The Murray Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 6, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 481 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of THE MURRAY COMPANY, EMPLOYER 1 and LODGE 1015,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
In the Matter of THE MURRAY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON
WORKERS, LOCAL 699, AFL
Cases Nos. 16-RC-2 and 16-RC-5, respectively. Decided May 6,1948,
Mr. C. E. Handy, of Dallas, Tex., for the Employer.
Mr. L. M. Fagtyn, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the IAM.
Mr. Clifton Brignac, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the Iron Workers_
Mr. John W. Vinson, of Dallas, Tex., for the UAW-CIO.
Mr. Stephen J. Gall, of Dallas, Tex., for the Steel Workers.
Mr. W. F. Heickman, of Houston, Tex., for the Molders.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate amended petitions duly filed, a hearing in the above-
consolidated cases was held at Dallas, Texas, on January 12, 1948,
before Charles Y. Latimer, hearing officer. United Steel Workers of
America, herein called the Steel Workers, was permitted by the hear-
ing officer to intervene in this proceeding. The Steel Workers has
not complied with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and
(h) of the Act, as amended, nor did it allege, or show, a contractual
interest in this matter at the time of the hearing. Accordingly, the
hearing officer's ruling permitting the intervention of the Steel
Workers is reversed. Other rulings made by the hearing officer at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board 2 makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Murray Company, a Texas Corporation, has its principal office
and plant located at Dallas, Texas, where it is engaged in the maim-
The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing
'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 -man panel consisting of Chairman Herzog
and Members Houston and Reynolds.
77 N. L. R. B, No. 84.
481
482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
facture, sale, and distribution of cotton gin equipment and various
other products. During 1947, the Employer purchased raw materials
valued in excess of- $1,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent
was shipped to the plant from points outside the State of Texas.
During the 'same period, the Employer shipped approximately 76
percent of its finished products to points outside the State of Texas.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. TIIE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Lodge 1015, International Association of Machinists, herein called
the IAM, is an unaffiliated labor organization, claiming to represent
employees of'the Employer.
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, Local 699, herein called the Iron Workers, is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claim-
ing to represent employees of the Employer.
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, herein called the UAW-CIO, is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to
represent employees of the Employer.
The International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North
America is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize either the IAM, the Iron Work-
ers, or the UAW-CIO as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its employees until certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The IAM seeks a unit of all production and maintenance employees
in the pattern shop, the assembly department, the warehouse and
shipping department and the overhead and maintenance department
(general) ,3 excluding all employees in the unit proposed by the Iron
J This department consists of a working foreman, a carpenter , an electrician , a pipefitter,
a millwright , an air -compressor operator , an electrician 's helper and a pipefitter 's helper.
THE MURRAY COMPANY 483
Workers and all supervisors. The Iron Workers desires a unit of all
employees in the overhead and maintenance department (common
laborers ),4 the planing mill department, the rib and plating depart-
ment, the saw shop, and the structural shop, excluding all employees
in the unit proposed by the IAM, the guard department, clerical em-
ployees and supervisors. The, intervening UAW-CIO urges one unit
of all the employees in the units proposed by the IAM and the Iron
Workers, including the foundry workers, but excluding assistant fore-
men,5 and salaried non-productive employees and guards, as appro-
priate for bargaining purposes.
The Employer questions the propriety of including the overhead and
maintenance department (general) and the warehouse and shipping
department in the same unit, as desired by the IAM. The Employer
also takes the position that the employees in the planing mill depart-
ment and the saw shop should be included in the unit proposed by the
IAM rather than in that sought by the Iron Workers.
The IAM now has a contract with the Employer, which became effec-
tive on January 1, 1948, covering employees in the machine shop de-
partments numbers 2 and 3, the sheet-metal department, the tin shop
and the paint shop. None of the other labor organizations participat-
ing in this proceeding seek to represent these employees 6 All the em-
ployees in the units sought by the IAM and the Iron Workers were
represented by the Steel Workers in one unit from 1942 to 1947. This
latter unit was substantially the same as that now desired by the.U AW-
CIO, except that the foundry workers were not included.
The production operations in the plant are of the integrated type
common to industrial enterprises. The heads of all the departments,
with one exception,' are responsible to the production superintendent.
The working conditions, hours of employment, and interests of the em-
ployees in the various departments are similar. The job classifications,
rates of pay, and types of work performed by the employees in depart-
ments sought by the IAM and the Iron Workers are the same. There
are assemblers in the assembly department, the planing department,
This department consists of a general foreman, 14 labor leadmen , 13 common laborers,
and a hacksaw operator
5 There is nothing in the record to indicate that the Employer has classified any of the
men as assistant foremen Presumably this refers to the woilang foremen hereinafter
discussed
G In addition to the department presently represented by the IAM, the following depart-
aunts and groups of employees are not 'sought for representation purposes by any labor
organization in this proceeding : main office , supply department , seed house , gin house
demonstration plant, guard department, personnel office, heating and ventilation depart-
ment, warehouse of the Carver Company division of the Murray Company, clerical em-
ployees in the stockroom, and office and clerical employpzs in the engineering building
The working foreman of the warehouse and shipping department is responsible to the
traffic manager who in turn is responsible to the Employer 's president
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the saw shop. There are labor leadmen and common laborers in
the warehouse department and in the overhead and maintenance de-
partment (common laborers). Employees in the overhead and main-
tenance departments (general and common laborers) work over the
entire plant where needed. Neither the IAM nor the Iron Workers
contends, nor does the record support a finding, that the units proposed
by those organizations are appropriate upon a craft basis. In view
of the community of interest of these employees, the interrelationship
of their work and the past history of collective bargaining, we are of
the opinion that substantially the unit sought by the UAW-CIO is
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. ,
A question arises as to whether working foremen in several of the
departments in the plant, such as the warehouse and shipping depart-
ment, the overhead and maintenance department (general), and the
structural shop, should be included in the unit. Although the parties
are apparently agreed that such working foremen do not have the
status of supervisors and should be included in the unit sought, the
Board is not bound by nor can it accept the agreement of the parties
as to the supervisory status of these employees.8 The record indicates
that, in addition to performing manual labor, the working foremen,
generally, have authority to assign work to the men under their super-
vision. They check the quality and quantity of the work of their
subordinates and make effective recommendations concerning hiring,
discharging, lay-offs, discipline of any kind, granting vacations,
handling grievances, promotions and demotions. Although they re-
ceive the same overtime as other employees, this has been due to the
fact that without exception they have been included in past agree-
ments between the Steel Workers and the Employer. In view of their
responsibility, and particularly the fact that these working foremen
have authority to make effective recommendations, we find that they
are supervisors within the meaning of the Act .9 We shall, therefore,
exclude them from the unit herein found appropriate.10
The IAM and the Iron Workers would exclude, and the UAW-CIO
would include, the foundry employees in the units proposed. Local
No. 2 of the intervening Molders has represented the foundry workers
since 1942. The last contract between the Employer and the Molders
expired on December 31, 1947.11 The foundry is situated in its own
8 Matter of Brewster Pateros Processors, Inc , 73 N L R B 833
° The pattern maker, who is the only man employed in the pattern shop, is classified by
the Employer as a working foreman Although he has authority to supervise work and
make recommendations, he is not a supervisor because there are no employees over whom
he can exercise his authority or make his recommendations effective
10 Matter of Steelweld Equipment Company, Inc, 76 N L R B 831
"At the time of the hearing the Molders and the Employei were apparently negotiating
it new collective bargaining agreement.
THE MURRAY COMPANY 485
building. No interchange of employees takes place between the
foundry and the other departments. The foundry workers are a
homogeneous and functionally distinct group with a long history of
separate representation. We shall, therefore, exclude them from the
unit herein found appropriate?2
The Employer contends that the pattern maker should be excluded
from the over-all unit, because of the relation between his work and
that of the foundry employees excluded above. The pattern shop and
the foundry department are in separate buildings and are not under
the same direct supervision. The foundry has its own foreman. The
pattern maker, who is the only employee in the pattern shop, is a
relatively skilled worker. He does not perform any foundry work
and is confined to pattern making. The Molders do not claim to rep-
resent him. We believe that in view of the foregoing considerations,
including the fact that he has in the past been represented in the same
plant-wide unit with the employees of the other departments, the pat-
tern maker has a substantially greater community of interest with the
employees of such departments than with the excluded group of
foundry employees. We shall, therefore, include him in the unit
hereinafter found appropriate.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Dallas, Texas, plant of the Employer, including employees of the pat-
tern shop, assembly department, warehouse and shipping department,
overhead and maintenance departments (general and common labor-
ers), planing mill department, rib and plating department, saw shop,
and structural shop, but excluding the foundry department employees,
clerical and salaried non-productive employees, guards, working fore-
man," and all or any supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
V. TIIE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot, subject to the
limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
At the hearing, neither the IAM nor the Iron Workers indicated
whether it desired to participate in the election in the event that the
i2 As no labor organization presently seeks an election among the foundry workers as a
separate unit , we shall not at this time make a determination of representatives for this
group Matter of Supei,or Metal Products Company, 65 N L R B 552
"'As indicated above, the pattern maker , though called a working foreman , is not a
supervisor, but is a production and maintenance employee and is included in the unit
hei em found appropriate
788886-49-vol 77 52
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board should find a plant-wide unit appropriate. Accordingly, we
shall omit the names of the IAM and the Iron Workers from the ballot,
subject to the filing of a request with the Regional Director by one or
both labor organizations asking- that their names be placed either
separately or jointly on the ballot at the election. If, however, the
names of the IAM and the Iron Workers appear jointly on -theballot,
and they are selected by a majority of the employees in the election
hereinafter directed, they will be certified jointly as the bargaining
representative of the employees comprising the appropriate unit and
may be required by the Employer to bargain jointly for such employees
as a single unit."
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain, representatives, for the
purposes of collective bargaining with The Murray Company, Dallas,
Texas, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possi-
ble, but not later than'thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Sixteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, 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 vacation or temporarily
laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election,'and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented by United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0., for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
" Matter of Fairmont Creamery Company, 61 N L. R. B 1311; Matter of The Mead
Corporation , Heald Dtivisaon, 63 N. L . R. B. 1129; Matter of Natxonat Carbide Corporation,
67 N. L. R. B. 757.