinists,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, are both labor
organizations admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On July 12, 1945, the C. I. O. requested the Company to recognize
it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in its
production and maintenance department. On July 19, 1945, the Com-
pany advised the C. 1. 0. that because of a contract with the A. F. of L.,
it could not recognize the C. I. O. until it was certified by the Board.
The contract between the Company and the A. F. of L. was entered
into March 3, 1943, and was to remain in effect for the period of 1
year, after which it was to continue in effect, subject to termination
on 30 days' written notice. The Company urges that the contract
2 Prior to August 14, 1945, the Company was engaged 100 percent in the war effort,
acting as a subcontractor for primary war contractors manufacturing substantially its
usual line of products. Since the Japanese surrender all of the Company's war contracts
have been canceled . However , the Company anticipates no difficulty in going back to
peacetime production and was, at the time of the hearing , awaiting orders from its old
customers.
During the war years , the Company employed at the time of its peak production ap-
proximately 250 employees . At the time of the hearing, It had approximately 150 employees
on the pay roll. During peacetime , it expects to employ steadily approximately 100
employees ( See footnote 3, infra.)
742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is a bar. The initial term of the contract having expired, the contract
is now terminable upon notice. We find that the contract does not
constitute a bar to a present determination of representatives.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the C. I. 0. represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found 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 C. I.0. contends that all production and maintenance employees,
including inspectors and watchmen, but excluding office and clerical
employees, executives, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other super-
visory employees, constitute the appropriate unit. The unit is essen-
tially the same as that in the A. F. of L. contract. Watchmen, how-
ever, are specifically excluded from the A. F. of L. contract unit, while
neither inspectors nor assistant foremen are mentioned. In practice,
the Company and the A. F. of L. have not bargained for inspectors,
but have bargained for assistant foremen. The A. F. of L. does not
now object to the inclusion of watchmen and inspectors, or to the
exclusion of assistant foremen as requested by the C. I. 0. The Com-
pany has no objection to the unit claimed appropriate by the C. I. 0.,
except that it contends that inspectors should be excluded.
Assistant Foremen: There are approximately eight such employees.
They have the power effectively to recommend the discharge of em-
ployees and have exercised this prerogative. All parties agree to their
exclusion. While it is true that the A. F. of L. has bargained for
them, in view of the present position of the parties and because they
fall within our usual definition of supervisory employees, we shall
exclude them from the unit.
Watchmen: The Company employs two watchmen, who guards its
property against fire and theft. During the war they were armed and
uniformed, and the parties excluded them from the unit in their collec-
tive bargaining relations. There was some indication in the record
that they are now unarmed, do not wear uniforms, and perform only
the usual duties of watchmen, not including monitorial duties. The
C. I.0. wishes to include them in the unit and the A. F. of L. is willing
8 The Field Examiner reported that the C I. 0 submitted 133 application cards dated
January 1945 through August 1945, with 7 undated ; that the names of 106 persons
appearing on the cards were listed on the Company ' s pay roll of July 14, 1945 ; and that
there were at that time 194 employees in the alleged appropriate unit. ( See also footnote
2, supra )
The A. F. of L . relied upon its contract to establish its interest in the proceeding.
SCHULER AXLE COIVTPANY, INC. 743.
that they be included, both unions believing that the watchmen are no
longer armed and uniformed. Only the Company objects to their in-
clusion, and its position is predicated upon the impression that their
status is unchanged since the end of the war.4 On the assumption that
the unions' version of the facts is correct, and that, accordingly, there
is no real disagreement among the parties, we shall include the watch-
men in the unit.5
Inspectors: The Company's inspectors, approximately 14 in num-
ber, work under the supervision of the chief inspector, their foreman,
inspecting rough parts, the working of parts, finished parts, and'
finished assembly. They may reject products completely or condi-
tionally. An employee who produces a part rejected by an inspector
must rework the part on straight time, a lower rate of pay than the
piece work rate. The Company, as a sole ground for their exclusion,
urges that the inspectors are identified with management. We do not
agree. These employees have no supervisory authority, nor do they
serve in a confidential capacity with respect to labor relations. We
have frequently rejected the contention that the function of inspecting
the output of production employees and rejecting faulty work is
"managerial" in the sense here urged by the Company.6 Since the
parties do not otherwise disagree as to the inspectors, and the record
reveals no substantial reason for their exclusion from the broad
production unit, we will include inspectors.
We find that all production and maintenance employees, including
watchmen and inspectors, but excluding office and clerical employees,,
executives, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the-
Direction.
4 The Company's representative stated that he knew little or nothing about the opera-
tions of the business, since he had just assumed his duties following the sudden death of
the former president and manager.
6 See Matter of Hans Rees' Sons, 61 N. L. R. B. 541.
6 Matter of Gardner-Denver Company, 52 N. L R B. 1277 ; Matter of Arnolt Motor Com-
pany Inc, et at, 52 N. L. R. B. 856 ; Matter of Aluminum Company of America, 52 N. L. R.
B. 1040 , Matter of Industrial Rayon Corporation, 56 N. L R. B. 1679.
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
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, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Schuler Axle
Company, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky, an election 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 Regional Director for the Ninth 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
employees in the unit found appropriate 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
the said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but exclud-
ing any 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
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, C. I. 0., or by International Association of
Machinists, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or
by neither.
MR . GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.