The Budd Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 1, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 457 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

THE BUDD COMPANY 457
Allison, and Ford) may have 5-year contracts 4 As to the four re-
maining companies it was admitted that General Electric did not have
5-year contracts. No information was furnished as to Pratt-Whitney,
Continental, and Curtiss-Wright.
We find merit in the Petitioner's position that the current contract
is not a bar. The instant plant is engaged essentially in the manufac-
ture of aviation engine parts. The Board has found that contracts as
long as 3 years may be a bar in the aviation industry,' but as yet has
not extended the concept of reasonableness beyond 3 years in this in-
dustry. As the Intervenor has failed to show that a substantial por-
tion of the aircraft engine parts industry has negotiated contracts
of similar duration, we find that the instant 5-year contract, of which
more than 3 years have already elapsed, is not a bar to an election of
representatives.6
4. The appropriate unit :
We find that all production and maintenance employees including
steam power employees' at the Employer's Hamilton, Ohio, plant, but
excluding all clerical employees, engineers, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication']
& No contracts of these companies were in evidence and no representative thereof testi-
fied at the hearing. The evidence in the record is insufficient to support a finding that
these companies have 5-year contracts in the aviation engine parts industry.
5 See Repubiw Aviation Corp ., 109 NLRB 569.
6 See Duncan Foundry and Machine Works, Inc., 107 NLRB 298. Coil Winders, Inc.,
d/b/a New Cassell Electronics , 109 NLRB 827.
7 The unit as indicated herein was amended at the hearing to include the steam power
employees and is the same unit as that described in the current contract.
8 See Chairman Farmer's concurring decision in Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Com-
pany, 111 NLRB 389.
THE BUDD COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS of AMERICA,
UAW-CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 4-RC-0339. February 1, 1955
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 Bernard Samoff,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board for disposition a motion by the Employer to
strike certain testimony relating to the duration of the negotiations which resulted in the
execution of the contract urged as a bar herein and a motion by Budd Field Employees,
Independent Union, the Intervenor , to dismiss the petition on the ground of contract bar.
In view of our disposition of the contract-bar issue , it is unnecessary to consider the motion
to strike and the motion to dismiss is hereby denied.
111 NLRB No. 74.
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer operates five plants throughout the country. At its
Red Lion plant involved in this proceeding, the Employer is engaged
mainly in the manufacture of railway cars, highway trailers, automo-
tive parts, and jet engine parts. The Intervenor, Budd Field Plant
Employees' Independent Union, was certified as the exclusive bar-
gaining agent for the production and maintenance employees at the
Red Lion plant on September 28, 19512 On May 29, 1952, the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor entered into a 5-year contract covering those
-employees, effective until May 29, 1957, and from year to year there-
after, in the absence of appropriate termination notice. The Em-
ployer and the Intervenor contend that this contract is a bar to the
-petition filed herein on March 25, 1954, principally because of the
bargaining practices within the automobile and automotive parts in-
dustry, to which they claim the Red Lion plant properly belongs. The
Petitioner argues that the record fails to establish that the Red Lion
-plant belongs to an industry covered in substantial part by contracts
of more than 2 years' duration and that therefore the contract in ques-
tion, of which more than 2 years have already elapsed, is no bar.
The record establishes that before 1952 the Red Lion plant was
devoted in the main to railway car production. The character of its
-activities since then 3 is shown by the following tabulations :
DOLLAR VALUE OF SALES
1952 1953 January 1-Mar. 31,1954
Railway car products----------------------------------------- $15,724,613 $22,749,368 $5,982,858
Trailers and automotive parts ----------------------- 9,912,191 21,189, 327 3,247,463
Defense items (mostly jet engine parts) ----------------------- 7,321,070 13,081,132 1,765,918
PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES
As of-
Approximate number engaged in manufacturing-
May 29, Jan 2, June 12, Mar 18,
1952 1953 1953 1954
Railway car products ----------------------------- 501 555 657 1,013
Trailers and automotive parts ---------------------------------- 512 1,171 1, 116 405
.Jet engine parts- ----------------------------------------------- 129 573 206 167
3 The Budd Company, 91 NLRB No. 105 (not reported in printed volumes of Board De-
,elsions and Orders).
3 The hearing in this case opened on April 21, 1954.
THE BUDD COMPANY 459)
It is the Board's rule in cases such as this that contracts of more
than 2 years' duration may not serve as a bar to an election after the
first 2 years unless it is shown that a substantial part of the industry
concerned is covered by longer agreements.' As previously indicated,
the Employer and the Intervenor contend that this case concerns the
automobile and automotive parts industry, a substantial portion of
which is covered by 5-year contracts.' On the basis of the entire rec-
ord, however, including the sales volume of railway car products and
jet engine parts compared with that of trailers and automotive parts,
and the fluctuation in the division of manpower between trailers and
automotive parts production and other work,' we find that the Red
Lion plant is not primarily engaged in the manufacture of trailers and
automotive parts and hence cannot be considered part of the automo-
bile and automotive parts industry for purposes of this case.' As
the record does not show that the Employer belongs, for contract-bar
purposes, to any other industry which is covered in substantial part
by contracts of longer than 2 years' duration,' we find that the contract
in question, having been in effect for more than 2 years, is not a bar to,
this proceeding.' In view thereof, we deem it unnecessary to pass
upon various other contentions of the Petitioner with respect to the
contract-bar issue.
4. In substantial accord with the stipulation of the parties and our
unit finding in the earlier case involving the Employer,10 we find that
the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act :
4 General Motors Corporation , Detroit T r ansmission Division, 102 NLRB 1140
5 Ibid.
°Contrary to the Employer, we find no warrant in General Motors Corporation (Mil-
waukee Plant) A. C. Spark Plug Division, 102 NLRB 1139, for considering the sales and'
manpower figures pertaining to jet engine parts as evidence of the Employer's connection
with the automobile industry merely because those items are produced for a company
engaged principally i n manufacturing automobiles.
'See Bendix Aviation Corporation, Hamilton Division, 111 NLRB 456 In the cir-
cumstances , we find no justification for the application of the bargaining practices in the
automobile industry to this case in the fact that the combined sales of the Employer's five
plants may preponderate in favor of automotive parts or that the plants may be covered
by 5-year labor agreements resembling those prevalent in the automobile industry.
8In so finding, we reject the contention by the Employer that the Board should hold
the Red Lion plant to fall within the "Transportation Equipment Manufacturing" indus-
try which is "composed in good part of automobile manufacturing" and wherein 87 per-
cent of the agreements have a duration of 3 years or longer, according to sources quoted
in the Employer's brief Under the "substantial part of the industry" test which was
adopted early in 1953 , the Board has considered as separate industries those industries
which the Employer would now merge into a broad "Transportation Equipment Manufac-
turing" industry See, for example , General Motors Corporation , Detroit Transmission
Division, supra ( automobile industry ), and Republic Aviation Corp., 109 NLRB 569 (avia-
tion industry).
6 Member Rodgers agrees that the current contract between the Employer and the Inter-
venor is no bar to the instant petition . However , he bases this finding solely upon the
fact that the contract has been in effect for more than 2 years. See his dissent in Repub-
lic Aviation Corp , supra.
10 Footnote 2, sup) a.
-460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its
Red Lion plant, Bustleton, Pennsylvania, excluding professional and
technical employees, timekeepers, rate setters, time-study men, safety
inspectors, nurses, cafeteria employees, guards, office and clerical em-
ployees, administrative employees, executives, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
LOCAL 169, INDUSTRIAL DIVISION INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMER-
ICA, AFL and ANN BoDROO. Case No. 4-CB-199. February 2,1955
Decision and Order
On September 9, 1954, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending 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 Intermedi-
ate 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 committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
,case and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and
modifications.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respond-
ent, through its agent, John Morris, independently violated Section 8
(b) (1) (A) of the Act by threatening employees with physical vio-
lence and loss of employment if they engaged in activities on behalf of
United Steelworkers of America, CIO. We find no merit in the Re-
In footnote 41 of the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner erroneously stated that
the record is silent as to the disposition made of the case of Robert O'Conner, whose dis-
charge the Respondent had requested for nonpayment of dues. The record shows, and we
find, that after the Respondent asked for the discharge of O'Conner , the Company pro-
moted him to a foreman 's position . The Respondent thereafter withdrew its request for
discharge because be was no longer in the bargaining unit and subject to the union-secu-
rity clause. The Intermediate Report is corrected accordingly.
In adopting the Trial Examiner 's findings, we do not also adopt his discussion and con-
clusions as to the proper usage of the Respondent 's withdrawal card system . We do not
consider this discussion necessary to a decision on the issues in this case.
111 NLRB No. 72.