The Schaible Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 15, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 527 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of TAE SCHAIBLE COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS
OF AMERICA , C. I. 0.
Case No. 9-R-2063.-Decided July 15, 1946
Mr. J. Mack Swigeet, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Company.
Messrs . Glenn R. Hess and J. L. Davis, of Cincinnati , Ohio, for
the CIO.
Me. Phil J. Kennedy, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Independent.
Mr. Bernard Dwnau, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended petition duly filed by United Steelworkers
of America, C. I. 0., herein called the CIO , alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of The Schaible Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, herein called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board, on May 8, 1946, con-
ducted a prehearing election pursuant to Article III, Section 3, as
amended, of the Board 's Rules and Regulations , among employees of
the Company in the alleged appropriate unit to determine whether
they desired to be represented by the CIO, or by the Independent Union
of Schaible Employees, herein called the Independent, or by neither,
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that of an approximate number of eligible
voters of 309, 2 cast void ballots, 112 voted for the CIO, 120 for the
Independent, 4 voted against representation by either of the labor
organizations , and 48 ballots were challenged.
Thereafter, pursuant to Article III, Section 10, as amended, of the
Rules and Regulations, the Board provided for an appropriate hear-
ing upon due notice before Thomas E. Shroyer, Trial Examiner. The
hearing was held at Cincinnati, Ohio, on May 28, 1946. The Com-
pany, the CIO, and the Independent appeared and participated. All
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
69 N. L . R. B., No. 65. 527
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE COMPANY
The Schaible Company, an Ohio corporation, has its principal office
and place of business in Cincinnati Ohio, where it is engaged in the
manufacture of plumbing supplies. During the year preceding the
hearing, the Company purchased raw materials, valued in excess of
$2,000,000, of which about 80 percent was shipped to its plant from
points outside the State of Ohio. During the same period of time, the
Company produced finished products, valued in excess of $3,000,000,
of which about 80 percent was shipped from its plant to points outside
the State.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America is a labor organization , affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
Independent Union of Schaible Employees is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the CIO or the
Independent as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Com-
pany's employees until one or the other has been certified by the Board
in an appropriate unit.
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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties agree that a unit consisting of all the production and
maintenance employees of the Company, but excluding guards, cler-
ical and salaried employees, foremen and assistant foremen, and all
supervisory personnel, is appropriate. They disagree concerning the
inclusion in the unit of timekeepers, inspectors, and cafeteria workers,
THE SCHAIBLE COMPANY 529
all of whom were challenged at the election. In addition, there is dis-
agreement concerning the supervisory status of the following named
employees, all of whom the CIO challenged at the election : Thomas
Dillinger, John Schaffer, Love, Walton Berkley, Steve Reynolds. At
the election the Board's agent challenged William Gilmartin, R. B.
Clark, and Clinton Roberts to determine whether they were included
within a unit represented by the Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers
and Helpers International Union, Local #68, AFL, which has a cur-
rently effective agreement with the Company.
Timekeepers: The Company employs seven timekeepers, of whom
six voted in the election and were challenged, who maintain records in
which are reported time data relating to the beginning, interruption,
and conclusion of particular operations from which the wages of the
employees are subsequently computed. The timekeepers work at a
desk within the department to which they are assigned. Their records
are open to inspection by any interested party. They are listed on
the factory pay roll, and are under the supervision of a Chief Time-
keeper. The CIO and the Company would exclude the timekeepers,
and the Independent would include them. In accordance with our
usual practice, we shall exclude the timekeepers from a unit composed
of production and maintenance employees.'
Inspectors: The Company employs 27 inspectors, of whom 25 voted
in the election and were challenged, who work 8 hours per day at an
hourly rate and who are listed on an inspectors' pay roll separate from
the production and maintenance employees. They are responsible to
supervisors who are in turn responsible to a Chief Inspector. With the
exception of one receiving inspector who spot-checks materials re-
ceived at the plant from outside sources, the common characteristic
of their functions is the inspection of materials in the process of man-
ufacture for the purpose of detecting flaws. Defects are primarily
caused by faulty machines rather than negligent workmanship. The
inspectors report defects to the foremen or to the set-up men who then
make the necessary adjustments. Rejections of work affect the amount
of pay of employees, and inspectors' reports are in some measure an
index to the efficiency of employees. The CIO and the Independent
would include these employees; but the Company would exclude them.
The Company contends that the work of these inspectors in overseeing
the production process is managerial in nature, and that their inclu-
sion in the production and maintenance unit would result in a divided
loyalty on their part inconsistent with a disinterested discharge of
duties. The work of the inspectors is an integral part of the produc-
tion process ; their working conditions are essentially similar to those
See Matter of Dougla8 Aircraft Company , Inc., 60 N . L. R. B. 876.
701592-47-vol. 69-35
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the production and maintenance employees, and the risk of their
improper discharge of duty affords no basis for excluding then" from
the unit. We shall include them in the unit.]
Cafe,teria Eml)loyec8. The Con"pany employs one chief and four
cook's helpers who work exclusively in the cafeteria preparing and
serving food to the production and maintenance employees. They are
hourly paid and rated, and they work raider the supervision of the
personnel manager. They are classified in the same manner as pro-
duction and maintenance employees, and personnel policy pertaining
to them is apparently the same as that applied to the production and
maintenance employees. The CIO and the Company would exclude
them from the unit. The Independent would include theist. Luis-
much as their work is essentially different from that of the production
and maintenance employees, and since there is a disagreement concern-
ing their inclusion, we shall exclude them from the unit.'
Gilmartin, Clark, Robei°t.,; ' The Company employs these individ-
uals as truckers to haul materials from the plating, buffing, and polish-
ing departments to a stockroom located in another section of the plant.
They are rarely used for work in other departments. Ill accordance
with a current contract between the Company and the Metal Polishers,
Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union, Local #68, AFL,
executed November 13, 1945, the Company recognized that Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of "all employees of the
Polishing, Buffing and Plating Departments." The contract was
negotiated at about the time the Company resumed operations of these
departments after their curtailment during the war and prior to the
time the truckers were hired. A representative of the Polishers' Union
testified that the contract was intended to cover polishers, buffers,
platers and plater helpers only, and that the union does not bargain on
behalf of the truckers here involved. Ile further testified that unless
tactically expedient during the initial period of organization the
union chooses not to bargain for employees other than those tradi-
tionally included within the polishers' craft. The truckers are prob-
ably ineligible for uieuibership in the Polishers' Union. We find that
the truckers are not covered by the contract with the Polishers' Union,
and we shall include them in the tnlit as production and maintenance
employees.
See matter of Chrgsler- Corporation , 44 N. L. K. B. 881, 856.
See Hatter of General Cigar Co., Inc., 64 N. L. R . B. 300 : Matte, of Chrysler Corpora-
tion. A irtemp Divi.sion . Indianapoli0 Plant, 61 N. L . It. B. 953.
See Matter of Dag and Night Mann factaring Conapanlt, 65 N. L. It. B . 916 ; Hatter of
Rockford Jlachine Tool Company , 64 N. L . It. B. 1400; Matter of Mark , Judson . Voehringer
Company of North Carolina, Inc., 63 N. L. It . B. 96; Matter of Iona Packing Company, 53
N. L. R. B. 446.
The rliseu."iou herein applies enlually ' to the plating inspector who is incltuled in the
unit.
THE SCHAIBLE COMPANY 531
Dzlhingei,: Tins employee is a tool and gauge checker who examines
tools fabricated by the tool makers for accuracy prior to placing them
in the tool crib. In the absence of the nlachine or tool room super-
intendent, he acts as lead mi,n in the department. This occurs on.
infrequent occasions, and does not involve the exercise of supervisory
functions. We shall include 111111 ill the unit.
Schafjer^ and Lo,,,,. Schaffer and Love are respectively set-up men
in the screw nlachine and iilaclline ,]top departments. They set up
the machinery for new jobs which are then turned over to the opera
tors. They sometimes instruct newly hired employees. They have
no authority to change operators from one machine to another with-
out assent of the foreman. They perform no supervisory duties. We
shall include them in the unit as production and maintenance
employees.
Berkley: This employee is the lead man of two other employees, all
of whom work in the toolroolu assembling and repairing plating racks.
He exercises no supervisory authority. We shall include him in the
unit as a production and Maintenance employee.
Reynolds: This individual is listed with the general plant em-
ployees, and is designated chief trucker. He is the lead man of two
other truckers, all of whom haul materials from one department to
another. He is an hourly rated employee, and his pay is substantially
the sane as that of the other two truckers. He has no supervisory
functions. We shall include hint in the unit as a production and
maintenance employee.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany including inspectors, and tool and gauge checker, but excluding
timekeepers, guards. cafeteria workers, clerical and salaried em-
ployees, foreulen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisory enl-
ployees with authority to hire. promote, discharge, discipline, or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. TAE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the timekeepers and the cafeteria employees were
ineligible to vote in the election, and, accordingly. their ballots will
not be counted. We find that the 2:i inspectors and the named em-
ployees discussed in Section 1V `' were eligible to vote in the election,
and, accordingly, we shall direct that their ballots shall be opened and
counted, and that a supplemental Tally of Ballots shall be prepared
as set forth in the Direction.
a Gilmartin . Clark. Hubert.. Selialfer, Love, link ley. 1O •cnold . and Dillinaer.
532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The CIO challenged the eligibility to vote in the election of one
Walter Ruehlmann on the ground that he had been discharged and was
not an employee of the Company at the time of the election. Upon his
return from military service, this employee was placed in the foundry
to learn the molding trade. Because of his height he was inadaptable
to the work, and he was transferred to another department. Prior to
the election he was injured during the course of his employment, and
he was absent from work for several weeks. He was not working at
the time the election was held, but he was retained on the company
pay roll throughout this period. At the time of the hearing he had re-
turned to work. The CIO sought to elicit an admission from the plant
manager to the effect that the latter or another company representative
had stated at a conference between the Company and the CIO that this
employee had been discharged, but the plant manager denied that any
such statement had been made . We find . that this individual was
eligible to vote in the election.
DIRECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that , as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Schaible
Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, the Regional Director for the Ninth Re-
gion shall, pursuant to said Rules and Regulations, within ten (10)
days from the date of this Direction, open and count the challenged
ballots of the 25 inspectors and of the following named employees : Gil-
martin, Clark, Roberts, Dillinger, Schaffer, Love, Berkley, Reynolds,
and Ruehlmann. He shall thereupon prepare and cause to be served
upon the parties a Supplemental Tally of Ballots including therein
the court of the afore-mentioned challenged ballots. He shall further
forward forthwith to the Board in Washington, D. C., the Supple-
mental Tally of Ballots which, together with the record previously
made, shall constitute the record in the case, and the Board shall there-
upon decide the matter forthwith upon the record, or shall make such
other disposition of the case as may be appropriate.