Bagley & Sewall Co.

In the Matter of BAGLEY & SEWALL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS (A. F. L.) - Case No. R-3404.-Decided February 21, 1942 Jurisdiction : tool manufacturing industry Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question . refusal to accord union recognition ; election necessary. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : employees in the machine shop of the Company excluding clerical and supervisory employees, watch- men, and engineers ; employees in the foundry excluded notwithstanding Company's contention that they should be included-employees of another Company owned individually by the president and majority stockholder of the above Company excluded from the unit found appropriate notwith- standing sole union's desire for their inclusion where among other circum- stances there is an absence of showing whether the labor relations of the companies are administered jointly or separately. Bond, Sehoeneck d King, by Mr. Tracy H. Ferguson, of Syracuse, N. Y., and Mr. Lawrence R. Ormiston, of Watertown, N. Y., for the Company. Mr. Willriam H. Bradt, of Albany, N. Y., for the Union. Mr. Raymond J. Heilman, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 'On November 3, 1941, International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo, New York) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Bagley & Sewall Company, Watertown, New York, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of repre- sentatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On December 6, 1941, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of 39 N. L. R. B., No. 16. 67 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due 'notice. On December 9, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Union. Pursuant to notice- a hearing was held on December 16, 1941, at Watertown, New York, before Peter J. Crotty, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Com- pany and the Union were represented and participated in the hear- ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was af- forded both parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made rulings on motions and on objections to the admis- sion of evidence. The -Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Bagley & Sewall Company has a plant at Watertown, New .York, at which it normally manufactures paper-making machinery but now is engaged primarily in making machine tools, Prentiss dies, vises and boiler heads for the United States Navy, and parts for 155 mm guns. From December 1, 1940, to November 30, 1941, the, Company used materials exceeding in value $75,000, of which more than 15 per- cent was shipped to the Company from points outside the. State of New York. During the same period the Company manufactured finished products amounting in value to more than $75,000, of which more than 50 percent was shipped to points outside the State of New York: The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Machinists is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to mem- bership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Union has requested that the Company recognize it as the exclusive representative of employees of the Company for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. The Company has refused recognition BAGLEY & SEWALL COMPANY 69 to the Union upon the grounds that the employees the Union desires to represent do not constitute an appropriate unit and that the Com- pany is not convinced that the Union represents a majority of the employees within the unit claimed by the Union. It appears from a report of the Regional Director that the Union represents a substantial number of the employees in the unit herein- after found to be appropriate? We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of the employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in, Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of 'commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The'Company has a machine shop with several departments and a foundry. Across the street from the Company's plant, there is a shop for the reconditioning of used machinery, operated under the name Lance Machine Company, herein called'the Lance Company. The Union 'seeks a unit consisting of all employees in the machine shop of the Company as well as the employees of the Lance Company, ex- cluding clerical and supervisory employees, watchmen, and engi- neers? The Company contends. that the employees of the foundry should also be included in the unit and that the employees of the Lance Company should be excluded. The Lance Company is not a corporation but is owned individ- ually by-one Cooper, the Company's president and majority stock- holder. The Company receives orders from-the Lance Company which are treated like the orders received from any other Company. The record indicates that an employee of the Lance Company works in the office of the Company on the accounts and records of the Lance i The Regional Director reported , that the Union submitted 143 application cards, of which 129 were dated between September 9 and October 29, 1941, and 14 bore no date The record does not show the number of employees in the alleged appropriate unit. In its petition the Union alleges that there are approximately 164 employees in the unit it claims appropriate. S The Union seeks to have the following classes of employees included in the appropriate unit ( It is not clear from the record whether they work in the machine shop and in the shop of the Lance Company or only in the machine shop ) • group leaders, stock clerks , shipping- department employees, wood-department employees , grinders, rollers , gear cutters , planers, mill workers, maintenance employees (including sheet-metal workers or pipe fitters and millwrights), firemen, electricians , painters, crane operators, road men in the erection department, sweepers , and truck drivers. 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Company., In addition, the employees of the Lance Company are paid by checks of the Company and these payments are then charged against the Lance Company's account. The record does not indi- cate, however, whether the labor relations of the Company and the Lance Company are administered jointly or separately. Nor does the record show the extent to which, if any, the Lance Company is controlled by the Company. Under these. circumstances, we are not satisfied that the evidence in the record, warrants the inclusion of the employees of the Lance Company_ in a unit together with em- ployees of the company.3 The machine shop and the foundry are separate departments of the Company. Moreover, the record indicates that the "Molders Union" has jurisdiction over the employees in the foundry. and has commenced to organize them. We are of the opinion that the em- ployees of the foundry should be excluded from the unit of employees in the machine shop.4 We find that all employees in the machine shop 5 of the Company excluding clerical and supervisory employees, watchmen, and en- gineers, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit-will insure to-,employees of the Com- pany the full benefit of their right, to self-organization, and to collective bargaining and otherwise.will effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF, REPRESENTATIVES We find that the question concerning- representation which has arisen can best be resolved by the holding of an election by secret ballot. ' In accordance with our usual practice, we shall direct that the employees of the Company eligible to vote in the election shall be those who were employed by the Company during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, subject to the limitations and additions hereinafter set forth in the Direction. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact" and upon the entire record in the case, the Board rakes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, 1. A question affecting commerce has ,arisen concerning the rep- resentation of employees of Bagley !& Sewall Company, within -the s Cf Matter of Farmers Feed Company of New York and Employees of the 'Farmers Feed Company; 36 N. L. R. B 650 4 See Matter of Smith & Caffrey Company and International Association Bridge Structural Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union # 612, 38 N L R B 90. 5 The employees of the machine shop included in the unit are listed in footnote 2 above. BAGLEY & SEWALL COMPANY 71 meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. All employees in the machine shop of the Company excluding clerical and supervisory employees, watchmen and engineers, consti- tute a '_unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 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, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, .it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Bagley & Sewall Company, Watertown, New York, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction of Election under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Third Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela- tions Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all employees in the machine shop of the, Company, including employees who did not work during,such pay- roll period because they were ill or on vacation or in the active military service or training of the United States, or temporarily laid off, but excluding clerical and supervisory employees, watchmen and engineers, and employees who have since quit or been'discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by International Association of Machinists, affiliated-with the Amer- ican Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining. In the Matter of BAGLEY & SEwALL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS (A. F. L.) Case No. B-3414 ORDER PERMITTING WITHDRAWAL OF PETITION March 07, 194 The Board having issued a Decision and Direction of Election, dated February 21, 1942,1 in the above-entitled case, and, on March 18, 1942, International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, having requested. permission to withdraw the petition for investigation and certification of representatives, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request of the petitioner, for permis- Sion to withdraw its petition be, and it hereby is, granted, and that the aforesaid case be, and it hereby is, closed. 139 N L R B 67. 39 N. L R B, No 16a. 72