The Beach Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 510 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of THE BE ACII COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERN
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 8-R-2304.-Decided February 11, 19417
Mr. J. W. Beach, of Coshocton, Ohio, for the Employer.
Mr. H. F. Tausch, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Mr. R. D. Rust, of Mans-
field, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
Messrs. Robert Carton and Russell P. Grace, of Coshocton, Ohio,
for the Intervenor.
Mr. Ralph Winkler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Coshoc-
ton, Ohio, on September 17, 1946, before Thomas E. Shroyer, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing the
Intervenor filed a motion to dismiss the petition which the hearing
officer referred to the Board. The motion is hereby denied in accord-
ance with our decision herein.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS dF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Beach Company is an Ohio corporation engaged in the manu-
facture of metal signs and displays. It annually purchases raw mate-
rials valued in excess of $150,000, of which approximately 80 percent
is obtained outside the State of Ohio; it ships out of the State approxi-
mately 80 percent of its yearly production of finished products valued
at approximately $300,000.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
IL THE ORf,ANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is an unaffiliated labor organization claiming to rep-
resent employees of the Employer.
72NLHB,No94
510
THE BEACH COMPANY 511
International Union of Operating Engineers, herein called the In-
tervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. TILE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer for the rea-
son that the employees sought to be represented are covered by a col-
lective bargaining agreement executed on July 17, 1946, and which is
presently in effect between the Employer and the Intervenor. This
contract provides, inter alia, as follows :
. . . this Agreement shall be from year to year following the
date of this Agreement and may be reopened any time during the
life of the Agreement on sixty (60) days' notice by notification
of either signatory to this Agreement to the other.
Inasmuch as the contract is terminable at any time upon 60- days'
notice, we find that it does not constitute a bar to the present proceed-
ing.i
Accordingly, 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 Petitioner seeks a unit restricted to all non-supervisory em-
ployees in the Employer's toolroom and including a welder working
outside the toolroomn. The afore-mentioned contract has plant-wide
coverage 2 and the Employer and the Intervenor contend that such a
plant-wide unit is appropriate.
The toolroom personnel consists of skilled and apprentice die me-
chanics j and a foreman whose authority is limited to the toolroom.
Apart from the present contract which was executed on July 17, 1946,
there is no established history of plant-wide bargaining in the Em-
I Matter of Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Company, 65 N L R Ii 1416, Matter of
Jobn Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, 62 N L R B 240, 243; Matter of Fisher
Lumber Co , 62 N. L R B 543 , Matter of Summerill Tubing Company, 60 N L R B-
896 , Matter of Ionia Desk Company, 59 N L R B 1522
The Intervenor alleged that the Employees here involved have accepted benefits under
the Intervenoi's contract and that the petition should be dismissed for this reason Inns-
much as the contract is no bar to this proceeding we find no merit in this contention
t The unit covered by the contract includes "all production workers and mechanics of any
nature, shipping room employees and excludes supervisors, office employees, plant
clerical employees, foremen and watchmen, engneeis and firemen "
' The Inter tenor alleged, as an additional ground for dismissing the petition, that the
apprentices in the toolroom aie w orking under the Veterans' Training Program So far as
the record shows, apart from any subsidy paid these veterans by the Government, thes"
employees are employed under the same working conditions as the other employees herein
Moreover, the Intervenor itself has purported to represent these employees under its con-
tract with the Employer We therefore find no merit in the Intervenor''s contention See
Matter of Atlantic Towing Company, 71 N L R. B 640.
731242-47-col 72 34
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer's plant. The die mechanics and apprentices of the toolroom
constitute a skilled craft group as to whom, in the absence of a bar-
gaining history to the contrary, the Board has customarily permitted
the establishment of a separate bargaining unit.' There has been no
prior Board determination of the appropriate unit in this plant and
the bargaining history adverted to by the Employer and the Inter-
venor in opposing the establishment of such a unit is too recent to be
considered a factor militating against the creation of a craft unit.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that a unit of die mechanics and
their apprentices is appropriate.
The welder whom the Petitioner also seeks to represent works out-
side the toolroom and under separate supervision. We believe that
his interests lie more closely with the other employees covered by the
Employer's contract than with the toolroom employees. We shall
exclude him.
We find that all skilled and apprentice die mechanics of the Em-
ployer's toolroom, excluding the welder, the foreman in charge, and
all other supervisory employees with authority to,hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with The Beach Company, Coshocton,
Ohio, 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
Eighth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed duping the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction, including 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 themselves 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 they desire to be represented by International As-
sociation of Machinists, or by International Union of Operating Engi-
neers (AFL), for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
4 Matter of Ranco , Incorporated , 61 N L . R B 1174 , Matter of The Bastian-Blessing
Company, 65 N L R B. 1023