Deere & Co.

In the Matter Of JOHN DEERE SPREADER WORKS OF DEERE & COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL, UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT.& AGRI- CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, (CIO) Case No. 13-R-2456.-Decided July 18,1944 Messrs. Paul L. Williams, 'Carl H. Gamble, and S. M. Lyman, of Moline, Ill., for the Company. Mr. Carl Parker, of Moline, '111., for the Union. Mr. Joseph E. Gubbins, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petition duly filed by International Union, United Automo- bile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- ployees of John Deere Spreader Works of Deere & Company, East Moline, Illinois, heroin called the Company, the National Labor Rela- tions Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before George S. Freudenthal, Jr., Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at'Moline, Illinois, on June 13, 1944. 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. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes, the following : 'FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY i Deere & Company, having its principal office in Moline, Illinois, is an Illinois corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu- tion of farm equipment and munitions. The John Deere Spreader Works, referred to as the Spreader Works and solely involved in this 57 N. L. R. B., No. 78. 411 412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD proceeding, is a plant, of Deere & Company located at East Moline, Illinois. During the year 1943, the value of raw materials purchased by the Company for use at its Spreader Works exceeded $500,000, approximately 50 percent of which was shipped from points outside the State of Illinois. During the same period, the Spreader Works' sales, of finished products exceeded $500,000 in value; approximately 50,percent of which was shipped to points outside the State of Illinois. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National'Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of In- dustrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to member- ship employees of the Company. ' N III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the exclusive bargaining, representative of certain of its employees until 1 the Union has been certified by the Board. A statement prepared by a Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial num- ber of employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.' 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 Union seeks a unit comprised of all employees of the Spreader 'Works experimental department, excluding line designers, draftsmen, experimental, field engineer, engineer in charge of implement design, foreman, and all other supervisory employees. The sole dispute. be- tween the parties concerns employees engaged in experimental field work. Although the Union would include them in-the unit, the Com- pany urges their exclusion, asserting that their duties and working, conditions are different from those of other experimental department workers, and that they are confidential employees. The experimental department of the Spreader Works is engaged in development work on farm implements. Model machines are con- structed and tested in this, department. The chief engineer 'in charge ' ' The Field Examiner's statement shoes that the Union submitted 8 authorization cards bearing iiames of persons whose names were listed on a recently dated pay roll•of the Com- pany At the hearing the Union submitted 2 additional_authorization cards bearing names of persons listed on the Company's pay roll. There are approximately 14 employees in the unit alleged by the Union to be appropriate. • ' ' DEERE & COMPANY 413 of implement design is the head of the department, and its operations, with the exception of certain field work, are conducted on a single floor in one of the Spreader Works' buildings. The 4 employees, in dispute are primarily engaged in testing, at various proving grounds located within a radius of approximately 50 miles from the Spreader Works, machines which have been assembled in the experimental de- partment. While thus engaged, they are under the direct supervision of the experimental field engineer. When not engaged in field work, they work in the experimental department shop where they are under the immediate supervision of the shop foreman. These employees do not require any special skill or training. Wage scales and hours of employment of the experimental field workers are the same as those of the other hourly rated 'experimental department employees. In support of the Company's position that the"experimental., field employees should be excluded from the unit because of their alleged, confidential status, its plant manager testified to the effect that its policy is to keep secret the location and,results of tests made with model machines. However, the record discloses that all the other employees in the experimental department, whose inclusion in the unit is not opposed by the Company, are also engaged in work which could be considered secret. Nevertheless, since the type of information to which the employees in experimental field work have access does not pertain to the Company's labor policies and inasmuch as it appears that their interests and working conditions, in general, are similar to those of the other experimental department employees, -Nv1,e shall include them in the unit. In a prior proceeding involving the same parties,' the Union Was certified as the bargaining representative of the production and main- tenance workers at the Spreader Works, excluding, inter alia, the ,employees of the experimental department. If chosen by the experi- mental department employees in an election, the Union wishes to consolidate into a single unit the experimental department employees and those it currently represents. The Company is not opposed to the merger of experimental department employees with those now represented by the Union, lout it desires that the Board determine the propriety of such action. Since it appears that the employees of the experimental department could function for the purposes of col- lective bargaining as part of the production and maintenance unit, it will not be inappropriate for the parties to consolidate the-two groups in the event the Union is selected by a majority of the experimental department employees. We find, therefore, that all the employees in the experimental de- partment of the Company's Spreader Works, including employees in 244 N.L.R B 335. 414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD experimental field work, but excluding line designers, draftsmen, ex- perimental' field engineer, engineer in charge of employment design, foremen, and all other supervisory employees who have authority 'to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, consti,- tute 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 appropriate unit 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.3 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 Relations 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 John Deere, Spreader Works of Deere & Company, East Moline, Illinois, an elec- tion' 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 Thirteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela- tions Board, and subject to ,Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appro- priate 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 vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present them- selves in person at the polls, but excluding any who have since quit or,been discharged 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 International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (CIO), for the purposes of collective bargaining. I s Despite the Union's request that the June 13, 1944, pay roll of the Company be used to determine eligibility to vote, we perceive no reason for departing from our customary practice.