Talon, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 2, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1134 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

III the Matter of TALON, INC., EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSO-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE NO. 110, PETITIONER
Case No. 6-R-1355.-Decided August 2, 1946
Messrs. Fred R. Davis, A. J. Gilles, TiTilliain F. McIntyre, and Joh a
J. Williams, of Meadeville, Pa., for the Employer.
Mr. A. G. Skundor, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Joseph A. Padway, by Mr. Robert A. Wilson, of Washington,
D. C., and Mr. William Sturm, of Toledo, Ohio, for the SFU.
Mr. John A. Nevros, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Meadville,
Pennsylvania, on May 20, 1946, before Joseph Lepie, Trial Examiner.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the SFU moved
to dismiss the petition on various grounds. The Trial Examiner re-
served ruling on this motion for the Board. For reasons stated here-
inafter, the motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF TILE EMPLOYER
Talon, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged at its Meadville,
Pennsylvania, plant in the manufacture of slide fasteners. During
1945, the Employer purchased for its Meadville plant approximately
$7,313,000 worth of raw materials and supplies, of which about 80
percent came from sources outside the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania. During the same period, the Employer's Meadville plant man-
ufactured products valued at approximately $22,370,000, of which 85
percent represented shipments to points outside the Commonwealth.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
69 N. L. R. B., No. 137.
1134
TALON, INC.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
1135
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
Slide Fasteners Union No. 20230, herein called the SFU, is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the operate-set-up employees of the
Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an
appropriate unit.
At the hearing, the SFU moved to dismiss the petition on the
grounds, among others, that: (1) a jurisdictional dispute exists be-
tween the Petitioner and the SFU; (2) the unions should be left to
adjust the matter between themselves because the chances of reconcilia-
tion between the International Association of Machinists, herein
called the IAM, and the American Federation of Labor herein called
the AFL, would be lessened and undesirable repercussions in other
plants would result through Board action other than a dismissal;
(3) the General Labor Relations Agreement of January 7, 1946, herein
called the master contract, to which the Employer and several unions,
including the Petitioner and the SFU, are parties, and the SFU's
supplement thereto constitute a bar to an election; and (4) the Peti-
tioner is estopped from asserting any claim to the employees in issue
by reason of the master contract.
The alleged jurisdictional dispute between the unions in this case
had its genesis in (1) the creation by the Employer on December 26,
1944, of the new job classification of operate-set-up man by combining
the duties of the operators and the set-up men working on the No. 3
Special Baird Slider Fabricating Presses,' and (2) in the inability
of the SFU and the Petitioner, who were then affiliated with the AFL
and were recognized representatives of the operators and the set-up
men, respectively, to resolve between themselves the question of juris-
diction over this classification. Although the SFU thereafter referred
the matter to the AFL for determination, and subsequently received a
letter dated December 18, 1945, from President William Green, pur-
porting to award jurisdiction over these employees to it, the Petitioner
not only does not recognize the award 2 but has disaffiliated itself from
the AFL. In view of such disaffiliation, it is clear that no jurisdictional
dispute exists.' However, the SFU argues further in this connection
1 Herein called the No. 3 presses.
The Petitioner did not see this letter until the hearing on May 20, 1946.
See Matter of The Cleveland Welding Company, 67 N. L. R. B. 223.
1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that in the interest of preventing industrial unrest and of not hinder-
ing a rapproachment between the AFL and the IAM, the Board
should dismiss the petition and leave the parties to adjust the matter
between themselves. We do not agree. The Board has frequently
proceeded to an election in the face of a dispute between two afliliate5
where the parent organization could not secure compliance with its
orders from the disputants.' Consequently, where, as here, one of
the disputants is clearly not presently affiliated with the parent and
there is no indication that its return to the parent is likely within the
foreseeable future, the need for an election is made increasingly clear.
Moreover, the Board, by directing an election, is not seeking to de-
termine the jurisdiction to be enjoyed by either of these unions; it is
merely invoking the administrative processes of the Act where in its
opinion effective resolution of the existing conflict cannot otherwise
be had.
Nor is there any merit to the SFU's further contention that the
master contract and the SFU's supplement thereto bar an election,
and that the Petitioner is estopped by the master contract from
asserting any claim to the employees in issue.
The master contract is effective for a period of 2 years from January
8, 1946, and is subject to automatic renewal annually thereafter.' It
was entered into on January 7, 1946, by the Employer and 14 unions,
including the Petitioner and the SFU, and provides for a union shop,
with the Employer recognizing each of the 14 unions party thereto as
exclusive bargaining agents for employees falling within their respec-
tive jurisdictions. At that time all except the Petitioner were in good
standing with the AFL. The SFU contends that this contract and
its supplementary agreement of November 30, 1945, cover the operate-
set-up men. It is clear, however, from an examination of these con-
tracts, that they do not make specific provision for the representation
of the operate-set-up men. Nor is there any basis for concluding, as
the SFU contends, that these agreements establish its representative
status with respect to these employees by implication drawn from the
clear intent of the parties to recognize the jurisdiction of the SFU
over the operation of machines.
With respect to the question of estoppel raised by the SFU, the per-
tinent parts of the master contract are the preamble and Section 4.
The preamble lists the Petitioner, despite its suspension from the
AFL at the time, as a "local union affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor," and Section 4 reads as follows :
Jurisdictional Disputes.-The unions agree that jurisdictional
disputes shall not interfere with plant production.
See Matter of Foote d Davies , 66 N. L. R. B. 416.
TALON, INC. 1137
The Company recognizes jurisdiction as awarded by the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, unless exceptions are mutually agreed
to between the Company and the Union in the respective supple-
mentary agreements.5
It is the position of the SFU that the Petitioner, by virtue of Section
4, has agreed that in the event of a jurisdictional dispute between any
of the unions parties to the contract, the decision of the AFL shall be
final and binding, and the present disaffiliation of the Petitioner is im-
material. The Petitioner states, however, that in view of its dis-
affiliation, it does not recognize any awards made by the AFL.
As already indicated, a letter dated December 18, 1945, purporting
to award jurisdiction over the operate-set-up men to the SFU, was sent
to the SFU by William Green, President of the AFL.' This letter was
issued in the interval between the suspension of the IAM by the AFL
Executive Council, in the latter part of October 1945, and the referen-
dum held by the IAM in January, 1946, which resulted in the severance
of its ties with the AFL. In view of the IAM's disaffiliation from the
A-FL, we are unable to agree that an award has been made which is
binding upon the Petitioner. It is apparent from the nature of the
master contract that continued affiliation by the IAM with the AFL
is a prerequisite to the effectiveness of such an award. To give the
contract the effect for which the SFU contends would produce the
extraordinary result of causing a labor union and its members to sub-
mit their dispute to their opponents for judgment and decision 7
Under these circumstances we can perceive no basis for finding that the
Petitioner is estopped by the provisions of the master contract from
seeking a determination of representatives.
Accordingly, inasmuch as there is at present no jurisdictional dis-
pute, and no binding jurisdictional award, and inasmuch as the master
contract and the SFU's supplement thereto, contrary to the position
of the SFU, do not directly or by implication include within their
coverage the employees here involved, we are of the opinion that the
motion to dismiss on the above-mentioned grounds is without merit.'
5 The only existing supplementary agreement between the Employer and the Petitioner
was dated January 2, 1946, 5 days before the master contract , and was incorporated by
reference into the master agreement . The supplementary agreement affects no modifica-
tion of Section 4 of the master contract.
0 The Employer was first notified on January 7, 1946, by the SFU that it "had received
an award, " but was not shown the letter until March 12, 1946.
'Accord Warehousemen's Union V. N. L. R. B., 121 F. (2d) 84, 88-92 (App. D. C.),
enf'g as mod. 19 N. L. R. B. 778, cert. den. 314 U. S. 674.
8 It is not contended, nor is the master contract susceptible of the interpretation, that
the Petitioner has, within the meaning of the Briggs Indiana doctrine (Matter of Briggs
Indiana Corporation, 63 N. L. It. B. 1270), undertaken by this contract not to seek to rep-
resent these employees.
701592-47-vol. 69-73
1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, 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 Petitioner seeks to embrace the operate-set-up men and their
group leaders within its existing unit comprising machinists, tool and
die makers , maintenance workmen, repair machinists, and set-up men.
The SFU opposes the Petitioner's unit contention, and urges that the
only grouping appropriate herein is one including these employees
within its unit consisting of all machine operators except the operate-
set-up men.9 Neither union seeks to represent these employees in a
separate unit. The Employer takes no position on the unit issue.
The operate-set-up men operate the No. 3 Special Baird Slider Fabri-
cating Presses which fabricate the slider part of the slide fastener to
approximately two-thirds of completion in one of the intermediate
steps in a highly integrated manufacturing process. These machines
are highly complicated, 20-ton, 9-station transferring type presses, per-
forming 9 separate and distinct die operations. They are especially
built exclusively for the Employer, and are located on the same floor
and adjacent to other machines used in the manufacturing process.
As already noted, the Employer, on December 26, 1944, created this
classification of employees by a consolidation of the work formerly
done by the operators and set-up men. The change-over affected 24
operators, 21 set-up men and 3 group leaders; of these, the Petitioner
then represented the 3 group leaders and the 21 set-up men, who kept
the No. 3 presses set-up and in repair, while the SFU represented the
24 operators. All the set-up men and group leaders qualified for the
new operate-set-up classification because their work also included the
skills required of an operator,10 whereas all eligible operators were
required to complete successfully a special training program in order
to qualify, inasmuch as they were unskilled in the work of the set-up
men.11 At the time of the hearing the Employer had 51 operate-set-up
men. The additional personnel was obtained from among employees
in the units represented by the Petitioner and the SFU, from return-
ing veterans who had formerly been No. 3 press operators, and from
outside sources. All were required to complete successfully the Em-
ployer's special training program.
9 The SFU 's unit is residual in character , comprising the bulk of the production workers
at this plant.
10 A minimum training period of 6 months was required for set-up men , and approxi-
mately 30 months ' experience was necessary for them to become thoroughly trained and
competent.
11 Approximately 20 of the 24 operators at that time were women , and inasmuch as
women were not eligible for the new classification of operate -set-up man , only 3 or 4 opera-
tors became available for the special training program that would qualify them to become
operate-set -up men.
TALON, INC. 1139
The operate-set-up men are paid the guaranteed base rate of $0.85
to $1.151/2 per hour which the set-up men on the No. 3 presses formerly
received , plus an incentive bonus. Their earnings now exceed those
received by either the set-up men or the operators before the consolida-
tion 12 They spend approximately 63 percent of their time operat-
ing the presses and 37 percent of their time doing set-up and repair
work, and are under the supervision of the production foremen who
also supervise other production operations in-the plant 13
There has been no prior Board determination at this plant. Bar-
gaining with respect to these employees has been proceeding on a
members-only basis and has been limited to the presentation of griev-
ances. There is also lacking any historical pattern of organization
among other employers in the same industry, inasmuch as the No. 3
presses are made exclusively for this Employer. In addition, the
record discloses, on the one hand, that the qualifications, training,
technical skills and standards of operations requirements for the
operate-set-up classification are similar to those possessed by the set-
up men at and before the time of the consolidation in December 1944,
and are similar in many respects to those of workers in Petitioner's
present bargaining unit; that most of the operate-set-up men and
their supervisors were formerly set-up men; that their skills are
considerably greater than those of workers in the SFU's bargaining
unit; and that their earnings are more nearly comparable to those of
employees presently represented by the Petitioner. In these respects
the interests of the operate-set-up men are indeed closely identified
with those of the employees embraced in the Petitioner's existing unit.
On the other hand, it is evident that the operate-set-up men are super-
vised by the same production foremen as are other production em-
ployees represented by the SFU.; that while their work includes some
maintenance and set-up duties, it is primarily that of production ;
that their working conditions are similar to those of other production
workers; and that their integration in the process of manufacture
brings them in close relationship to the other production workers.
We are therefore persuaded, on all the facts, that the evidence points
to the equal propriety of joining the operate-set-up men either to
the Petitioner's established unit, or to the SFU's existing unit 14 In
these circumstances, we shall make no final unit determination at
this time, but shall be guided, in part, by the desires of the employees
11 Operators on the other Baird presses , represented by the SFU, earn a base rate of 71
cents per hour. The hourly rate the set -up men on the No. 3 presses received before the
consolidation was and is higher than the base rate for set-up men on other types of Baird
presses.
1' The production foremen do not supervise any set-up men or any other employees pres-
ently represented by the Petitioner . These employees are supervised by the foreman of
Department 18 (Machine Department ), who exercises no supervision over any production
workers.
1" We accordingly find no merit in the SFU's motion to dismiss on the further ground
that the unit sought is inappropriate.
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
involved, as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If at such
election the operate-set-up men select the Petitioner, they will be
deemed to have indicated their desire to be included within the Peti-
tioner's established unit, but if they select the SFU, they will be taken
to have indicated their desire to be included within the SFU's existing
unit.
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among all em-
ployees classified as operate-set-up men, including group leaders,15
but excluding supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, subject to the limitations
and additions set. forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Talon, Inc., Meadville, Penn-
sylvania, 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 Di-
rector for the Sixth Region, acting in this matter as agent for tho
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections
10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the voting group
described in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, includ-
ing 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 them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees 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
or not they, desire to be represented by International Association of
Machinists, Lodge No. 110, or by Slide Fasteners Union No. 20230,
affiliated with American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of
collective bargaining, or by neither.
CHAIRMAN HERZOO took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
'b At the hearing, the parties stipulated that until the time of the consolidation, the group
leaders were always included within the unit represented by the Petitioner, and that they
never have been nor are they now supervisors within the Board's customary definition of
the term. Inasmuch as they do not have the authority to hire or discharge, or effectively
to recommend such action , we shall include them in the voting group established herein.