The McKay Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 822 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, which
can best be resolved by an election.
4. We find that the following employees employed at the Rich-
mond, Indiana, plant of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees,4 excluding office and
clerical employees, and all guards, professional employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
5. The IUE urges that the election be postponed until such time as
a full .working staff has been recruited. All the other parties to the
proceeding request an immediate election.
The Richmond plant commenced operations during October 1950,
and at the time of the hearing had recruited approximately 85 per-
cent of its anticipated staff. The Employer's representative stated
at the hearing that whether or not substantially more employees are
hired is dependent on the Employer's next governmental allocation
of materials.
As the Richmond plant now has a representative number of its
total anticipated complement, and any future expansion in the plant
complement is highly speculative, we perceive no reason for deviating
from established practice, and we shall direct an immediate election.5
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 Included within the unit are group leaders , who the parties stipulated are not super-
visors within the meaning of the Act , and janitors.
5 Electrical Reactance Corporation, 92 NLRB 1256.
THE MCKAY MACHINE COMPANY ' and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-1124 . March 15,
1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Bernard Ness, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2In the course of the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition and the
motion was referred to the Board by the hearing officer. For reasons stated hereinafter
under paragraph numbered 4, the motion is denied.
93 NLRB No. 138.
THE MCKAY MACHINE COMPANY 823
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner requests that the Board find appropriate a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's No. 2 plant located at West Federal Street, Youngstown,
Ohio, excluding all office and clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the amended Act.
The Employer opposes granting the unit requested by the Petitioner
and contends that the only appropriate unit for purposes of collective
bargaining among its employees consists of production and main-
tenance employees at both its Youngstown plants.
The Employer designs and manufactures rolling mill machinery
and equipment for the steel and automobile industries and operates
two plants located, respectively , at Rayen and Foster Streets (Plant
No. 1) and West Federal Street ( Plant No. 2) in Youngstown, Ohio.
The plants are approximately three-tenths of a mile apart, are un-
connected , and have separate power and heat. Plant No. 1, employ-
ing approximately 160 employees , is almost exclusively engaged in
machine work although some assembly is done at that location. Em-
ployees at Plant No. 1 , for the most part, are classified as machinists
and machine operators , with a few designated as heat treaters, re-
ceiving clerk, material handlers, and general labor. Two or three
employees at Plant No. 1 do assembly work on a full -time basis;
about 10 percent of the production at Plant No. 1 is shipped directly
to customers while the remainder is trucked to Plant No. 2 for as-
sembly. An electrician , a boxer-carpenter , janitors, and watchmen,
who take care of the heating system, are also assigned to Plant No. 1.
The Employer has approximately 44 employees located . at Plant
No. 2 where most of its products are assembled for shipment. Most
of the personnel at Plant No . 2 is classified as assemblers or fitters,
with a few machinists , helpers, handymen , and crane men also lo-
cated in the plant. The plant is devoted entirely to assembly of the
machines the Employer manufactures including the installation of
electrical controls where they are necessary. The 6 machinists at this
plant spend 75 percent of their time on assembly work and do ma-
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
chine work only when it is necessary to correct small parts. While
the greatest portion of the materials used in Plant No. 2 come from
Plant No. 1, about 25 percent consists of finished component pur-
chased from outside suppliers and shipped directly to Plant No. 2.
Pipe fitters, a boxer-carpenter, a paint sprayer, and an electrician
do maintenance work at the plant.
The Employer's vice president exercises over-all supervision of
operations at both plants. Each plant, in turn, is under the separate
supervision and direction of an assistant superintendent .4 Although
payrolls for both plants are prepared in the Employer's central offices
at Plant No. 1, each plant has control over hiring and discharge of
its employees. Grievances are processed at the plant level by the
assistant superintendents who also appear to have authority, subject
to the approval of the superintendent of all operations, to make wage
adjustments. Plant No. 1 operates three shifts on a 24-hour day basis
while Plant No. 2 employees work only a single shift. Prior to the
acquisition of Plant No. 2 by the Employer and concentration of
assembly employees at that location, all operations and employees
were housed in one plant. At the present time, however, despite the
asserted existence of a company-wide seniority system, interchange
of personnel between the plants occurs only at infrequent intervals
and vacancies at either plant are filled by new employees rather than
by transfers. There is no bargaining history for employees at either
Plant No. 1 or Plant No. 2.
The Employer contends that the interdependence of the opera-
tions at the plants, the common ultimate supervision, and similarity
of skills among employees at both locations militates against estab-
lishment of a bargaining unit restricted to personnel at Plant No. 2.
While the factors advanced by the Employer indicate the appropriate-
ness of a two-plant company-wide unit, the Board does not consider
that they are, alone, determinative of the issue herein. The separate
location and separate immediate supervision of the two plants, their
independent hiring and discharge practices, the differences in working
conditions and skills of employees, the lack of interchange of em-
ployees between the plants, the absence of bargaining upon a two-plant
basis, and the extent of organization of these employees all strongly
point to the appropriateness of a unit limited to employees at Plant
a The electrician at Plant No 2 was originally assigned to work at both plants but
spends practically all his time at Plant No 2.
4 The assistant superintendent in charge of machining supervises Plant No. 1 while the
assistant superintendent in charge of assembly directs the operations of Plant No. 2.
While the authority of each assistant superintendent is limited to the plant in question. the
assistant superintendent of Plant No 2 also retains control over the two or three assemblers
who are assigned to Plant No. 1.
TRUCK EQUIPMENT COMPANY OF ATLANTA 825
No. 2.5 Under these circumstances, and upon the entire record, we
find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employ-
er's West Federal Street plant (Plant No. 2), Youngstown, Ohio,
including watchmen,6 but excluding all office and clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the
amended Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.7
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
, At the hearing , the Petitioner noted that its organizational efforts had been limited to
Plant No 2 Under the amended Act , extent of organization cannot be controlling as to
unit determinations . Other factors being plainly present, we do not consider it dispositive
of the unit issue in this instance . See however , Waldensian Hosiery Mills, Inc., 83 NLRB
742.
6 The , parties agreed at the hearing that the watchmen spend 75 percent of their time in
janitorial dutie8 In accord with our established policy, we shall therefore include the
watchmen in the unit.
7 See Telechron, Inc, 90 NLRB 931.
TRUCK EQUIPMENT COMPANY OF ATLANTA' and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-1158.
March 15, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing -was held before William J. Rains, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represents
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In conformance with the agreement of the parties, we find that
all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant
I The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
93 NLRB No. 134.