The Hamilton Tool Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 22, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 1361 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of THE HAMILTON TOOL CO. AND HAMILTON GAGES, INC.
and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, AMALGAM-
ATED LOCAL UNION 176
Case No. 9-R-1716.-Decided May 22, 1941,5
Messrs. Fred TV. Schlicter, Walter DeLano, and Ray Kelly, of Ham-
ilton, Ohio, for the Companies.
Messrs. Bernard Wilberding, John Gray, James Minton, and Hur-
shul IJwmphrey, of Hamilton, Ohio, for the Union.
Miss Ruth Rusch, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OH' T 11E CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Union of United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
CIO, Amalgamated Local Union 176, herein called the Union, alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of The Hamilton Tool Co., and Hamilton
Gages, Inc., both of Hamilton, Ohio, herein called the Companies, the
National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before Robert Silagi, Trial Examiner. Said hearing
was held at Hamilton, Ohio, on March 13, 1945. The Companies and
the Union 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 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.
61 N. L. It B , No 220
1361
1362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIE BUSYNESS OF THE COMPANIES 1
The Hamilton Tool' Co. is an Ohio corporation with its place of
business located in Hamilton, Ohio, where it is engaged in the manu-
facture of machine tools. During the course of a year, it purchases
raw materials consisting of steel, iron, and non-ferrous metals and
amounting to more than $100,000 in value, of which 90 percent comes
from sources outside the State of Ohio. In the same period, it sells
finished products amounting to more than $300,000 in value, of which
75 percent is shipped to points outside the State of Ohio.
Hamilton Gages, Inc., is engaged in the manufacture of special
gages for the armed forces. During the course of a year, it purchases
materials amounting to more than $20,000 in value, which come from
sources outside the State of Ohio. In the same period, it ships ap-
proximately 75 percent of its finished products to points outside of the
State of Ohio.
Both Companies admit that they are engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
11. TIIE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, Amalgamated Local Union
176, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is
a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Companies.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Union has requested recognition as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the Companies' leadmen. The Companies have re-
fused such recognition on the ground that leadmen were specifically
excluded by the Board from the existing production and maintenance
unit in which the Union is now the certified exclusive bargaining
representative.2
' The facts on commerce were derived from a previous case involving the same parties,
Matter of Hamilton Tool Company, et al, 58 N L R. B . 257. In the instant proceeding,
the Companies stipulated that there have been no substantial changes in their business
in the interim. `
2 See footnote 1, supra. In that case the Union sought a unit of the Companies ' produc-
tion and maintenance employees including leadmen. Upon the basis of the record before
it, the Board excluded leadmen from the unit of production and maintenance employees
of the Companies
THE HAMILTON TOOL CO. 1363
A statement of a Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents all the employees herein
involved.3
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Companies within the meaning
of Section 9 (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Union seeks to represent the Companies' leadmen and requests
that, if the Board grants an election and if the Union wins, the Board
should include the leadmen in the existing unit of the Companies'
production and maintenance employees whom it presently represents.
The Companies, maintaining the same position that they took at the
prior proceeding, contend that the leadmen are supervisory employees
and should, therefore, not be added to the existing unit. After care-
ful consideration of the record in the instant case, which is more com-
prehensive than the prior record with respect to the duties, functions,
and status of leadmen, we conclude that these employees, despite our
previous finding to the contrary, are not supervisory employees within
the meaning of our customary definition.4
The Companies, as heretofore indicated, employ 5 leadmen. Four
of them are tool and die makers working in the tool and die section,
while the remaining 1 is a machine repairman working in the machine
repair section. Neither of these two sections is headed by a depart-
ment foreman, supervision over them being lodged with the general
foreman on the day shift who has a total of 35 employees under his
jurisdiction. Two of the leadmen in the tool and die section have no
subordinates working under them and the other 2 have 1 helper each;
the leadman in the machine repair section has 2 or 3 helpers. The
leadmen without helpers apparently devote all their time to the tech-
nical tasks of their trade; and those who have helpers devote the
major portion of their time performing manual work and spend ap-
proximately 10 to 15' percent of their time supervising the work of
their subordinates. Leadmen are hourly rated, receiving from 15 to
65 cents per hour more than their subordinates. They have no author-
ity to route work; when work is ready to be routed, the general fore-
man is advised therof and he indicates the machine on which the
article is to be completed. In addition, when the employees in either
section desire permission to leave early or to take a day off, they go
directly to the general foreman rather than to their leadman. In-
3 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted an authorization card for each
of the five employees employed by the Companies as leadmen, and that the cards were
dated in June 1944
4 Except with respect to the findings as to leadmen in the prior case, we hereby treat
as administratively determined those findings in that case which are applicable to this
case.
1364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
deed, it was testified that the employees consider themselves to be
under the direct and immediate supervision of the general foreman.
Moreover, despite the Companies' contention to the contrary, the
record discloses that leadmen were never advised of their alleged power
to make recommendations concerning hiring, discharging, disciplin-
ing, or effecting changes in the status of employees.' Furthermore,
except for one management meeting attended by leadmen, as well as
timekeepers and supervisory personnel, about a year ago, and held
apparently for the purpose of discussing the importance of charging
employees' time correctly, leadmen have never attended, or been
invited to attend, any of the Companies' bi-weekly management
meetings.
Thus, it is clear from the foregoing facts that, although leadmen
are among the Companies' higher paid skilled employees, they are not
vested with supervisory authority within the meaning of our usual
definition thereof. Moreover, it is also apparent that, even in those
cases where the leadmen do have subordinates, they occupy positions
with respect to the latter comparable to that of master mechanic or
journeyman in relation to his helpers. We shall, therefore, direct all
election among the leadmen to determine whether or not they desire
to be represented by the Union. In the event that the majority of
these employees select the Union as their bargaining representative,
they will thereby have indicated their desire to be part of the appro-
priate unit presently represented by the Union, and will be part pf
such unit.
Accordingly, we shall direct that the question concerning repre-
sentation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot
held among all leadmen of the Companies 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.6
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
' Although the record reveals two instances of action allegedly taken by management
subsequent to recommendations by leadmen , we regard these incidents as lacking probative
value as to their power effectively to recommend , since one such recommendation was
rendered effective only atter the leadman involved had threatened to quit his job and
since there is substantial doubt as to whether the other recommendation was given weight,
in view of the lapse of approximately 2 months before the Companies took action in the
premises
At the hearing the Union requested that its name appear on the ballot as hereinafter
set forth in the Direction of Election.
THE HAMILTON TOOL CO. 1365
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Hamilton
Tool Co. and Hamilton Gages , Inc., both of Hamilton , Ohio, an elec-
tion 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 all leadinen iu the Companies' employ 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 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 International Union of
United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, CIO, Amalgamated Local Union 176, for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.