The Crosley Corp.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 7, 194666 N.L.R.B. 349 (N.L.R.B. 1946) Copy Citation In the Matter of THE CROSLEY CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS Case No. 9-R-1845.-Decided March 7, 1946 Mr. Paul W. Deubery, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Company. Mr. D. J. Omer, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the I. A. M. Mr. James E. Reilly, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the I. B. E. W. Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by International Association of Machin- ists, herein called the I. A. If., alleging that a question affecting com- merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of The Crosley Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Louis S. Penfield, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Cincinnati, Ohio, on July 20 and November 16, 1945. The Company, the I. A. M., and Local B-1061, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., herein called the 1. B. E. W., appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Exam- iner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : • FINDINOs OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Crosley Corporation, an Ohio corporation, has its principal offices in Cincinnati, Ohio, where it is now engaged in the manufac- 66 N. L. R. B., No. 43. 349 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ture of civilian radio equipment.' During the year 1944, the Company purchased for use in its manufacturing operations, raw materials valued in excess of $10,000,000, of which more than 75 percent was obtained from points outside the State of Ohio. During the same period, the Company's finished products exceeded $50,000,000 in value, of which more than 90 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Ohio. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. ,II. ,TIIE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Association of Machinists is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is a labor organ- ization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to grant recognition to the I. A. M. as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of the Company until the I. A. M. has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.2 A statement of, a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates that the I. A. M. and the I. B. E. W. each repre- sents a substantial number of,employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate 3 We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the. representation of, employees of the Company, within the mean- ing of Section,9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 1 Prior to the termination of hostilities , the Company manufactured radio and radar equipment for the armed services and also at another plant not presently in operation, manufactured certain secret electrical equipment for the U. S. Navy. 2 The Company gave as the reason for i ts refusal to recognize the I. A. M. as bar- gaining representative the existence, of a union -shop agreement with the I . B. E. W. covering , among others , the employees herein concerned . This contract has since ex- pired and has been replaced by a new contract negotiated and signed during the pendency of the present proceedings . : There Is no contention that either contract constitutes a bar to the present proceedings. s The Field Examiner reported that the I. A. M. and the I. B. E W . had submitted membership records indicating that the I. A. M. had 79 members and that the I. B. E. W. had,85 members among-the employees on the Company 's pay roll of May 23, 1945, within the unit claimed appropriate by the I A. Al. There are approximately 148 employees in the claimed appropiiate unit. I THE CROSLEY CORPORATION 351 IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The I. A. M. seeks a craft unit of machine toolroom and model shop employees employed in the Company's Plant No. 2, which is the only plant of the Company now operating in the Cincinnati area .4 The I. B. E. W. contends that only a plant-wide unit is appropriate in view of the history of collective bargaining between the I. B. E. W. and the Company. The latter takes no position with respect to the appropriate unit. The record reveals that although the I. B. E. W. has bargained with the Company upon a plant-wide basis since 1937 and has obtained through a series of contracts substantial benefits for all employees, including the craft employees herein concerned, the latter were or- ganized as a group prior to the advent of the I. B. E. W. among the Company's employees; that the I. B. E. W. has in effect recognized the appropriateness of a separate craft unit for the machinists' group :5 (1) by an oral agreement extending from 1937 to 1944 which exempts the machinists' group from the requirement of maintaining membership in the I. B. E. W. under the provisions of the latter's union-shop agreement; and (2) by a stipulation with respect to the settlement of a work stoppage called by the machinists' group in March of 1945, which stipulation provides, inter aria, that the "I. A. M. will have jurisdiction of all employees in the toolroom and model shop of plant 2, under the agreement between International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers and Crosley Corporation in plants 2 and 9." In addition thereto, it appears that the machinists' committee has, with the consent of the I. B. E. W., bargained separately for the machinists' group with respect to wage rate classifications and has alone handled all grievances for the machinists' group from 1927 to 1938 and from 1941 to the latter part of 1944. Members of the machinists' group in Plant No. 2 have not been members of the I. B. E. W. from 1927 to 1938, and although serving in an advisory capac- ity, they have not been members of the I. B. E. W. bargaining com- mittee which has negotiated with the Company upon a plant-wide basis. Employees in the machinists' group have resisted through the work stoppage above mentioned, any attempt on the part of the I. B. E. W. to make them join the latter organization, and following a settlement of such work stoppage, the machinists similarly resisted 4 Until the termination of hostilities the Company operated in this area a second plant known as Plant No . 9 in which there were employed tool and machine employees similar to those in the plant now under consideration. 6 The Board has considered , among other factors warranting the severance of a craft group, the fact that the contracting union has recognized that the craft employees constituted a group separate and apart from other employees . See Matter of Symsngton Gould corporation, 53 N. L. It. B 552, at 555; Matter of Standard Oil Company of j1'ew Jersey, Louisiana Division, 61 N, L. R B 1344, 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD an attempt by the Company to secure volunteers from among the toolroom employees for transfer to another plant where they would be required to become members of the I. B. E. W. While we have held in certain instances that, where members of a craft merge their interests with those of other production and main- tenance employees and acquiesce in being represented as part of a plant-wide bargaining unit, they will not thereafter be awarded the right of separate representation,6 we have also recognized the right to self-determination on the part of craft employees who have main- tained their group identity, and have protested inclusion in the larger unit, particularly where membership in the craft group has existed prior to the establishment of the plant-wide unit and no consideration was given to the merits of a separate craft unit upon the occasion of the establishment of such plant-wide unit .7 Under the circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the bargaining history of the Company is not determinative of the present issue and that the toolroom and model shop employees herein concerned have not, by their actions during the period covered by the bargaining history aforesaid, conducted themselves as to induce the Board to deny them separate representation by their own craft organization for the purposes of collective bargaining." Accordingly, we find that the craft employees among the toolroom and model shop employees may constitute a separate bargaining unit,9 or be included in the existing more comprehensive unit. Before making a final determination with respect to the appropriate unit, however, we shall first ascertain the desires of the employees themselves as reflected in an election. Upon the results of this election will depend, in part, our determination with respect to the appropriate unit. We shall direct that an election by secret ballot be conducted among, all the Company's toolroom and model shop employees at the Com- pany's Cincinnati, Ohio, Plant No. 2, excluding tool crib attendantsi laborers employed in the toolroom, stock chasers, stock checkers, tool- room attendants, foremen, and all supervisory employees with author- ity to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, who E See Matter of York Corporation , 61 N. L. R. B. 462 ; Matter of International Minerals and Chemical Corporation , 62 N. L. R. B. 655 ; Matter of Sinclair Refining Company, 64 N. L . R. B. 611. 7 See Matter of Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Louisiana Division, 61 N. L. R. B. 1344 ; Matter of Columbus Bolt Works Company , 62 N. L . R. B. 978. e See Matter of General Electric Company (Lynn River Works and Everett Plant), 58 N. L. R. B. 57 ; Matter of Phelps Dodge Corporation, 60 N. L. R. B. 1431. • See footnote 7, supra . The record in the present instance discloses that there has never been an election among the employees concerned and that the plant -wide unit was apparently established by recognition on the part of the Company without con- sideration given to the merits of a separate craft unit for members of the machinists' group. THE CROSLEY CORPORATION 353 were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election, subject to the limitations and addi- tions set forth therein, to determine whether they desire to be rep- resented by the I. A. M. or the I. B. E. W. If a majority in this voting group select the I. A. Al. as their bargaining representative, they will have thereby indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. If, however, a majority of these employees choose the I. B. E. W., then they will have thereby indicated their desire to remain part of the established plant-wide unit. The I. B. E. W. contends that employees laid off on or after August 14, 1945, as the result of the cancellation of war contracts should be found eligible to vote. Although, as a general rule, employees laid off subject to recall under seniority provisions of a collective bargain- ing agreement have been found eligible to vote as employees tem- porarily laid off,10 the record discloses in the present instance that the Company's peacetime group of toolroom and model shop em- ployees has apparently become stabilized with little likelihood that any substantial number of laid-off employees in this group will be recalled within the foreseeable future. Accordingly, we find that, in the absence of any reasonable expectancy of reemployment in the near future, employees laid off as the result of the cancellation of war contracts are ineligible to vote." DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Crosley Corporation, Cincinnati, 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 Ninth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among employees in the voting group set forth in Section IV, above, who were employed during 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 temporar- ily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding 10 See Matter of Noblitt Sparks Industries, Inc., 64 N. L. R. B. 1501. ss See Matter of Lincoln Casket Company , 65 N. L. It. B. 182. 686572-46=24 354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Association of Machinists, or by International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers , A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation