Oliver Machinery Co.

In the Matter Of OLIVER MACHINERY Co. BALDWIN TUTHILL DIVI- SION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS LODGE No. 475, AFFILIATED WITH A. F. L. Case No. R-3493.-Decided March 12, 1942 Jurisdiction : woodworking and bakery machinery manufacturing industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: refusal to accord union recognition due to dispute as to appropriate bargaining unit; election necessary. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all production employees at the Company's Baldwin Tuthill Division, excluding supervisory, clerical, engineer- ing and plant protection employees and truck drivers; apprentices included over employer's objection; employees in one of Company's two machine shops held to constitute an appropriate unit where union organization had not extended beyond the one plant. Mr. Stephen F. Dunn, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for the Company. Mr. Carl F. Cederquist, of Grand Rapids, Mich., and Mr. L. 0. Thomas, of Washington, D. C., for the I. A. M. Mr. Robert C. Moore, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On October 21, 1941, International Association of 'Machinists Lodge No. 475, affiliated with A. F. L., herein called the I. A. M., filed with the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Baldwin Tuthill Division of Oliver Machinery Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On January 8, 1942, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of 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. 39 N. L. R. B., No. 137. 722 OLIVER MACHINERY CO. 723 On January 20, 1942, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear- ing, copies of which,. together with copies of the petition, were duly served upon the Company andI upon the I. A. M. Pursuant to notice a hearing was'held at Grand Rapids, Michigan, on January 29 and 30, 1942, before Jerome H. Brooks, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Company and the I. A. M. appeared, were represented by counsel or by official-repre- sentative, and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity, to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing the Trial Examiner made rulings on motions and on objections to the admission 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. On February 16 and 24, 1942, respectively, the Company and the I. A. M. filed briefs, which the Board has considered. ' Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Oliver Machinery Co. is. a Michigan corporation having its principal office and plant in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Company manu- factures woodworking machinery and machinery used in slicing and .packaging bakery products. The principal raw materials used are iron, steel, and non-ferrous metals. During the period from January 1, 1941, to July 1, 1941, the Company purchased raw materials valued at about $296,000, of which approximately 80 percent was imported from sources outside the State of Michigan. During, the same period the total sales of the Company amounted to about $941,000, approxi- mately 90 percent of which represented sales to customers outside the State of Michigan The Baldwin Tuthill, Division is one of two machine shops owned by the Company, located in Grand Rapids, about one mile distant from the Company's main office and plant. It is a department of the Company and has no separate legal existence. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Machinists Lodge No. 475, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization ad- mitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The I. A. M. has requested recognition by the Company as exclusive bargaining agent for its employees engaged in the Baldwin Tuthill 724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Division.? The Company has refused to grant such recognition upon the ground that said employees do not constitute an appropriate collective bargaining unit. We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of 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 I. A. M. requests a unit composed of all production employees at the Company's Baldwin Tuthill Division, excluding supervisory, clerical, engineering, and 'plant protection employees and truck drivers The Company contends that a unit composed of employees at one of its two machine shops is not appropriate and that the peti- tion should therefore be dismissed. In addition there is a dispute as to apprentices, the I. A. M. desiring to include such employees while the Company would exclude them. In support of its contention that employees at one of its plants should not be separated into a unit apart from employees in the other, the Company directs attention to the following considerations, among others: The Company's main plant, called the Coldbrook plant, is but one mile distant from the Baldwin Tuthill plant; the equipment in the two plants is similar, as are the operations performed therein; employee classifications are about the same in the two plants; the operations of the two plants are interdependent to a considerable degree and there is a substantial interchange of work between them; both plants are operated through a single office located in the Cold- brook plant, and all personnel records are kept in that office; and gen- eral labor policy is determined in the Company's main office. On the other hand, the Baldwin Tuthill plant is geographically separated from the Coldbrook l plant. It has a superintendent, assigned exclusively to it, who handles personnel problems and has the authority to hire employees. There is no substantial temporary inter- I A report of the Acting Regional Director introduced into evidence respecting the representation claims of the I A M discloses the following The I. A. M. submitted 59 signed applications for membership, purportedly obtained from employees in the Baldwin Tuthill Division, all of which bore apparently genuine, original signatures These applications were not checked against a Company payroll, inasmuch as no pay roll had been received from the Company on the date bf the report On December , 30, 1941, the date of the report, there were approximately 80 eligible persons in the unit alleged by the I . A M to be appropriate OLIVER MACHINERY CO. 725 change of employees; in fact, there is a policy against such inter- change. There is no history of collective bargaining in the Company's plants. I It appears that only the employees at the Baldwin Tuthill plant are organized. Although a few employees from the Coldbrook plant attended the first union meeting, there has been no further organiza- tional activity among them. In these circumstances, giving due con- sideration to the arguments advanced by the Company, we see no reason for denying the employees at the Baldwin Tuthill plant their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining through repre- sentatives of their own choosing merely because under other circum- stances a unit including employees at both plants might be deemed appropriate. We find that the Baldwin Tuthill plant constitutes a separate appropriate unit in view of the present state of self- organiza- tion, but our finding in this respect does not preclude a later deter- mination that a larger unit is appropriate when organization has extended to employees at the Coldbrook plant.2 The Company opposes the inclusion of apprentices in'the bargaining unit upon the ground that these employees serve under definite written contracts with the Company while other employees do not. It also points out that apprentices' rates of pay are different from those of other employees, and that apprentices move about, shifting tem- porarily between departments in order to obtain general experience. It is our usual practice to include apprentices in an appropriate unit, and there appears to be no reason in' this case to depart from that practice. Their inclusion will not interfere with their indentures. We shall include apprentices.' We find that all production employees at the Baldwin Tuthill Division, including apprentices, but excluding supervisory, clerical, engineering, and plant protection employees and truck drivers, -con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to the employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise 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 an election by secret ballot. We shall direct that such an election be held among the employees within the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Election, subject to the additions and limitations set forth in the Direction. 2 See Matter of Max Pollack & Company , Inc and Textile Workers Union of America (C 1 0 ), 38 N L R B 966, Matter of Consolidated Paper Company and Consolidated Paper Workers' Local Industrial Union #902, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , 21 N L R B. 125 , 128-139. 3 See Matter of Endicott Forging & Manufacturing Co and National Die Sinkers Conference , 29 N L R B. 218 726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Oliver Machinery Co., Baldwin Tuthill Division, Grand Rapids, Michigan, within the meaning of Section 9 '(c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. All production employees at the Baldwin'Tuthill Division of the Company, including apprentices, but excluding supervisory, 'clerical, engineering, and plant protection employees and truck drivers, 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 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 ordered by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Oliver Machinery Co., Baldwin Tuthill Division, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 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 supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all production employees of the Com- pany engaged at its Baldwin Tuthill Division, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including apprentices and employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or in the active military service or training of the United States, or tempo- rarily laid off, but excluding supervisory, clerical, engineering, and plant protection employees, truck drivers, and employees who have since quit or have been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by International Association of Machinists Lodge No. 475, affiliated with A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining. - MR. WM. M.' LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.