Warner Electric Brake Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 12, 1944

54 N.L.R.B. 547 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of WARNER ELECTRIC BRAKE COMPANY and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 13-B-2124.-Decided January 12, 1944
Mr. John Patterson 'Currie, ,of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Frank B.
Zander, of Beloit, Wis., for the Company.
Mr. Meyer Adelman, of,Milwaukee, Wis., and Mr. W. 0. Parker,
of Beloit, Wis., for the Union.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of America,
C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Warner Electric Brake Company, South Beloit, Illinois, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Leon A. Rosell,
Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Beloit, Wisconsin, on
-November 23, 1943. The Company. and the Union appeared, parti-
cipated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and 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 FACTS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Warner Electric Brake Company is engaged in the manufacture
of electric brakes and controls at South Beloit, 'Illinois. The Com-
1 On November 12, 1943, United Automobile Workers of America , C. I. 0., flied in the
Regional Office a waiver and disclaimer of interest in this proceeding.
54 N. L. R. B., No. 81.
547
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lally annually purchases materials valued at approximately $2,000,-
000, of which approximately 50 percent is shipped to its plant from
points outside Illinois. The Company annually ships from its plant
finished products valued in excess of $5,000,000, of which approxi-
mately 80 percent is shipped from the plant to points outside Illinois.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce, within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America 'is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial, Organizations, admitting' to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about April 20, 1943, and thereafter, the Union asked the
Company for recognition as sole bargaining representative of the
Company's employees. The Company refused so to recognize the
Union until it was certified by the Board.
A statement prepared by the Regional Director and introduced into
evidence at the hearing indicates that the Union represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in the unit herein found appropriate
for bargaining?
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 Company and the Union, agree, and we find, that production
and maintenance employees, including leadmen and set-up men,3
should be included in the bargaining unit. They further agree, and
we find, that office and plant, clerical employees, technical employees
in the main office, timekeepers, watchmen, militarized guards, plant
superintendent, assistant superintendent, senior foremen, junior fore-
men,4 assistant foremen, and the supervisor of women should be ex-
cluded from the bargaining unit. The Company and the Union
disagree with respect to subforemen. The Union would include all
2 The Union submitted to. the Regional Director 229 authorization cards, bearing dates
between March and November 1943, and apparently genuine original signatures of em-
ployees on the Company 's pay roll of October 28, 1943. -
There are approximately 656 employees in the appropriate bargaining unit.
8 Leadmen and set-up men, as such ,, do not have any supervisory authority within the
Board's usual definition of that term . Four assistant foremen ( Bernard VonDervellen,
Henry Veltmeyer , Delbert Tregoning, and Cornelius Mahoney ) do some set -up work, but
no production work. As assistant foremen, they are deemed excluded from the unit.
4 Two junior foremen ( Thorval Therkelsen and Harold Minnick ) do some production
work. As junior foremen, they are deemed excluded from the unit.
WARNER ELECTRIC BRAKE COMPANY 549
subforemen in the bargaining unit. The Company contends that
three subforemen, who devote 60 to 75 percent of their time to super-
visory work, should be excluded from the unit.
Subforemen are in charge of production lines in the assembly de-
partment, including 7 to 20 employees on each line. Subforemen do
production work in varying amounts. They assign work, they give
instructions, and they relieve men on the line. All of them do some
supervisory work and they receive higher wages than ordinary pro-
duction employees on the line. There are differences in the rates of
pay among the subforemen, in proportion to the amount of their
supervisory duties. While all subforemenr may make recommen-
dations with respect to the discharge or discipline of employees under
'them, little or no weight is given to their recommendations except
to those of Leo Spangler, 'Lawrence Dietsch, and Thomas McMillan.
These three employees are classed as subforemen and spend in excess
of 50 percent of their time on supervisory duties and the remainder
of their time on production work. They work under a foreman who
has general charge of approximately 116 employees. It appears that
subforemen as a class are not supervisory employees within the
Board's usual definition of that term. Spangler, Dietsch, and Mc-
Millan, however, although classed with other subforemen by the
Company, are rated more highly than others and the Company
accords to their recommendations considerable weight. We therefore
shall include in the bargaining unit subforemen as a class and shall
exclude from the unit all subforemen and other employees who fall
within our usual definition of supervisory employees -5
The Company would exclude, and the Union would include, inspec-
tors. The Company contends that inspectors are confidential em-
ployees and should not be included in the bargaining unit with ordi-
nary production and maintenance employees. Inspectors are engaged
in the operation of approving or rejecting manufactured parts. They
have no authority to hire or discharge employees or to recommend
effectively hire, discharge, or discipline, nor are inspectors connected
with the Company's labor relations department. We shall include
them in.the bargaining unit."
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany at its South Beloit, Illinois, plant, including leadmen, set-up
men, inspectors, and subforemen, but excluding office and plant cleri-
cal employees, technical employees in the main office, timekeepers,
So far as the record discloses , Spangler , Dietsch, and McMillan are the only employees
of the Company whose job classification is listed for inclusion in the bargaining unit and
whose authority with respect to the work status of their fellow employees require their
exclusion in accordance with our usual practice.
e Matter o f Howard Aircraft Corporation , 51 N. L R . B. 386; Matter of Westinghouse
Electric & Ifanufactursng Company, 45 N. L. R B. 826.
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
watchmen, militarized guards, plant superintendent, assistant super-
intendent, senior foremen, junior foremen, assistant foremen, super-
visor of women, and all subforemen and other supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline; or otherwise
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. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of the Direction of Election 'herein, subject to the limitations and
additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Warner Electric
Brake Company, South Beloit, Illinois, an election by secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30)
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11,.of said Rules and Regula-
tions, 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 vaca-
tion or temporarily laid,off, and including employees in the armed
forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the
polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been dis-
charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.