The Murray Co. of Texas, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1571 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

THE MURRAY COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC 1571
place on company time and premises , at which meetings
departmental foremen read to the employees the Employer's
weekly publications which contained statements constituting
solicitation of employees to vote against the Union.
As it appears , therefore , that the Employer made elec-
tioneering speeches to employees on company time less than
24 hours in advance of the election , we shall, pursuant to the
rules set forth in the Peerless Plywood4 case, set aside the
election of November 6, 1953, and direct that a new election
be held.5
In view of these findings , we need not and do not pass upon
the sufficiency of the other grounds relieduponby the Regional
Director in recommending that the election be set aside.'
[The Board set aside the election held on November 6, 1953.]
[Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publica-
tion.]
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Second Direction of Election.
3Although this publication was customarily distributed to the Employer's employees each
Friday, it appears that the November 6 issue, containing a full- page antiunion advertisement,
was distributed and read to the employees on Thursday. The Employer readily admits in his
brief that this advertisement, which also appeared in the local newspaper, was read to the
employees on Thursday preceding the Friday election.
4 Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427.
5 We find no merit to the Employer's contention that because the instant election was held
on November 6, 1953, and prior to the decision in the Peerless Plywood case, the rule
as enunciated in that case is not applicable. Detergents, Inc., 107 NLRB 1022.
Nor do we find merit in the Employer's apparent contention that because the electioneering
occurred in the course of a regularly scheduled employee meeting, rather than at one specif-
ically called for the purpose of electioneering, we should not apply the rule above noted.
6Member Murdock, however, agrees with the Regional Director that the Employer's ban
on the wearing of prounion badges and other insignia was an interference with employee
rights and likewise constitutes grounds for setting aside the election.
THE MURRAY COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC. and UNIT-
ED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Petitioner. Case
No. 16-RC-1386. March 15, 1954
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 Lewis A. Ward,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
107 NLRB No. 307.
1572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and mainte-
nance employees at the Dallas, Texas, plant of the Employer,
including employees of the pattern department, assembly de-
partment, planing department, saw department, rib department,
shipping department, production control department, store-
room, structural department, press department, steel building
department, overhead and maintenance general department,
overhead and maintenance labor department, and pipe de-
partment. The IAM agrees with the Petitioner that this unit
is appropriate. The Iron Workers seeks a unit limited to the
employees of the saw shop, rib shop, structural shop, press
department, steel building department, storeroom , planing
mill department, and overhead and maintenance labor de-
partment.' At the hearing the Employer took the position that
a broader overall unit than even that sought by the Petitioner
was desirable. The unit preferred by the Employer would
cover all employees in the so-called gin-side operations,
despite the fact that it would include (1) employees in the
machine shop, toolroom, sheet metal shop, tin shop, and paint
shop and (2) foundry employees who are presently represented
by the IAM and the Foundry Workers Union, respectively,
under existing contracts not due to expire until January 1955.
In its brief, the Employer indicates that, as an alternative
position only, it believes the overall unit requested by the
Petitioner is appropriate.
The IAM and the Iron Workers were certified by the Board
as joint bargaining agent and have been representing sub-
stantially the unit sought by the Petitioner since 1948. In our
opinion no persuasive reason has been presented for disturbing
this historical bargaining unit. Thus, the record does not
support a finding that the employees in the unit proposed by
the Iron Workers are skilled craftsmen or that they constitute
the type of departmental unit to which we permit severance
from a production and maintenance unit.' On the contrary, the
only basis that we can perceive for establishment of the unit
sought by the Iron Workers is its extent of organization among
the particular employees of the Employer. The Act, however,
IShopmen's Local 536 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL, hereinafter referred to as the Iron Workers, and Lodge 1015, Inter-
national Association of Machinists, AFL, hereinafter called the IAM, intervened separately
on the basis of a current contract with the Employer to which they were signatories as
joint bargaining representative of the employees sought by the Petitioner.
2 In support of its position the Iron Workers submitted authorization cards at the hearing
as proof of its interest among these employees.
3See American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
THE MURRAY COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC 1573
precludes a determination on this basis alone." Nor are we
able to find support for the so-called gin-side unit preferred
by the Employer. As previously indicated, it would include
employees who are presently represented by the IAM and the
Foundry Workers under current contracts with the Employer.
The bargaining units for these employees were established
as early as 1941. The Board is reluctant to disturb existing
contract units established by collective bargaining, unless
they are repugnant to Board policy or do not assure to em-
ployees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed
by the Act.' As these units are not inherently inappropriate,
the contracts covering them constitute bars to an election in
the broad unit desired by the Employer." Moreover, none of
the labor organizations participating in this proceeding seek
to represent employees in a gin-side unit.'
For the foregoing reasons, we find that all production and
maintenance employees at the Dallas , Texas, plant of the
Employer, including employees of the pattern department,
assembly department, planing department, saw department,
rib department, shipping department, production control de-
partment , storeroom , structural department , press depart-
ment, steel building department , overhead and maintenance
general department, overhead and maintenance labor depart-
ment, pipe department, and working foremen in the shipping
department, saw department, rib department, assembly de-
partment , overhead and maintenance general department, and
pipe department,' but excluding foundry department employees,
Clerical and salaried nonproductive employees, guards, all
other working foremen, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. At the hearing the IAM and the Iron Workers stated
certain preferences with respect to the appearance of their
names on the ballot. The IAM indicated that its first choice
4See J. L. Hudson Company, 103 NLRB 1378.
5 H. A. Satin & Company, Inc., 97 NLRB 1001.
6Ohio Bell Telephone Company, 87 NLRB 1555, and Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 90
NLRB 685, cited by the Employer in its brief for its contention that these contracts are not
effective bars to an election in the unit it prefers are inapposite. In the former case, the
contract was held not a bar because of the Board's policy that systemwide units are most
appropriate for public utilities. In the latter case, the contract was held not a bar only to
the extent that it purported to cover an arbitrary segment of employees who more properly
belonged in a craft unit sought by one of the participating unions.
7 Hamilton Foundry and Machine Co , 94 NLRB 51, cited by the Employer as an example
of a case where the Board held that foundry employees might be included in a unit of pro-
duction and maintenance employees, notwithstanding a separatehistory of collective bargaining
for foundry employees, is not analogous to the instant case. In Hamilton, a union was seeking
to represent the foundry employees as part of a broader unit and there was no contract bar
to a self-determination election directed by the Board.
8 The parties agree that these working foremen are not supervisors within the meaning of
the Act.
1574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was to be on the ballot separately , but if the Board did not
see fit to grant this request , then its second selection was to
have its name appear jointly with the Iron Workers. On the
other hand, the Iron Workers indicated its choices for the
placing of its name on the ballot in the following order:
(1) Separately for the unit which it described as appropriate;
(2) jointly with the IAM for the overall unit sought by the Pe-
titioner; and (3) separately for the overall unit. In view of our
finding that the unit desired by the Iron Workers is not appro-
priate, only its second and third selections remain and they
are directly the reverse of those of the IAM. Under the circum-
stances, as one party has indicated that its first preference
would be to dissolve the joint bargaining relationship and the
other party is. agreeable to the extent of choosing this course
of action as an alternative , we shall place the names of the
IAM and the Iron Workers separately on the ballot.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member. Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
AMERICAN LAUNDRY MACHINERY COMPANY and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 9-CA-461.
March 16, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER,
On May 8, 1952 , Trial Examiner George Downing issued
his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in certain unfair labor practices , and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action , as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto . Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report with a sipporting brief, and the
Board at Washington , D. C., heard oral argument, in which
the Respondent , the Union , and the General Counsel parti-
cipated.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed .' The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent's
IIn view of our finding hereinafter that certain bonus notices were in fact posted on
May 24, 1951, as the Respondent contends they were, we find it unnecessary to pass upon
the propriety of the Trial Examiner's refusal to grant the Respondent's request for a con-
tinuance in order that it might adduce additional testimony bearing on the posting date of
the notices. For the same reason, we deny the Respondent's motion to remand the case
for further hearing on this point.
107 NLRB No. 316.