Columbus Iron Works Co.

In the Matter of COLUMBUS IRON WORKS COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA Case No. R-4746:=Decided February •11, 1943 Jurisdiction : heating and refrigerating equipment manufacturing industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-' fusal to bargain ; petitioner's failure to show a refusal to bargain held under the circumstances not an essential to the existence of; election necessary. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all production and maintenance em- ployees, excluding supervisors and clerical employees. Swift, Pease, Davidson, Swinson & Chapman, by Mr. J. Q. David- son and Mr. W. Edward Swinson, both of Columbus, Ga., for the Company. Mr. W. H. Crawford' of Atlanta, Ga., and Mr. R. M. Poarch,, of Columbus, Ga., for the Union. Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence; of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended petition duly filed by the Congress of Industrial Organizations, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Columbus Iron Works Company, Columbus, Georgia, • herein called. the company,,', ,the Na7 tional Labor Relations Board provided, for, an appropriate„ hearing upon due, notice 2 -before Paul L: Styles, •'riial Examiner. Said 1 The Company is incorrectly described in the amended petition and other formal papers as "Columbus Iron Works Company d /b/a southern Plow Company," rather than by its true name "Columbus Iron Works Company " The caption and other formal papers have accordingly been amended 2 The Company claims that it was not properly served with notice by reason of the fact that the amended petition described the Company as "Columbus Iron Works Company d/b/a Southern Plow Company " It appears, however, that service was made on the Company by registered mail addressed to "Columbus Iron Woiks Company" without other qualifying description There is no evidence that the Company was misled by the addition of the phrase "d/b/a Soulhein Plow Company" appearing, on the amended petition included with the seivice of notice We find that the Coinpanyt has received due and sufficient service in the present proceeding. 47 N. L R. B , No. CO 430 COLUMBUS IRON WORKS COMPANY 431 bearing was held at Columbus, Georgia, on January 11, 1943. The 'Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. During the hearing, the Trial Examiner reserved for the Board a motion of the Union to substitute for its name the name "United Steelworkers of America," and-also a motion to amend-the'Union's statement of the proposed appropriate unit. The-motions are hereby granted.3 The Trial Ex- aminer also reserved for the Board a motion by the Company to dismiss 'the present proceeding.4 The motion is hereby denied for reasons hereinafter stated. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. "The' Company filed-a brief which the Board has duly considered. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OFTHE COMPANY Columbus,Iron Works-Company, a- Georgia corporation, having a -principal place of business and plant at Columbus, Georgia, is engaged in manufacturing heaters, ice refrigeration machines, and agricultural implements. During the year ending June 30, 1942, the Company purchased for use of the Southern Plow department 5 of its Columbus, Georgia, plant raw materials and supplies in the approximate value ,of $281,837, of which more than 50 percent was obtained from points -outside the State of Georgia. During the same period, the Company manufactured and sold finished products consisting of agricultural implements produced by its Southern Plow department, having an approximate value of $959,009, of which more than 50 percent was Shipped from the Company's Columbus, Georgia, plant to points ,outside,ithe,,State,of Georgia. , H. 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. 'See Matter of Superior Sleep-Rite Corporation and United Office and Professional Work- ers of America, Local 24, C I O , 39 N L R B 606; Matter of The Western Union Tele graph, Company and The Communications Guild, 39 N L R B. 287 4 The Compa >iy?s, motion to dismiss is on the grounds ( 1) that the Union has failed to establish sufficient interest to warrant --the Board in ordering an election ; ( 2) that no question of representation has 'arisen; (3) that the proposed bargaining unit is inappro- priate; and (4) that insufficient service of the amended petition was made upon the Com- pany in the present proceeding 5 The stipulation as to commerce refers only to the Company 's Southern Plow depart- ment which is one of four departments in its Columbus , Georgia, plant.' • 432 DDCIS.IOaNS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Shortly before the filing of the original petition, the Union at- tempted without success to contact the Company for the purpose of requesting the Company to bargain collectively. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, the Union notified the Company by letter of its desire to bargain collectively. In addition, counsel for the Company, from whom the Union specifically- requested a conference for purposes of collective bargaining, declined the Union's request upon the grounds that the matter was under the jurisdiction of the Board and the identity of the representative of the employees was in doubt. Subsequent to the conference between Company counsel and the Union, the Union filed its amended petition. At the hearing, the Company stated that it would bargain with the Union if it were the duly authorized bargaining agency, but gave no indication that it would recognize the Union as bargaining agent prior to a certification by the Board. The Company contends that no question concerning representation exists because it does not appear that the Union, requested or the Company refused to bargain prior to the filing of the original peti- tion. This contention has been previously presented to and rejected b' the Boitrd.6 We see no reason for departing from this position. For a proceeding of this kind, it is sufficient that as of the date of the hearing the Union's status as bargaining representative is disputed and that recognition depends upon certification by the Board. A statement of a Field Examiner introduced together with other evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a, sub- stantial number of, employees- in the unit herein found to be appropriate.' ' We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning, the representation of employees of the Company within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) and Section '2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Union claimed in its amended petition prior to the hearing' that the appropriate unlt,should consist of all production and mainte- ° See Matter of The Gilbcit d Bennett i1lanufactur,ng Companj and Amei ican Federation of Labor, 45 N L R - B 1223, and cases cited therein. 'The Field Examiner repotted that the Union - had submitted 129 designations of which 68 dated in August, October, and November, 1942 , with 38 undated, bore apparently genuine of igmal signatures of persons whose names are on the Company 's pay roll of October 20, i942 , containing the names of 170 persons within the alleged appiopiiate unit proposed` by the Union prior to the hearing In addition to,the report of the Field Examiner, there were presented to the Trial Examiner at the bearing 01 additional cards which were checked by the Trial Examiner ; 47 of t1'e,o were found to beat the apparently genunie signatures of persons whose names are on the Company's pay roll of October 26,'1942,' containing the names of 300 pcis,ins within the pioposed appropriate unit as modified by the Union at the hearing. COLUMBUS IRON WORKS COMPANY 433 nance employees of Southern Plow Company, a department of the Company, including employees in the wood shop, but excluding all supervisors and clerical employees. The Company's position was that the appropriate unit should be plant-wide and that a depart- mental unit was inappropriate. Thereafter, the Union modified its position and moved to amend its petition to request a plant-wide unit of production and maintenance employees, which amendment was opposed by the Company.8 - The record indicates that all departments of the Company are interdependent, that employees are frequently interchanged between departments, and that union organization has been extended to most if not all departments of the Company. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that a plant-wide unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Company, excluding supervisors and clerical employees, constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. ' V. THE DETERlI1N ATION 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 appropriate unit who were employed during the pay- roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Elec- tion 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 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Columbus Iron Works, Columbus, Georgia, an election by secret ballot shall be con- ducted 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 Tenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations' Board and subject to Article 'See footnote 4 above. The Company, though previously uwging the plant-wide unit, took the position that the Union could not amend its statement of the proposed appropriate unit and that the Boaid had no authority to permit such an amendment 513024-43-vol. 47-28 434 . DECIS LONS OF NATIONAL - LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were em- ployed 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 vacation 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 employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or. not they desire to be represented, by United Steelworkers of Amer- ica, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining.