Stainless Welded Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 22, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 791 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

STAINLESS WELDED PRODUCTS, INC. 791
The brief and temporary interruption of bargaining is counter-
balanced by the ultimate stability in labor-management relations
which results from the selection of a bargaining representative by a
free and unpressured vote of the employees. Accordingly, we con-
clude that the agreement between the Employer and the Intervenor,
made and publicized during the crucial period after the direction of
election and prior to the conduct of the election, interfered with the
conduct of the election. Therefore, we shall set aside the election
conducted on October 18, 1955, and direct a new one to be conducted.4
[The Board set aside the election held on October 18, 1955.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER BEAN took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction
of Second Election.
4 Member Rodgers deems this result to be in conformance with the views expressed by
him in his dissent in the Gibson case, supra. He accordingly would hold the Gibson case
to be expressly overruled by this decision.
Stainless Welded Products , Inc. and United Automobile, Air-
craft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-
AFL-CIO), Amalgamated Local 669, Petitioner . Case No.
2-RC-&910. August 02,1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Julius Altman, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
1. The Petitioner seeks a unit comprising the employees of Stain-
less Welded Products, Inc., hereinafter called Stainless Welded, and
Stainless Products, Inc., hereinafter called Stainless. We find that
both companies are engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over them.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of Stainless Welded and Stainless, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1 Local 734, Hod Carriers , Building and Common Laborers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called
the Intervenor , to intervene at the hearing on the basis of a showing of interest.
116 NLRB No. 97.
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The unit requested at the hearing is one comprising the produc-
tion and maintenance employees of both companies,2 excluding group
leaders. The companies 3 contend that the unit should include the
group leaders and should be limited to the employees of Stainless
Welded. The Intervenor took no unit position.
The companies would exclude the employees of Stainless because
of the differences in operations, products, and employee skills as
between the two companies. Stainless Welded manufactures pipe in
standard sizes, while Stainless fabricates equipment such as hoppers,
tanks, and high pressure vessels in accordance with specifications of
customers. Both companies occupy the same building and there is
no physical separation between their production areas. The same
persons serve as officers and directors of both companies and labor
policies for both are determined by the same individuals. They
have the same plant superintendent and personnel manager, and em-
ployees of both share the same lockerroom, and use a common tool
crib. Stainless Welded makes available to Stainless the services of
various categories of employees,4 for which it is reimbursed by Stain-
less. Stainless also purchases some materials from Stainless Welded.'
About 40 percent of the products of Stainless are worked upon by
employees of Stainless Welded at one stage of fabrication or another.
In view of the common management of both companies, common
control of labor relations, their functional integration and physical
proximity, we find that they constitute a single employer, and that a
unit comprising the production and maintenance employees of both
is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.6
The Petitioner objects to the inclusion of the eight group leaders on
the ground that they are supervisors. The record shows, however, that
these employees I have none of the statutory indicia of a supervisor.
They are more experienced than the other employees in their groups
and receive 10 cents more per hour than such other employees. They
spend all their time on production work. Some of them instruct new
2 The unit requested in the petition was limited to the employees of Stainless Welded.
3 Although only Stainless Welded was named in the petition as the Employer , counsel
for that company purported to speak for both companies at the hearing . In the absence
of any contention to the contrary, and, in view of the substantial identity of both com-
panies , as found below , we will treat both companies as properly before us in this
proceeding See J. W Rex Company, 115 NLRB 775.
4 These include , inter alia, machine shop , crating , receiving, shipping , office , and material
handling , employees
This constitutes about 3 percent of Stainless ' total requirements.
e In reaching this conclusion , we have given due weight to the fact that the employees
of Stainless are more highly skilled and higher paid than those of Stainless Welded, and
are under separate immediate supervision , that there is no employee interchange between
the two companies , and that Stainless manufactures a more specialized product than
Stainless Welded. We do not believe that these and other circumstances cited by the
companies are sufficient to offset the factors listed above supporting the Petitioner's unit
request Aircraft Engine Service, Inc, 102 NLRB 1326. Cf Clay & Bailey Manufacturing
Company and Morgan Foundry Company, 106 NLRB 210
7 Cavalier , Morgan, Bentsen , Koneiczao , Rennie, Fenielli , Godumski , and Willis.
ILLINOIS FARM SUPPLY CORPORATION 793
employees. Some also assign work to members of their groups but
such assignments are made solely on the basis of delivery schedules
and do not involve the exercise of independent judgment. We find
therefore that the group leaders are not supervisors and we shall in-
clude them.8
We shall accordingly direct an election in the following unit :
All production and maintenance employees, including packing, ship-
ping, and receiving employees, janitor, material handlers, inspectors
and group leaders, of Stainless Welded Products, Inc., and Stainless
Products, Inc., but excluding office clerical employees, guards, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and RODGERS took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
8 In a prior case involving Stainless welded and a different union the Board overruled
challenges to the ballots of Cavalier, Morgan, Bentsen, and Rennie, finding that they
were not supervisors. 104 NLRB 204. There is no evidence in the instant record that
since that decision there has been any change in the duties of these employees.
Illinois Farm Supply Corporation, Petitioner and International
Chemical Workers Union , Local 542, AFL-CIO. Case No.
14-ISM-137. August 02,195E
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Thomas C. Hendrix, 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 the case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A contract between the Employer and the Union covering the
employees involved herein was effective from June 1, 1955, to June
1, 1956, with a 60-day automatic renewal clause. By letter dated
March 26, 1956, the Union notified the Employer of its desire to
amend the contract. On April 12, 1956, the parties met and signed a
document entitled "Minutes of Union Contract Negotiations," which
acknowledges their meeting "for the purpose of negotiating a new
contract." Using the existing contract as a basis for negotiations, the
Employer and the Union agreed in the "Minutes" to continue without
116 NLRB No. 104.