The Humphryes Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1943

51 N.L.R.B. 983 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of THE HUMPHRYES MANUFACTURING COMPANY and
PATTERN MAKERS LEAGUE OF NORTH AMERICA (A. F. L.)
Case No. R-5650.-Decided July 31, 1943
Mr. D. 1V. Raley, of Canton, Ohio, and Messrs. John E. Floyd and
R. G. Fensch, of Mansfield, Ohio, for the Company.
Mr. C. D. Madigan, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the A. F. L.
Mr. Leo Turner, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Messrs. Steve Thomas and
William Kozima, of Mansfield, Ohio, for the C. I. O.
Mr. Arthur Leff, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Pattern Makers League of North
America (A. F. L.), herein called the A. F. L., alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of The Humphryes Manufacturing Company, Mansfield, Ohio,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before William O.
Murdock, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Mansfield, Ohio,
on July 9, 1943. The Company, the A. F. L., and United Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers of America (C. I. 0.), herein called the
C. I. 0., appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues. At the hearing the C. I. O. moved to
dismiss the petition and said motion was referred to the Board. For
the reasons hereinafter indicated, the said motion is denied. The
Trial Examiner'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.
51 N. L. R. B., No. 154.
983
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAIRD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Humphryes Manufacturing Company is an Ohio corporation
now engaged in the manufacture of magnesium sand castings and has
its plant and principal place of business at Mansfield, Ohio. The raw
materials used by the Company consist principally of magnesium
ingots. During the current year the Company expects to receive ap-
proximately 20 percent of such raw materials from a point outside the
State of Ohio. The value of the finished products manufactured by
the Company during the year 1943 is expecthd to exceed $1,000,000.
Approximately 65 percent of the Company's finished products is
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.
IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Pattern Makers League of North America is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America is a labor
organization, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about May 25, 1943, the A. F. L. requested the Company to
recognize it as the collective bargaining representative for all pattern
makers employed by the Company, but the Company declined to ac-
cord the A. F. L. such recognition unless and until it was certified by
the Board.
A statement of the Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the A. F. L. represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate?
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1 The Field Examiner reported that the A . F. L. submitted evidence disclosing that it
represented four employees within the , unit alleged by the A. F. L. to be appropriate. The
Trial Examiner reported that the A . F. L. had presented to him at the hearing a member-'
ship application card bearing the apparently genuine signature of a fifth employee. The
Company conceded that at the,hearing date there was a total of six employees in said
alleged unit. - ' -
THE HUMPHRYES MANUFACTURING COMPANY 985
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The A. F. L. seeks a craft unit limited to all wood and metal pat-
tern makers and pattern maker apprentices employed by the Com-
pany at Mansfield, Ohio. The Company apparently does not object
to the establishment of this craft unit, but takes, the position that
one employee, Theodore Haag, whom the A. F. L. would include in
such unit, should be excluded. The C. I. 0., as intervenor in this
proceeding, claims that the craft unit sought by the A. F. L. is inap-
propriate because of a prior history of collective bargaining in an
industrial unit for all production and maintenance employees of the
Company.
In connection with its plant operations, the Company maintains a
pattern shop at which there were employed at the time of the hearing,
in addition to a number of other employees, five employees classified
as pattern makers. These pattern makers are engaged in the main-
tenance of patterns and related work, and their duties, while inte-
grated with that of other production employees, is confined in the
area of their craft skill. Theodore Haag is not employed in the
pattern shop, but is classified as an inspection lay-out man assigned
to the inspection department. He is a pattern maker by trade. He is
charged with the duty of checking and analyzing castings made from
patterns, and in connection therewith also checks the patterns. It
appears that his work requires a thorough knowledge of the pattern
maker's skill. R. G. Fensch, the principal witness for the Company,
admitted that it is the practice in other foundries to employ pattern
makers almost invariably for the work in which Haag is engaged.
Haag is eligible for membership in the A. F. L., and the evidence
indicates that he has expressed a desire to be included within the
pattern makers' craft group. The fact that he is empoyed in a
different department and under a different foreman is insignificant
inasmuch as we are concerned here with the appropriateness of a craft
rather than a departmental unit. Under all the circumstances, we
are of the opinion, and find, that Haag is properly part of the craft
unit sought by the A. F. L., should such unit be finally determined to
be appropriate. We also find that he is eligible to vote in the election
hereinafter directed.
There is no history of collective bargaining for employees of the
Company prior to 1941. In March 1941 the Company, by stipulation,
recognized the C. I. O. as collective bargaining agent in a unit includ-
ing all production and maintenance employees of the Company. In
April of that year the Company and the C. 1. 0. entered into a contract
covering the employees in such unit which included pattern makers
within its scope. The contract remained in effect until June 1942. In
July 1942, collective bargaining between the Company and the C. I. O.
986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was suspended and appears never to have been renewed, although in
March 1943, the C. I. O. requested the Company to reopen negotiations
for a new contract which the Company declined to do on the ground
that it doubted the C. I. O. claim to a majority representation. About
September 1942, the Company converted its plant facilities to war
production. During the period of the conversion the number of
employees dropped from approximately 700 to approximately 75.
At present there are approximately 500 employees. Only 1, of the
Company's present pattern makers was employed by the Company
during the term of the C. I. O. contract.
While a past practice of collective bargaining on the basis of an in'
dustrial unit, which includes a craft group, is an, important, and, if
extended over a considerable period of time, often a decisive factor in
determining that a separate craft unit is appropriate,2 we are of the
opinion that in the instant case, because it was not of sufficiently long
duration and because it has been interrupted and apparently never
resumed, the practice of collective bargaining for pattern makers with-
in the framework of an industrial unit is insufficient in itself to justify
the conclusion that a separate unit for such craft employees is inap-
propriate. There is no showing in the record that pattern makers
were members of the C. I. O. or in any other manjier participated or
acquiesced in the industrial form of unit established by the 1941 stipu-
lation and contract. As already noted, it has been indicated by the
statement of the Field Examiner that the A. F. L. represents a sub-
stantial number of employees within the craft group. The C. I. O. does
not claim a present membership among pattern makers. In other
cases involving analogous circumstances where an absence of acqui-
escence on the part of pattern makers in a previously established in-
dustrial bargaining unit has been indicated, we have held that neither
the establishment of such unit, nor a prior course of bargaining under
a contract covering employees in such unit, necessarily foreclosed the
claim of the pattern makers' craft group to subsequent separate unit
recognition.3 In such cases we have held that the desires of the craft
employees were the controlling consideration in our determination of
the appropriate unit. We believe that the principles of the cited cases
are equally applicable in the instant case.
Consequently, we shall make no final determination of the appro-
priate unit at this time, but shall direct that an election by secret
ballot shall be held among all wood and metal pattern makers and pat-
tern maker apprentices who were employed by the Company at Mans-
2 Cf, Matter of General Electric Company , 50 N L R B 401.
8 See Matter of Lakey Foundry & Machine Company, 34 N. L. R . B. 677 ; Matter of
Bendier Aviation Corp, 39 N. L. R. B. 81; Matter of General Electric Company, 29
N. L. R B . 162; Matter of Mullins Manufacturing Company, 31 N. L. R. B. 532; Matter
of Sullivan Machinery Company, 31 N L R B 749
1
THE HUMPHRYES MANUFACTURING COMPANY 987
field, Ohio, during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of the Direction of Election herein,4 but excluding all supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recom-
mend such action subject to the limitations and additions set forth in
the Direction, to determine Whether they desire to be represented by
Pattern Makers League of North America (A. F. L.), or by United
Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (C. I. 0.),5 for the
purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. Upon the results of
this election will depend, in part, out determination of the appropriate
unit. If a majority of these employees vote for the A. F. L., they will
thereby have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate
unit and to be represented by the A. F. L.; otherwise the petition will
be dismissed.
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 Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Humphryes
Manufacturing Company, Mansfield, 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 super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among all
wood and metal pattern makers and pattern maker apprentices 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 tempo-
rarily laid off; and including employees in the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but ex-
' In view of the fact that the Company expected at the time of the hearing to add one or,
at most , two pattern makers to its pay roll in the immediate future , the A. F. L. requested
that the Board fix the hearing date as the eligibility date We do not believe that the
reason assigned by the A F. L affords any justification for a departure from our usual
policy On the contrary, we are of the opinion that it furnishes greater support for our
adherence to such policy , for otherwise the one or two employees who may have been
added to the pay roll between the hearing date and the issuance date hereof would be
disenfranchised
3 The C. I. 0 at the hearing declined to commit itself as to whether it desired to have
its name appear on the ballot in the event of an election . Permission is hereby granted
to the C . I. O. to withdraw its name from the ballot if it so desires
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
eluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged
for cause, and excluding also 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, to
determine whether they desire to be represented by Pattern Makers
League of North America, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, or by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of Amer-
ica, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the
purposes of collective b&xgaining, or by neither.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.