The Hamilton Tool Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 1944

58 N.L.R.B. 257 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of THE HAMILTON TOOL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., AMALGAMATED LOCAL 176
Case No. 9-R-1510.-Decided September 14, 1944
Messrs. Fred W. Schlichter and Ray C. Kelly, of Hamilton, Ohio,
for the Companies.
Mr. Bernard Wilberding, of Hamilton , Ohio, for the UAW.
Mr. Charles D. Madigan, of Cleveland , Ohio, for the A. F. of L.
Mr. Sidney Grossman , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by International Union of
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, C. I. 0., Amalgamated Local 176, herein called the UAW,
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of The Hamilton Tool Company,
Hamilton, Ohio, herein called Hamilton Tool, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Benjamin E. Cook, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held
at Hamilton, Ohio, on August 3, 1944. At the commencement of the
hearing, the, Trial Examiner granted a motion of Pattern Makers
League of North America, A. F. of L., herein called the A. F. of L.,
to intervene. All parties 2 appeared, participated, and 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 an opportunity to file
briefs with the Board.
1 This proceeding also concerns the employees of Hamilton Gages, Inc., herein called
Hamilton Gages . Hamilton Tool and Hamilton Gages are hereinafter collectively referred
to as the Companies.
2 Although served with Notice of Hearing, the International Association of Machinists,
A F of L , did not enter an appearance at the hearing.
58 N. L R. B., No. 52.
609591-45-vol. 58-18 257
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE. COMPANY
The Hamilton Tool Company, an Ohio corporation, located at Ham-
ilton, Ohio, is engaged in the manufacture of machine tools. Its pur-
chases of raw materials , consisting principally of steel , iron , and non-
ferrous metals, are annually in excess of $100,000, approximately 90
percent of which is shipped to it from sources outside the State of
Ohio. Its annual sales of finished products are in excess of $300,000,
approximately 75 percent of which is shipped from its plant to points
outside the State of Ohio.
Hamilton Gages, Inc., is engaged in the manufacture of special
gages for the armed forces. During the past year it ,received. mate-
rials in excess of $20,000, from sources outside the State of Ohio.
During the same period it shipped approximately 75 percent of its
finished products to points outside the State of Ohio.
Each of the Companies concedes that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union of Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Amalgamated Local 176, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Pattern Makers League of North America, affiliated with the-
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Company .3
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Hamilton Tool has refused to grant recognition to the UAW as
the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees until the
UAW 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 UAW represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
At the inception of the hearing , Hamilton Tool and the UAW agreed to exclude pattern
makers and pattern maker apprentices . The A. P of L. thereafter withdrew and took
no further part in the proceedings.
* In support of its claim to represent the employees of Hamilton Tool, the UAW sub-
mitted 100 paid-up membership cards , all of which bore apparently genuine original
signatures of employees in the employ of Hamilton Tool. All of the cards bore dates since
June 1, 1944 . There aie 126 employees in the unit herein found appropriate. -
THE HAMILTON TOOL COMPANY 259
We findthat a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Companies, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1V. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The UAW requests a unit composed of all production, and mainte-
nance employees of Hamilton Tool, including leadmen, inspectors,
and plant clerks, but excluding supervisors, guards, pattern makers
and apprentices, office clerical and engineering department employees.
The Companies agree generally that the specific composition of this
unit is appropriate, but contend that the employees of both Hamilton
Tool and Hamilton Gages constitute a single unit; they would also
exclude leadmen and plant clerical employees. The UAW seeks exclu-
sion of the employees of Hamilton Gages because they are the
employees ,of a separate corporation.
Hamilton Gages was organized in'11942 for the purpose of-carrying
out a contract with Army Ordnance. It conducts its operations in a
separate room in the basement of a plant occupied by both companies,
where it employs approximately 17 production workers and a foreman.
Although it engages exclusively in the manufacture of gages, the work
performed is similar in character and requires similar skill to the work
performed by employees of Hamilton Tool. Moreover, both com-
panies possess common stock ownership, utilize the services of the
same persons as officials, engage the same personnel director, and
employ the facilities of the same office clerical staff. In addition,
the record discloses that when Hamilton Gages was organized the
supervisors and a majority of its employees were recruited from
Hamilton Tool personnel with the understanding that such employees
would be on--leave of absence and would retain their seniority and
other rights as if- they had remained at work for Hamilton Tool.
Although the employees of Hamilton Gages are carried on a separate
pay roll for administrative purposes, the employees'of both Companies
equally enjoy employer-sponsored activities, share plant facilities that
are used in common by all employees, and are employed under com-
parable working conditions. The Companies, also, often utilize each
other's production facilities, although they remunerate each other for
such use. In view of all the circumstances herein disclosed, we are
of the opinion that the employees of the Companies together constitute
an appropriate unit.
Plant clerks: Hamilton Tool contends that two stores clerks and one
production. `clerk be excluded because of the confidential nature of
their work. The record discloses that these employees are in charge
of stores in their respective departments, maintain records in con-
260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nection therewith, and are closely associated with the activities of
production workers. Although these plant clerks have access to cost
records, the record does not disclose that they possess any advance
information relating to matters associated with labor relations; we
shall therefore include them.
Leadmen: The UAW would include all persons classified as lead-
men, on the ground that they do not exercise supervisory authority.
Although a large part of the time of these employees is devoted to
manual labor, the record discloses that leadmen direct tlie: work of
from 1 to 10 employees, receive a higher rate of pay than regular
employees, attend conferences arranged for the supervisory staff, and
make effective recommendations regarding changes in the status of
employees working under them. We find that leadmen fall within
our usual definition of supervisory employees; we shall exclude them.
Herbert Dennis: Hamilton Tool maintains that Herbert Dennis
occupies the position of chief inspector and therefore should be ex-
cluded. Between March 20 and April 11, 1944, at which time he had
no employees under his supervision, Dennis attended a series of super-
visory conferences held for the purpose of discussing the responsibil-
ities of foremen; his name was listed as chief inspector in the con-
ference minutes, copies of which were thereafter distributed to the
participants. The president of Hamilton Tool testified- that he had,
been requested to attend these conferences because his position in the
plant was regarded as comparable to that of other supervisory em-
ployees in that he had access to confidential cost and engineering
data. The only other inspector in the plant worked in a different,
department and performed work dissimilar in character to that per-
formed by Dennis. On or about July 24, 1944, approximately 10
days prior to the hearing, this inspector and another, newly engaged,
were both placed in Dennis' department under his supervision. On
August 1, 1944, Dennis received a notice, which was also circulated
among the supervisory personnel, advising him that he was charged
with the responsibility for all inspection work in the Hamilton Tool,
that all inspection personnel would be under his direct supervision,
and that he would be responsible only to the plant superintendent or
the president.
Although the UAW would exclude the job classification of "chief
inspector," it maintains that Dennis had never been officially apprised
of the fact that he holds such position. It also refers to the fact that
the notice vesting Dennis with additional supervisory responsibil-
ities had been received but 2 days before the hearing and 2 months after
he had become active in organizing the employees of Hamilton Tool.
Dennis testified that the inspector, recently engaged, worked with him
as a helper, that the inspector who had been.transferred from the other
THE HAMILTON TOOL COMPANY 261
department had not been placed under his jurisdiction until August 1,
and that he had no greater access to engineering data than other em-
ployees in the plant, and denied that he inspected cost records. He
further denied that he had ever exercised supervisory functions,
asserting that-his work Remained the same as that of the other inspec-
tors. -However, as' indicated above, Dennis attended supervisory
conferences prior to the assignment of inspectors under his supervision,
and at no time repudiated the supervisory authority with which he
was expressly vested on August 1, 1944. We are of the opinion that
Dennis is a supervisory employee, and, as such, we shall exclude him
from the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Companies, including plant clerks 5 and employees of Hamilton
Gages, but excluding office clerical and engineering department em-
ployees, pattern makers, guards, leadmen, and all supervisors having
authority to hire, discharge, promote, discipline, or effectively recom-
mend such action; constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaiiiilig within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act 6
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
Direction.
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 Tool
Company, Hamilton, Ohio, and Hamilton Gages, Inc., Hamilton, 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
" Included in this category is a time-checker , whom the parties agreed to' include in the
unit.
6 The parties agreed, and we find, that the fireman who on occasion acts as a watchman
at night but is neither armed nor uniformed, and George Morscher, who was inadvertently
listed on the pay roll as a leadman, are included within the above -described unit, and that
James Berry, who acts in the capacity of assistant foreman, is excluded therefrom.
262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 im-
mediately -preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during the 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 any who have since quit of-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 The International Union of United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0.,
Amalgamated Local Union 176,' for the purposes of -collective
bargaining.
' The UAW ' s request to appear on the ballot as designated above is hereby granted.