The Union Forging Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1614 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union Forging Company 1 and International Die Sinkers'
Conference and its Endicott Die Sinkers ' Lodge #190, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 3-RC-1886. October 15, 1957
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 John W. Irving, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Murdock and Rodgers].
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 Petitioner and the International Brotherhood of Boiler
Makers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Boilermakers, are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of the Act and claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.4
3. The Employer contends that the instant petition should be dis-
missed on the ground that it is prematurely filed with respect to an
existing contract between the Employer and the Boilermakers. The
Employer and Boilermakers are parties to a contract covering the
Employer's production and maintenance employees which expired
on September 15, 1957, and, so far as appears from the record, has
not been renewed. As the petition was filed within 90 days of the
'The name of the Employer appears above as amended at the hearing.
3 The hearing officer denied the Employer's motion for continuance of the hearing to
permit the Employer to adduce evidence as to the unit placement of the die storage em-
ployee, discussed hereinafter in paragraph 4 of the draft. The Employer has moved the
Board to reverse this ruling and reopen the record to take such evidence. The Petitioner
opposes this motion. We find that the hearing officer's denial of a continuance of the
hearing was within his discretion, and his ruling is therefore affirmed. In any event, in
view of our disposition hereinafter of the issue raised with regard to the die storage
employee, the hearing officer's ruling was not prejudicial. As stated in paragraph 4,
below, the die storage employee will be permitted to vote subject to challenge. If his
vote is challenged, the Employer will have an opportunity to adduce its evidence as to
him if his vote is relevant to the outcome of the election. For all these reasons, the
Employer's request for reopening of the instant record is hereby denied.
In a 1955 case involving the same parties (The Union Forging Company, 114 NLRB
1250), Petitioner sought the same unit as it here seeks, and it now requests the Board to
take official notice of the record in that proceeding. The Employer opposed this request,
but advanced no reasons in support of its contention. Accordingly, we hereby take
official notice of the record and decision in that case.
'The Boilermakers did not intervene in the instant proceeding. However, as it is the
certified and currently recognized bargaining representative for the Employer's produc-
tion and maintenance employees, which group encompasses the requested employees, we
will place its name on the ballot.
118 NLRB No. 226.
THE UNION FORGING COMPANY 1615
expiration date of the contract, and the contract has, in any event,
expired, we find that the petition in this case was timely filed.'
We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is a New York corporation engaged in the manu-
facture of steel forgings for the automotive and machine industries.
The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit consisting of all employees in the
Employer's die department who work on dies or parts of dies used
in the manufacture and completion of forgings. The job classifica-
tions which Petitioner would include in this unit are diesinker, trimmer
diesinker, apprentices in those classifications, toolmaker, forming tool-
maker, die welder, die repairman, boring mill operator, lathe operator,
plane operator, saw operator, and tool crib attendant. For the reasons
stated in our 1.955 decision 6 involving this unit and these parties, we
find that the die department employees enumerated above are a func-
tionally distinct and separate group who constitute the type of tra-
ditional departmental unit contemplated by the Board in its American
Potash decision.? As the Petitioner is affiliated with a union which
has historically represented such employees on a departmental basis,'
we find that they may, if they so desire, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
In directing an election in our 1955 decision, we permitted an em-.
ployee classified as a sweeper to vote subject to challenge because the
record did not indicate whether such employee was functionally a part
of the die department. The parties now agree to the exclusion of this
employee. We shall, therefore, exclude the sweeper from the voting
group.
The Employer would include, while the Petitioner would exclude,
the die storage employee. This employee brings dies to the die depart-
ment from the adjacent die storage area, takes dies from the die
department to the forging shop where he sets up the trimming dies in
the presses, and returns dies from the forging shop to either the die
storage area or to the die department. He performs no work on dies
or parts of dies. Further, the die storage employee does not punch
the same time clock as that used by all employees in the die department,
and his working hours do not conform to the hours worked by the
die department employees. While the record shows that the die de-
partment foreman directs the die storage employee in transporting
dies to and from that department, it is not clear to what extent this
employee is otherwise supervised by the die department foreman or
6 Home Curtain Corp., 111 NLRB 1253.
6 The Union Forging Company. 114 NLRB 1250, 1254-55.
I A.merican Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 'NLRB 1418.
8 The Union Forging Company, supra , and cases cited therein.
1616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by others. Nor is it clear what proportion of his time is spent in the
die department. Under these circumstances, we have insufficient
basis for determining the unit placement of the die storage employee.
We shall, therefore, permit him to vote subject to challenge in the
election hereinafter directed.
We find that the following employees at the Employer's plant lo-
cated in Endicott, New York, may, if they so desire, constitute a
separate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All employees in the die department, including the tool crib at-
tendant,9 but excluding the sweeper, all other employees and all
supervisors as defined in the Act.
We shall not, however, make a final unit determination at this time.
If a majority of the employees vote for Petitioner in the election di-
rected herein, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director con-
ducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of represent-
atives to the Petitioner for the unit described above, which the Board,
in such -circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining. If, on the other hand, a majority of the em-
ployees in the voting group vote for the Boilermakers, the Board finds
that they may continue to be represented as part of the existing unit,
and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of
election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
U As stated above , the die storage employee will be permitted to vote subject to challenge.
Wiedemann Machine Company and United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America (U. E.), Petitioner. Case No.
4-PC-3398. October 15, 1957
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 Joseph C. Kelly, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Murdock and Rodgers].
'The hearing officer referred to the Board a motion made by the Intervenor at the
hearing to dismiss the instant petition on the ground that it was prematurely filed.
For reasons stated hereinafter in paragraph numbered 3, below, this motion is hereby
denied.
118 NLRB No. 225.