The Hamilton Foundry & Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 12, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 82 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of THE HAMILTON •FOIJNDRY & MACHINE Co . and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF A-mEkICA, CIO
Case No. 9-R-1835.-Decided Octobei•112, 1945
Taft, Stettvnius , and Hollister ,, by Mr. J. Mack Swigert, of, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, for the Company.
Mr. Julius Holzberg , of Cincinnati , Ohio, for the CIO.
Mr. N. D . Smith , of Cincinnati , Ohio, for the AFL.
Mr. Samuel G. hamilton , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT ^ OF THE CASE
• Upon a petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of America, CIO,
herein called the CIO, alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of The Hamil-
ton,Foundry & Machine Co.; Hamilton, Ohio, herein, called the Com-,
pany, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro-
priate healing upon due notice before Louis, S. Penfield, Trial Ex-
aminer. The hearing was held at Cincinnati, Ohio, on June 25, 1945.,
The Company, the CIO, and International Molders and Foundry,
Workers Union of North America, AFL, herein called the AFL, ap-
peared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity-
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues. At the hearing the Company
moved to dismiss the petition. Ruling on, this motion was reserved
for the Board. For the reasons stated in Section IV, infra, the motion
is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.- All parties
were afforded an opportunity to, file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:,
FINDINGS OF FACT
J. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Hamilton Foundry & Machine Co. is an'Ohio corporation with
its principal place of business in Hamilton, Ohio, where it is, en-
64N.L R. B. No 17.
82
THE HAMILTON FOUNDRY & MACHINE CO. 83',
gaged in the manufacture of gray iron, alloyed iron, and semi-steel
and meehanite castings. Annually, the Company -purchases raw •ma
terials valued in excess of $300,000, 25 percent of which' is shipped ,to
its plant from points outside the State of Ohio. The Company an-
nually ships to points outside the, State finished products valued in
excess of $2,000,000.
The Company admits, for the purpose of this proceeding, that it is -
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor,
Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-.,
bership employees of the Company.
International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North Amer-
ica, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organ-'
ization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the CIO as- the
exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees' until
the CIO has been certified by the Board,in an appropriate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of em =
ployees in' the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation, of eiployees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) find (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The CIO seeks a unit composed of all production and maintenance
employees of the Company, including gang leaders,2 but excluding
guards; industrial engineering department laborer; laboratory depart-
ment employees ; production schedule clerk ; timekeepers ; all clerical
employees, superintendents, supervisors, foremen, assistant foremen,
and all other supervisory employees; and all employees covered by the
existing contract between the Company and the AFL, consisting of
The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 140 authorization cards ; that the
names of, 114 persons appearing on the cards were listed on the , Company's pay roll of
April 29, 1945 • that 86 of the cards were dated April 1945, 40 May 1945, and 14 were
undated, and that there-were 247 employees in the alleged app!opriate unit The AFL
intervened solely for the purposes of safeguarding its interest in the molders , core makers,
core assemblers and their respective apprentices , all of whom are covered by, an existing
agreement between it and the Company, and opposing the unit contention of the CIO
,2The ' record discloses , and the parties agree, that gang leaders ' are not supervisory
employees within the meaning of our customary definition
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
molders, core makers; core assemblers,. and ,their respective appren-
tices. Contrary to the CIO's position,,and although the AFL does not
seek at this time to broaden the unit covered, by its contract with the
Company, claiming no representation,among the employees sought,by
the CIO, both,the Company and the AFL, contend that the plant's
method of functioning and its organization require one bargaining
representative in a single unit comprised of all production and,malli-
tenance employees.
On June 28, 1937, the Company entered into an agreement with
the AFL covering all production and maintenance employees. That
contract terminated on May 1, 1938; and was not renewed thereafter.
From May i,' 1938, until May 5, 1941, the Company had no contractual
relations with-, any union. ' Beginning* with-May 5, 1941, the Company
has had contracts with the AFL limitedlo molders; core makers, core
assemblers; gild their respective apprentices., In, addition,, these par-
tiesJ executed a'separitite 2=year contract'covering'the,night shake-out
men ; this agreement`was entered into in'Octoher 1941 and was virtually
abandoned on December 31, 1942. In 1942 the AFL filed a petition for
investigation and certification of r'epreseutatides of a' groiip of metal
pourers; the Board fomnd'the alleged unit inappropriate and dismissed
the petition.' It is asserted by the Company that. it was induced to
'accede to the AFL's demands for separate units by, reason of the AFL's
threats of strikes, and that it has consistently urged the desirability
of a plant-wide unit. '
The record shows that there exists a degree of functional inter-
dependence between all production employees.. of the plant which
makes feiisible the establishment of, a plaint-wide unit. However,
despite the Company's claim of economic compulsion, for more than,
4 years it'has by contract recognized and conducted bargaining rela-
tions with the AFL concerning a separate unit of molders, core makers,
core assemblers, and their respective apprentices. These' employees
comprise' a highly skilled, readily definable group, performing special-
ized duties. 'Not only might. the group 'function as a separate "unit,4
but it, actually has done so. Moreover, the CIO is claiming all other
production and maintenance employees, and at present' there is no
labor organization seeking to bargain on the basis of a plant-wide
unit. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the unit'
sought by the CIO is appropriate.5
We find than all production and maintenance employees of the
Company, including gang leaders, but excluding guards, industrial
engineering department laborer, laboratory department employees,
341N L R B 1001
' See Matter of Sterling Steel Found, ry Company,' 53, N L R B 896 , Matter of Sterling
Steel Foundry Company , Supplemental Decision and Certification , issued on January 10,
1944 , Matter of Viking Pump Co , 49 N L R B 682
5 See Matter of Sterling Steel Foundry Company, Supplemental Decision and Certification,
issued on January 10, 1944.
THE HAMILTON FOUNDRY & MACHINE CO. 85
production schedule clerk, timekeepers, all clerical employees, all em-
ployees covered by the existing contract between the Company and
the AFL, consisting of molders, core makers,} core assemblers, and
their respective apprentices, and superintendents, supervisors, fore-
men, assistant foremen, and all other supervisory employees' with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within.the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Directions
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 Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations 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 Hamilton
Foundry & Machine Co., Hamilton, Ohio, an election by secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30)
days froin the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision 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 the employees in the unit found appropriate 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 vaca-
tion 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 any 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
United Steelworkers of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective,
bargaining.
° The AFL made no showing of representation among the employees in the appropriate
unit and stated at the hearing that it sought no place on the ballot in any election which
might be directed among them