Sangamo Electric Co.

In the Matter of SANGAMO ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 628, A. F. or L. In the Matter of SANGAMO ELECTRIC COMPANY and UNITED STEELwoRk-, ERS OF AMERICA , C. I. O. Cases Nos. 13-R-M8 and. 13-R-2561, respectively.--Decided Novem-' ber 18, 1944 Mr. Carl A. Sorling, of Springfield, Ill., for the Company. Mr. P. L. Siemiller, of Chicago, Ill., for the Machinists. Mr. Victor B. Harris, of St. Louis, Mo., and Mr. Jack Glasgow, of Springfield, Ill., for the Steelworkers. Mr. Jasper S. Gullo, of Springfield, Ill. for Selco. Mr. H. E. Burns of Springfield Ill., for the Firemen. Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board. DECISION' AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon separate petitions duly filed by International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 628, A. F. of L., herein called the Machinists, and United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Steel- workers, alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen con- cerning the representation of employees of Sangamo Electric Com- pany, Springfield, Illinois, herein called the. Company, the National. Labor Relations Board consolidated the proceedings by an order dated August 17, 1944, and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Leon A. Rosell, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Springfield, Illinois, on October 12 and 13, 1944. The Company, the Machinists, the Steelworkers, Selco Employees Association, herein called Selco, and International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, Local #19, A. F. of L., herein called the Firemen, appeared, partici- pated, 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 IOn September 18, 1944, United Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , filed a motion to intervene. Thereafter, by letter dated October 10, said organization notified an agent of the Board that it would not participate in the hearing. 59 N. L. R. B., No. 79. 364 SANGAMO ELECTRIC COMPANY 365- from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were af- forded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board 2 Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:, FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Sangamo Electric Company, an Illinois corporation with its prin- cipal office and place of business at Springfield, Illinois ,3 is engaged, at the present time, in the manufacture of electric meters and switches, mica capacitors, and special military devices. During the year 1943, the Company purchased materials valued at approximately $3,000,000, one third of which represents the value of purchases received from points outside the State of Illinois. During the same period, the sales of the Company amounted in value to approximately $13,000,000, of which not less than $7,000,000 represents the value of sales requiring shipments to points outside the State of Illinois. Approximately 90 percent of the Company's operations directly involves work in further- ance of the national war effort. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the -National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Association of Machinists, Lodge 628, and Interna- tional Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, Local #19, are labor organi- zations affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company. United Steelworkers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to member- ship employees of the Company. Selco Employees Association is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to membership employees of the Company. V - III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION By letters dated June 27 and July 7, 1944, respectively, the Ma- chinists and Steelworkers requested recognition from the Company as the representative of certain of its employees. The Company replied to each of these organizations, refusing the requested recognition on the ground that it was obligated to recognize Selco as such representative. Since 1937 the Company has recognized Selco as the exclusive collec- 4 On or about November 15, 1944 , the Machinists filed a motion with the Board to strike the "Brief in Answer" filed by Selco. The motion is denied 8 The Company also has an interest in manufacturing companies located in Toronto, Canada, and Enfield, Great Britain. 366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive bargaining representative of all its employees except clerical and supervisory personnel. The - first written agreement between these- parties was executed in that- year, and no further written agreement was consummated between them until August 2,1943. The 1943 agree- ment provided for a 1-year term, and 'for its automatic renewal from year to year thereafter in the absence of-written notification by either party to the other 30 days prior to any annual expiration date of a desire to terminate the agreement. On June -24, 1944, the Company served the requisite notice of. termination upon Selco, and, on the same date, Selco notified the Company of its desire to negotiate a new agree- ment. Thereafter, despite notification of- the representation claims of the Machinists and the Steelworkers, the Company and Selco entered upon negotiations which resulted in a new collective bargaining agree- ment dated August 2, 1944. Both the Company and Selco contend that this agreement constitutes a bar to a current determination of representatives. We find this contention to be without merit.4 At the hearing in this consolidated proceeding, the Company refused to grant recognition to the Firemen as the collective bargaining repre- sentative of certain of its employees on the ground that it currently- recognizes Selco as. such representative. A statement of a Field Examiner for the Board, introduced into- evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Steelworkers, the Machinists, and the Firemen each represents a substantial number of employees in the units which it contends is appropriate .5 4 See Matter of Sterling Engine Company, 41 N L R. B 191, Matter of Phelps Dodge Corporation, 40 N L. - R B 180. 5 The Field Examiner's report, utilizing only those designations submitted by the contending labor or- ganizations which contain the names of persons appearing upon a pay roll of the Company, is summarized by the following chart. Number in proposed unit Selco -------------------------- Steelworkers___________________ Machinists____________________ Firemen-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *2366 **2279 74 7 Steelworkers ------***599 15 -------------- Designations submitted by Machinists Firemen Selco #52 ------------ ------------ 6 ##30 Selco claims an interest in this proceeding by virtue of its collective bargaining history with the Com- pany and its contracts with the Company *The unit claimed to be appropriate by Selco includes 87 salaried clerical employees whom the Steel- workers would exclude "The Company submitted a pay roll dated August 3, 1944 , which contamed'the names of 2,409 production and maintenance employees This pay roll included the names of 52 timekeepers and 78 supervisors, who are not counted as part of the unit proposed by the Steelworkers ***Among the designations submitted by the Steelworkers were two signed by persons designated by the Company as supervisors, and four designated by it as timekeepers These six designations are not included within the total of valid designations submitted by the Steelworkers The showing of the Steelworkers is sufficient in view of the maintenance of membership provisions in the 1943 agree- ment between the Company and Selco. See Matter of Oregon Plywood Company, 33 N L R B 1234. #The names appearing on 11 of these designations also appear on designations submitted by the Steel. workers , names appearing on 4 of them were also listed by Selco as members of its organization. ##These designations appear on a membership list submitted by Selco. SANGAMO ELECTRIC COMPANY 367 We find that questions affecting commerce have 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 Act s IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT ; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES A. The contentions of the. parties The Steelworkers seeks a unit comprised of all production and maintenance employees of the Company, excluding office and clerical employees, timekeepers, engineering and technical employees, armed guards, watchmen, cafeteria employees, janitors assigned to office departments, floor inspectors, warehouse employees engaged in ware- houses located outside the main plant, and supervisory employees. It opposes the formation of smaller units. Both the Company and Selco contend that the employees presently represented by Selco comprise the appropriate unit, and also oppose the formation of smaller units. Thus, these parties would include within the appropriate unit, in addition to those employees sought by the Steelworkers, certain clerical employees in the drafting, produc- tion control, sales and purchasing departments, factory clerical em- ployees, watchmen, cafeteria employees, all janitors, floor inspectors, and all warehouse employees. The Machinists and the Firemen each seeks a unit comprised of employees it customarily represents, excluding supervisors and all other employees of the Company. B. The Company's history of collective bargaining As noted previously, the Company recognized Selco in 1937 as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all its employees except those engaged in a clerical or supervisory capacity. This recognition was embodied in a two-page agreement with Selco, which also included clauses providing for (a) seniority, inter alia, as a con- sideration in promotions, lay-offs; and rehiring, (b) check-off of dues in favor of Selco, (c) the execution of supplementary agreements be- tween the parties, and (d) conferences between representatives of the parties during working hours without loss of pay. The agree- ment further provided that "either party to this agreement may terminate the same or any provision thereof upon giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other party." Between the years 1937 and 1943, representatives of these parties conducted negotiations 'It is immaterial that the Firemen made no requests for recognition prior to the 1944 agreement between the Company and Selco, since a question concerning the representation of the employees which it seeks had already arisen by virtue of the Steelworkers ' timely demand. 618683-45-vol. 59-25 368' _ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pursuant to the agreement with respect to wages, seniority, working conditions, and matters generally arising out of the employer-em- ployee relationship. However, accords resulting from such negotia- tions were not reduced to writing or embodied in supplemental agree- ments, and it was not until 1943 that the parties executed their first comprehensive collective bargaining agreement definitive of the re lationship between them. As indicated previously, in 1944, subse- quent to notice filed by both the Steelworkers and the Machinists, the parties executed a similar agreement. C. The unit proposed by the Machinists The Machinists, as hereinabove indicated, seeks a unit confined solely to those employees engaged in classifications customarily represented by it. Thus, although all employees whom it seeks to represent are, engaged in the Company's department 42,7 it does not desire to rep- resent employees in- this department engaged as janitors, pattern makers, errand boys, timekeepers, and clericals. The record indicates that the employees sought by the Machinists are physically segregated from other employees of the Company, are under separate supervision, and that the department within which they are engaged constitutes a separate division of the Company. Although many of these employees are required to perform duties in production departments in addition to their work in department 42, and at least four employees are engaged at all times on production rather than maintenance work," all such employees are responsible to the supervisors of department 42 and to no others. The record, further indicates that, prior to 1937, some employees of department 42 were members of the Machinists. In that year, as previously noted, the Company recognized Selco as the collective bargaining agent of its employees. Subsequent thereto, some of the employees of department 42 became members and officers of Selco, even as recently as 1943. In addition, between the years 1937 and 194f, certain of these employees maintained membership both in the Machinists and in Selco. However, sometime in 1941, the employees of department 42 met and selected a group of employees to meet with the foremen of the department concerning a grievance without acting through Selco. In 1942, these employees again selected a committee to meet with management for the purpose of seeking a wage increase. Apparently, the Company refused to meet with this committee alone because of its commitments to Selco,-and because of this, the committee 7 Department 42 is the Company's toolroom department. Its personnel includes persons engaged as tool and die makers, machinists, special job machinists, maintenance machinists, heat treaters, apprentices, and toolroom attendants, as well as employees engaged in classifications which the Machinists does not seek to represent 6It does not appear that the same employees are engaged in production work at all times SANGAMO ELECTRIC COMPANY 369 met and negotiated with the Company with respect to the wage in- crease in the presence of representatives of Selco. As a result of this action, a wage increase was obtained for the department. Again dur- ing the early part of 1943, a committee of employees from depart- ment 42 met with management in the presence of a committee from Selco to negotiate with respect to wage-rate equalization. The Ma- chin'i'sts introduced testimony to the effect that the employees in de- partment 42 did not have a departmental steward or representative other than those which it itself selected apart from Selco until about 6 months before the present hearing, and that, prior to the selection of the committee in 1941, the employees in the department negotiated their grievances individually with the department foremen. In Octo- ber 1943, shortly after the agreement between the Company and Selco had been consummated, the Machinists filed a representation petition. This petition was dismissed administratively by the Regional Di- rector. As hereinabove indicated, the Machinists, by letter dated June 27, 1944, again asserted its claim to represent employees of the Company, and on August 14, subsequent to the execution of the new agreement between the Company and Selco, 53 employees in depart- ment 42 notified the Company of their desire to withdraw from Selco. We have frequently found, absent factors to the contrary, that em> ployees such as those sought by the Machinists herein comprise a suf- ficiently skilled, identifiable and homogeneous group which could prop- erly be represented either as a separate collective bargaining unit, or as part of a more comprehensive one ° On the other hand, where there is present a long history of collective bargaining upon a plant-wide basis; the Board will normally refuse to direct an election among employees in a smaller group.1° However, this latter doctrine is subject to some exception. Thus, the Board carefully scrutinizes the history of col- lective bargaining, and it has, on occasion, decided that certain his- tories fail to evidence a relationship precluding the establishment of a bargaining unit upon a narrower, but otherwise appropriate, basis.; We are of the opinion that the doctrine of the Corn Products case is applicable to this proceeding, at least insofar as the relationship between the Company and Selco for the years from 1937 to 1943 'is concerned. The 1937 contract between the parties, which governed their relationship during these years, was, to all intents and purposes; merely a recognition agreement which provided for future negotia- tions.12 That the parties to the agreement were fully aware of this is evidenced by their dealings during the period in which it was opera- tive. However, while they met and conferred, none of the usual 0 See e g, Matter of The Sheru4n Williams Defense Corporation , 46 N L R B 325. 30 Matter of Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, 52 N. L. R. B. 661. 11Mattcr of Corn Products Relining Company, 52 N. L. R. B. 1234. The terns of this agreement are more fully set forth in Section IV, B, supra. 370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agreements between an employer and a labor organization other than those set forth in the original document was reduced to writing and made a part thereof.13 Moreover, the 1937 agreement was one of in- definite duration, providing for termination at any time upon proper notice. In addition, although it defined the unit it purported to cover as "all employees . . . except those . . . engaged in a clerical or supervisory capacity," by 1943, Selco not only represented the Com- pany's production and maintenance employees, but also certain clerical workers as well. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the history of collective bargaining between 1937 and 1943 is not one which precludes the establishment of a unit such as that sought by the Machinists. Assuming that the 1943 agreement between the Company and Selco manifests an effective relationship between them entitled to weight, it is clear that the employees sought by the Machinists endeavored to preserve their identity throughout the pe- riod in which it was effective, and clearly indicated their desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by an agency other than Selco. Moreover, with this assumption, there is but a comparatively recent history of effective collective bargaining. Ac- cordingly, we shall direct a separate election among the employees whom the Machinists seeks to represent. D. The unit proposed by the Firemen The Firemen seeks a unit comprised of all boiler room employees of the Company, exclusive of supervisors, a group of employees which we have frequently found can properly be represented for collective bargaining purposes either separately or as part of a more compre- hensive unit.'' We are of the opinion that the reasoning applicable to the em- ployees sought by the Machinists is equally applicable to those sought by the Fii`emen. We note that the Company retained the services of several employees who were engaged by its predecessor 'e and who were members of the Firemen. Furthermore, the supervisor of the boiler room, on at least one occasion, requested and obtained aid from the Firemen in hiring personnel. Consequently, we shall also direct a separate election among the employees sought by the Firemen. E. The residual unit As noted above, the Steelworkers desires to represent a unit of pro- ductionand maintenance employees, whereas both the Company and' ' For the necessity of such action, see Matter of Etcor, Inc., 43 N. L. R B. 313. " See e. g., Matter of General Electrio Company, 42 N. L. R. B. 569. "The record indicates that the Company purchased its present plant from another business concern. SANGAMO ELECTRIC COMPANY 371 Selco contend that the unit currently represented by Selco is appro- priate. We turn, therefore, to a consideration of employees in dispute.'s The Steelworkers does not desire to represent approximately 87 clerical employees engaged in the Company's drafting,, production control, and sales and purchasing departments. These employees are office clerical workers, a classification which we have customarily ex- cluded from production and maintenance units 17 We shall, there- fore, exclude them. The Company employs approximately 25 factory clerical employees assigned to various supervisors in the factory, whom the Steelworkers would exclude from its proposed unit. These employees perform their duties in the factory under the same supervision as production and maintenance workers, and under similar working conditions. We shall, consequently, include the factory clericals within the residual voting group.18 The Company employs approximately 23 cafeteria workers per- forming the duties usual to this classification. The Steelworkers does not desire their inclusion within its proposed unit. We have fre- quently found that the differences existing between this type of em- ployee and production and maintenance employees with respect to duties, interests, and conditions of employment, warrant their exclu- sion from units of production and maintenance workers.- We shall, therefore, exclude them. The Steelworkers would exclude approximately eight watchmen employed by the Company, who perform the customary duties of that classification. These employees have never been militarized. We are of the opinion that the functions of watchmen are part of the Com- pany's maintenance operations, and we shall, therefore, include the watchmen within the residual group.20 The Steelworkers desires to represent janitors assigned to produc- tion and maintenance departments, but not those assigned to office departments. Since all janitors of the Company perform similar duties, we perceive no valid reason for this arbitrary distinction. Accordingly, we shall include all janitors of the Company within the residual group. The Company employs approximately 40 floor inspectors who are engaged in inspecting the quality of products manufactured on vari- 19 The employees in these classifications are included within the unit currently represented by Selco. 11 Matter of Boston, Edison Company, 51 N. L. R. B. 28.. See also Matter of Western Cartridge Company, 46 N. L. R. B. 948. 1e Matter of Western Cartridge, supra. See also Matter of Goodman Manufacturing Company, 58 N. L. R B. 513. 19 Matter of Iowa Packing Company, 53 N. L. R. B. 446; Matter of Caterpillar Tractor Company, 36 N. L. R. B. 1035. 20 Matter of Arkwright Corporation, 36 N. L. R. B. 687. 372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ous machines. The Steelworkers desires their exclusion on the 'ground that they are supervisors. The record indicates that these employees are not assigned to fixed locations, but are rather roving inspectors, and that, while they have authority to shut down a machine if it is not producing properly; and can report such incidents to supervisors, it does not clearly appear that they possess authority to make effective recommendations with respect to the status of fellow employees. We shall, therefore, ' include 'floor inspectors within the residual group. The Company employs about 10 persons who are engaged in ware- houses located across the street from the main plant, and whose func- tions consist of receiving and dispatching raw and finished stocks from these warehouses. The Steelworkers desires to represent as 'part of its proposed unit employees engaged in similar warehousing functions located at the main plant, but does not desire to represent the employees engaged at the detached warehouses. As in the case of the janitors, we perceive no valid reason for this distinction, and we shall include all warehouse employees of the Company within the residual group. F. Concluding findings In view of our findings with respect to the employees sought by the Machinists and the Firemen, we shall make no final determination at this time with respect to the appropriate unit or units, but shall direct that the questions concerning representation which have arisen be resolved by elections by secret ballot among the employees in the following groups who were employed during the pay-roll.period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elections herein, 'subject to the limitations and additions set forth therein : 1. All employees engaged in the Company's department 42, in- cluding tool and die makers, machinists, special job machinists, maintenance machinists, heat treaters, apprentices, and' toolroom attendants, but excluding janitors, pattern makers, errand boys, time- keepers, clerical employees,,all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, and all -other employees of -the Company, to determine whether they desire to be represented by the Machinists, Selco, the Steelworkers, or by none of these organizations; 2. All boiler room employees of the Company, excluding all super- visory employees with authority to' hire. promote, discharge, disci- pline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec- tively recommend such action, and all other employees of the Com- pany, to, determine whether they desire to be represented by the SANGAMO ELECTRIC COMPANY 373 Firemen, Selco, the Steelworkers, or by none of these organizations; 'and 3. All remaining production and maintenance employees of the Company, including factory clerical employees, watchmen, janitors, floor inspectors, and employees engaged in warehousing activities, but excluding office clerical employees, timekeepers, engineering and technical employees, armed guards, cafeteria employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Selco, the Steelworkers, or by neither of these organizations. Upon the results of these elections will depend, in part, our deter- mination of the appropriate unit or units. The Company considers all its employees engaged less than 90 days as probationary employees, and it, together with the Steelworkers and Selco, contends that they should not be eligible to participate in the elections. On the other hand, the Machinists contends that pro- bationary employees engaged in department 42 should be permitted to vote. The record indicates that these employees perform their duties under the same working conditions as other employees in the voting groups and that, there is no difference in their conditions of employment other than the fact that they may be dismissed by the Company at will at any time during their probationary period. We are of the opinion, however, that this fact is not sufficient to render such employees ineligible to participate in the elections,21 and we shall permit them to do so. - DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 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, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Sanganio Electric Company, Springfield, Illinois, separate elections 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- 21 Matter of Western Burlap Bag Company, 44 N. L A. B 356. 374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions, among the employees in the three voting groups described in Section IV, supra, who were employed by the Company during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Elections, including employees who did not work during said par-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 those em- ployees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elections, to determine : 1. With,respect to the employees in voting group 1, whether they desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by International Association of Machinists, Lodge 628, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, by Selco Employees Association, by United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of In- dustrial Organizations, or by none of these organizations; 2. With respect to the employees in voting group 2, whether-they desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, Local #19, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, by Selco Employees Asso- ciation, by United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Con- gress of Industrial Organizations, or by none of these organizations; and 3. With respect to the employees in voting group 3, whether they desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by Selco Employees Association, by United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or by neither of these organizations.