Bryan Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of BRYAN MANUFACTURING CODIPANY and LOCAL UNION No. 858, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L. Case No. 13-R,0608.-Decided November 22, 1944 Mr. W. L. Miller, of Detroit, Mich., for the Company. Mr. Jesse W. Layman, of Loganport, Ind., for the Union. Mr. Ben Grodsky, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by Local Union No. 858, United Auto- mobile Workers of America, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Bryan Manufacturing Company, Monticello, Indiana, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before John R. Hill, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Monti- cello, Indiana, on October 19, 1944. The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportu- nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro- duce 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 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Bryan Manufacturing Company, incorporated in the State of Ohio, has its main office at Bryan, Ohio, and operates plants at Bryan, Ohio; Peru, Indiana; and Monticello, Indiana. The Monticello plant is the only one involved in this proceeding. At this plant the Company is engaged in the manufacture of wire and cable assemblies for radio and electrical equipment for which it uses materials consisting of in- 59 N. L. R. B., No. 88. 438 BRYAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 439 sulated copper, copper strip, solder, cotton, and other items similar in nature. The Company commenced operations at its Monticello plant on April 4, 1944, and, between April 4, 1944, and September 30, 1944, the Company purchased raw materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which approximately 50 percent was shipped from points outside the State of Indiana. During the same period the Company sold finished products valued in excess of $60,000, approximately 50 percent of which was shipped from Monticello to points outside the State of Indiana. The Company admits, and we find, that , is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. ,It. TIIE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED. Local Union No. 858, United Automobile Workers of America', af- filiated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organiza- tion admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On August 26, 1944, the Union sent a letter to the Company claim- ing that it represented a majority of the employees in. the Company's plant and requesting a collective bargaining conference. The Com- pany did not reply to this letter. A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number, of employees in the unit hereinafter found 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 consisting of all production and mainte- nance employees of the Company's Monticello, Indiana, plant, in- cluding the toolroom keeper, the instructor, assistant inspectors, watchmen, and the fireman, but excluding the timekeeper and all office and clerical employees, production clerks, shipping clerks, re- ceiving and stock clerks, assistant supervisors, supervisors, foremen, chief inspector, purchasing agent, assistant superintendent, superin- tendent, manager, and all other supervisory employees. The Com- pany agrees with the composition of the unit except that it would 1 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 81 application cards which ap- parently bore the names of persons appearing on the Company 's pay roll which contained the names of approximately 250 employees in the appropriate unit : and that the cards were dated as follows : 23 in June 1944, 18 in July 1944 , 26 in August 1944, and 14 in September 1944. The names were not checked against a pay roll of the Company because the Com- pany refused to submit one 440 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD exclude the toolroom keeper, the instructor, assistant inspectors, watchmen, and the fireman. Toolroom keeper. The Company requests the exclusion of the tool room keeper.on the ground that he is a clerical employee. The tool room keeper issues tools to employees on requisition, puts them in their proper. 'places when returned, and has control over the tools. He spends only approximately one-eighth of his time keeping records. He is responsible to the foreman in charge of the machine room. We shall include him. Instructor. The Company employs,a woman to whom it refers as an instructor of new employees, and contends that she should be ex- cluded as a supervisory employee. This employee works on an as- sembly line for, repair work maintained by the Company, together with older and more skilled employees over whom she has no super- vision. When new employees are hired, they are assigned to the in- structor and they work on the repair line with her so that slie can observe them and inform management for what type of work they are best fitted. There has been but little hiring in the last 30-day period and there is no anticipated hiring in the near future. When there are no new employees to instruct, the instructor does repair work along with the skilled employees on the assembly line. It is our opinion that the instructor does not possess any supervisory authority and we shall include her.' Assistant, inspectors: The Company has 1 chief inspector and 2 as- sistant inspectors. In addition there are 8 to 10 rinspectors who are selected from the production employees on lines where the flow of work has slowed down. The Company contends that the 2 assistant inspec- tors should be excluded because the entire final inspection of all finished products is their responsibility. They are not identified with manage- ment, but merely perform the usual duties of inspectors. We shall in- clude them.' Watchmen and the fiirevmv.. The Company contends that its watch- men are plant-protection employees and should be excluded. The watchmen are not uniformed, deputized, or militarized. During the one shift that the plant is in operation a watchman checks employees in and out. On each of the other two shifts there is a watchman on duty, who, in addition to checking his'clock at designated key stations, fires the boiler, which on the regular shift is fired by the fireman. Since the duties of the watchmen are, for the most part, those cus- tomarily associated with their classification, we shall include them.' The fireman will also be included. 2 See Matter of General Steel Castings Corporation, 41 N L. R. B 350. 3 Matter of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, 49 N L. 11. B 897. 4 Matter of Ash Grove Lime and Portland Cement Co., 55 N L R. B. 1007. BRYAN MANUFACTURING . COMPANY 441 We find that-all production and maintenance employees of the Com- pany at its Monticello , Indiana, plant, including the toolroom keeper, the instructor, assistant inspectors , watchmen , and the fireman, but excluding the timekeeper , all office and clerical employees , production clerks, shipping clerks , receiving and stock clerks, assistant supervisors, supervisors, foremen, chief inspector, purchasing agent, assistant superintendent , superintendent, manager, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote , discharge, discipline, or otherwise 'effect changes in the status of employees , or effectively recommend such action , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. TIIE DETERMINATION OF RFEFRESENTATIVES 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 Direc- tion. 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, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Bryan Manufactur- ing Company, Monticello, Indiana, 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 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 Regulations,, among the em- ployees in the unit found appropriate 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 the 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 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 Local Union No. 858, United'Automobile Workers of America, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining.