Simplex Tool and Die Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 11, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 750 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SIMPLEX TOOL AND DIE CORPORATION and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, Petitioner
HAMILTON ART M E T A L CORPORATION and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos . 2-RC-6174 and 2-RC-6203.
January 11, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing on the consolidated cases was
held before Max Dauber, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases , the Board finds:
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employers.
3. The Intervenor , International Union of Mine, Mill and
Smelter Workers, Local 701, which has been the recognized
bargaining representative for several years of the employees
of Simplex Tool and Die Corporation, herein referred to as
Simplex, claimed at the hearing that there was a contract bar
to an election among the employees of Simplex. The Petitioner
denied the existence of a valid signed contract which could
operate as a bar . The Employers expressed willingness to
abide by the Board's decision on the issue of contract bar.
An unsigned , mimeographed agreement was introduced into
evidence as the current contract between the Intervenor and
Simplex. This agreement is dated April 10, 1952, provides
that it shall be effective from May 1, 1952, until May 1, 1953,
and contains a 30-day automatic renewal clause. It was claimed
that the contract was renewed in accordance with this clause.
Eric Wedemeyer, president of Simplex, testified that he
signed a copy of this contract. No evidence was introduced
that it was ever signed by the Intervenor. Although given
ample opportunity at the hearing to do so, neither the Em-
ployers nor the Intervenor produced a signed copy of the agree -
ment.1 As there is no evidence that the agreement has been
properly executed, it cannot constitute a bar.'
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of employees of the
1The Intervenor stated at the hearing that it had no signed copy of this contract. Wedemeyer
stated that he was unable to explain why no signed copy was introduced into evidence.
2 American Suppliers, Inc , 98 NLRB 692.
107 NLRB No 149
SIMPLEX TOOL AND DIE CORPORATION 751
Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent all employees of both
Simplex and Hamilton Art Metal Corporation, herein referred
to as Hamilton, in a single unit ; or, in the alternative, the
employees of each corporation separately. The Intervenor
contends that the employees of Simplex constitute a separate
appropriate unit; it has no interest in the employees of Hamil-
ton. The Employers take the position that if the Board finds
there is no contract barring an election among the employees
of Simplex, then all employees of both corporations constitute
a single appropriate unit.
Simplex manufactures tools and dies for castings. Seventy
to eighty percent of its dies are sold to Hamilton, which manu-
factures die castings . Hamilton buys from Simplex most of
the dies used in the manufacture of castings . Eric Wedemeyer
is president and owns controlling stock in both companies. He
administers the general business and labor policies of both.
The two companies have the same general manager, occupy
the same premises , have the same telephone number, switch-
board, and clerical and maintenance staffs. These facts sup-
port the appropriateness of a single unit for employees of
both Simplex and Hamilton.3
Other factors, however, support the Intervenor' s request
for a separate unit of Simplex employees. While the pro-
duction and maintenance employees of Hamilton are engaged
in the manufacture of die castings and have not heretofore
been represented by a bargaining agent, the 26 employees
of Simplex have been represented by the Intervenor for many
years. All of the Simplex employees are either diemakers,
junior diemakers, diemaker's helpers, die repairmen, ma-
chinists, lathe men, or tool crib attendants . All were experi-
enced in their skill when hired or received apprentice training
from the Employer. They work in a clearly demarcated area
which is generally referred to as the "toolroom," are under
separate immediate supervision, and receive higher wages than
the production employees of Hamilton. Hamilton employs no
workers in these classifications. Under these facts, the em-
ployees of Simplex may constitute a separate appro-
priate unit.4
In view of the foregoing and on the entire record we are of
the opinion that the employees of Simplex and the production
and maintenance employees of Hamilton may constitute a
single appropriate unit or two separate units. Accordingly we
shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall
direct that the questions concerning representation which
exist be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among
the employees in the following voting groups:
3Clay & Bailey Manufacturing Company, 106 NLRB 210.
4Alltson Steel Manufacturing Company, 105 NLRB 723.
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. All production and maintenance employees in the New
Hyde Park, New York, plant of Hamilton Art Metal Corporation,
excluding suprvisors as defined in the Act.5
2. All employees of Simplex Tool and Die Corporation at
New Hyde Park, New York, including diemakers , junior die-
makers, diemaker ' s helpers , die repairmen , machinists, lathe
men, and tool crib attendants , but excluding supervisors as
defined in the Act.
If the employees in group 2 select the Intervenor for a
bargaining agent, the Board finds that these employees con-
stitute a separate appropriate unit; and in these circumstances
if the employees in group 1 select the Petitioner as their
bargaining representative , the Board finds that the employees
in group 1 also constitute an appropriate unit . If the employees
in the 2 groups select the Petitioner as their bargaining rep-
resentative , the Board finds that together they constitute an
appropriate unit. The Regional Director conducting the elec-
tions directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of
representatives in the unit or units which may result from
the elections.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
5 The Employer requested the Board to rule on the supervisory status of 3 shift leadmen
in the casting room , whom the Petitioner contended should be included 'in the unit . Each of
these leadmen is in charge of his department during his shift and is responsible for the
performance of 15 to 18 men. As they responsibly direct the work on their shift , assign and
reassign duties , check work performed , and maintain order, we find that these leadmen are
supervisors , and accordingly they are excluded from the unit . West Virginia Pulp and Paper
Company, 96 NLRB 871.
CAPITOL SMOKED FISH CORP. and FISH, SEA FOOD
SMOKED FISH & CANNING WORKERS UNION OF GREAT-
ER NEW YORK, LOCAL 635, AMALGAMATED MEAT
CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL. Case No. 2-CA-2946. January 12, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 8, 1953, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman
issued his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices in, violation of Section 8
(a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
107 NLRB No. 155.