Mascot Stove Co.

In the Matter Of MASCOT STOVE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNA- TIONAL MOLDERS AND FOUNDRY WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 10-R-2711.-Decided December 9 , 1947 Mr. Legare Davis and Miss Mildred McClelland, both of Atlanta, Ga,, for the Employer. Mr. IV. G. Kissinger, of Chattanooga, Tenn., and Mr. Isaac C. Chap- man, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Petitioner. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case Was held at Chatta- nooga, Tennessee, on July 24, 1947, before William Pate, hearing officer. The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied, inasmuch as the record and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the position of the parties. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed., Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Mascot Stove Company, a Tennessee corporation with its principal office at Chattanooga, Tennessee, is engaged at its Chattanooga plant in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of domestic cooking and heating stoves. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, the IThe Employer contends, inter alga, that Section 9 (c) (1) (A) of the Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, permits inquiry by the Employer at the hearing into the extent of the Petitioner 's representation among employees in the unit it seeks We find this contention to be without merit , and theiefore affirm the hearing officer 's ruling refusing to allow the Employer ta-elicit -the information at the hearing, for we can perceive nothing in the cited provision of the Act which permits such inquiry by the Employer. 75 N. L. R. B., No. 53. 427 428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $100,000, of which more than 50 percent was received from points outside the State of Tennessee. During the same period, the Employer manufactured finished products valued in excess of $500,000, of which more than 50 percent was sold and shipped to customers located outside the State. The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer contends that it cannot bargain with the Petitioner in any unit because of a court decree entered on July 18, 1946, direct- ing it to bargain with the United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Steelworkers. The record reveals that, pursuant to the results of a consent elec- tion held under the auspices of the Board on June 1, 1945, the Steel- workers was duly designated the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit which the Employer here alleges to be appropriate. Negotiations between the Employer and the Steelwork- ers were commenced, but no contract was executed. On July 18, 4946, the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entered a con- sent decree directing the Employer to bargain with the Steelworkers as the exclusive representative of the employees among whom the elec- tion was held.2 Negotiations between the parties were resumed, but a contract was never executed. The last meeting between the Em- ployer and the Steelworkers was held about January 1947, and the Steelworkers has made no further effort to meet with the Employer for the purpose of collective bargaining.3 Under these circumstances, and since more than a year has elapsed from the date of the court's decree without the consummation of a collective bargaining agree- ment, we find that the court's decree does not preclude a current deter. mination of representatives. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) (7) of the Act. This decree enforces the Board 's Order in Case No. 10-C-1809, which involved a stipu- lation in settlement of the case , subject to approval of the Board , providing for the entry of a consent order by the Board and a consent decree by the appropriate United States Circuit Court of Appeals. 3 The Steelworkers was served with a copy of the Petition and Notice of Hearing in the instant;case but failed to make an appearance. MASCOT STOVE COMPANY 429 IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT - The Petitioner seeks a unit comprised of all employees at the Em- ployer's Foundry, excluding office and clerical employees, watchmen,' foremen, and all supervisors. The Employer's sole objection relates, to the scope of the unit. It would include in the unit all employees at, both its Mounting plant and Foundry plant. In support of its objection, the Employer contends that the history of bargaining re- ferred to in Section III, above, militates against the establishment at this time of a unit comprised solely of its Foundry workers. The record reveals that the Employer maintains a Foundry plant and a Mounting plant, both located in Chattanooga. These plants are situated approximately four blocks from each other. The Em- ployer also maintains two warehouses in proximity to each other and- the two plants. All operations are under the general supervision of a Works Manager. Under the Works Manager in the supervisory hierarchy is a foundry foreman in the Foundry, and, in the Mounting plant, which consists of two departments, a steel range mounting foreman and a cast iron mounting foreman. The Foundry employees consist principally of, molders, cupola tenders, shake-out men, a core maker, pattern makers, cleaners and laborers. The cupola tenders operate and maintain cupola furnaces in which the metal is melted before being poured into the molds. - The shake-out men remove the castings from the molds and shake off the, loosely adhering sand. - The core maker molds the cores, and the cleaners clean and smooth castings after the moulding and shaking- out operations are completed. The laborers assist in these various operations. The pattern makers are engaged in making steel pat- terns. All of these employees operate as a-distinct department under single supervision, physically separate from the Mounting plant: Interchange of employees between the Foundry and the Mounting plant takes place occasionally; however, employees normally remain on the job and at the plant to which they are originally. assigned. In view of the fact that the Foundry workers are a homogeneous and functionally distinct group of employees, we are of the opinion that these employees may appropriately form a separate bargaining unit.4 Nor are we persuaded to the contrary by the Employer's con- tention that the history of collective bargaining in its plant militates against the establishment of the Foundry employees as a separate bargaining unit. We have frequently held that we are not precluded from redetermining the appropriateness of a previously established * We have frequently found that foundry employees comprise an appropriate unit. See Matter of Neptune Meter Company, 67 N. L. R. B. 949, and cases cited therein. 430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargaining unit, where the certification of a bargaining representative failed to result in-effective bargaining.' As noted above, more than a year has elapsed since the entry of the Circuit Court decree in Case No. 10-C-1809, without the consummation of a collective bargaining agreement covering the Employer's employees, and without there be- ing any indication in the record that this was because the Employer has refused to bargain pursuant to the decree. Moreover, as previ- ously stated, although the Steelworkers was duly notified of the hear- ing in this case, it failed to appear or participate therein. Accordingly, we find that all employees of the Mascot Stove Com- pany's Foundry at Chattanooga, Tennessee, excluding office and clerical employees, watchmen, professional employees, foremen, and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Mascot Stove Company, Chatta- nooga, Tennessee, 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 Tenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec- tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im- mediately 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, but excluding those employees 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 Molders and Foundry Workers of North America, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining. 5 See Matter of Bethlehem Steel Cornpani/, 64 N L R B 352. Matter of A L Mechleng Barge Lines, 69 N L R B 838 -