The S-P Manufacturing Corp.

In the Matter of THE S-P MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and DISTRICT 54, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN ISTS, PETI- TIONER Case No. 8-R-2674.-Decided December 31, 1947 Jones, Day, Cockley & Reavis, by Dlr. Bruce W. Eaken, of Cleve- land, Ohio, for the Employer. Messrs. Howard F. Hcvusch and Joseph Kott, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Petitioner. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Cleve- land, Ohio, on July 15, 1947, before John A. Hull, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- -dicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing and in its brief the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds (1) that no question concerning representa- tion had been raised prior to the filing of the petition herein and (2) that, inasmuch as a supervisor participated in the Petitioner's organ- izing campaign, it is incapable of acting as the bargaining representa- tive of the employees involved herein. For reasons stated hereinafter, the motion to dismiss is hereby denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The S-P Manufacturing Corporation, an Ohio corporation, is en- gaged at its Cleveland plant in the manufacture of chucks, valves, and cylinders. During the year 1946, the Employer used at this plant raw materials valued at more than $25,000, of which in excess of 10 percent was purchased outside the State of Ohio. During the same period, the Employer manufactured at and distributed from this 75 N. L. R. B., No. 83. i01 702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD plant finished products valued at more than $50,000, of which approx- imately 25 percent represented shipments to customers 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 claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that, since there has been no request for recognition by the Petitioner and consequently no refusal by the Employer to accede thereto, no question of representation exists.' Furthermore, the Employer contends that, under the Act as amended, a request for recognition must precede the filing of a petition. We do not agree. It is sufficient that, as of the date of the hearing, the petitioning union's status as a bargaining representative is disputed and that recognition depends upon certifi- cation by the Board.2 As an independent ground for dismissal, the Employer contends that the Petitioner is incapable of serving as the bargaining repre- sentative of the employees involved herein because Andrew Grasso, a supervisor, actively participated in its organizing activities. There is no merit in this contention, on the facts in this particular case. Soon after the opening of the Petitioner's organizing drive, Grasso, a supervisor, approached the Union's representative and inquired as to his eligibility to join. When assured that he was eligible, Grasso signed an authorization card, and secured several of these cards which he carried in his pocket to distribute to employees who had not signed. However, he did not give out any of the cards, nor did he pay the initiation membership fee. On or about June 13, 1947, the Employer and certain union representatives were invited to an informal con- ference at the Board's office. Grasso attended this conference as a committeeman for the Petitioner, having been elected to the committee at an earlier union meeting which he also attended.3 Grasso was 1 The only notification the Employer received of the Petitioner's interest Ari its employees was in a letter dated May 28, 1947, and delivered May 29, 1947, in which the Petitioner advised the Employer that it^had successfully organized the employees and was filing a petition with the Board The petition heiein was filed on May 28, 1947. 2 See Matter of Lebanon Shirt Company, 60 N. L R B 1297. 3 The Employer first learned of Grasso's pro -union activities a few days before the meet- ing at the Board 's office and promptly undertook to dissipate the effects of Grasso's partisan conduct by urging him to discontinue his association with the Union. THE S-P MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 703 informed at this time by a Board official that he was ineligible for membership in the Union and promptly resigned therefrom.' In Matter of Toledo Stamping cC Manu, f actwring Company,5 the Board declined to direct an election on petition of a labor organization whose claim to representation was based upon application cards se- cured with the assistance of a supervisor. In that proceeding, as in similar later cases,' the supervisor was found to have been the sponsor of the Petitioner's membership drive and had apparently solicited a, majority of the employees. However, in the absence of evidence that a supervisor had solicited employees for membership in the union, the Board has frequently found that the particular circumstances did not warrant dismissing a petition for an election even though the supervisor may have participated in certain union activities.' Thus, the Board has held that mere membership of a supervisory employee in a union,8 his election to office therein,' his attendance at a union meeting,10 or the fact that he signed an authorization card," are not, of themselves, sufficient grounds to warrant a dismissal of the petition. In the instant proceeding, it is clear that Grasso took part in the Petitioner's organizing campaign only to the extent of signing an authorization card, carrying on his person a number of these cards, none of which he distributed, and representing the Union on a conl- mittee in an informal conference at the Board's regional office. He did not solicit membership in the Union and, as soon as lie was advised of his ineligibility by a Board representative, immediately resigned therefrom. In view of the foregoing, we find that Grasso's actions in no way render the Petitioner incapable of serving as the bargaining representative of the Employer's employees. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4In a letter dated July 2, 1947, the Petitioner advised the Board that Grasso was no longer a member of its organization A copy of this letter was sent to Grasso but not to the Emplover s o5 L R B 865 0 See Matter of Rochester and Pittsburgh Coal Company, 56 N. L. R B. 1760, where the Boaid dismissed the petition because the iecoid showed that the supervisory employees oiganized the union , far out-numbered the non -supervisory employees , and controlled the afaiis of the Union See also Matter of Wells. Inc. 68 N. L R. B . 545, where the Board held that the union did not iepiesent the will of the emplo7 ees, since its majority was pro- cured with the open assistance of a supervisoiv employee Matter of Sharp d Dohme, Inc , 56 N L R B 1471 Matter of California Packing Company, 59 N L R B. 941. Matter of Charlottesville Woolen Mills, 59 N L R B 1160 10 Matter of Comfort Spring Corporation, 61 N lottesville Woolen Mills, fn ^ 9, supra. L R. B. 980. See also Matter of Char- 11 See Matter of Comfort Spring Corporation , fn 10, supra. 704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner and the Employer agree generally that the appro- priate unit should comprise all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant in Cleveland, Ohio, excluding office and clerical employees and all supervisors. However, while the Employer does not oppose the Petitioner's request for the inclusion of group leaders, it refuses to take a definite position in this respect. The Employer has in its employ a general foreman, a production supervisor, an assembly and drill supervisor, and seven group lead- ers.12 Group leaders are production men detailed, when needed, to set up machinery and to instruct certain employees in the performance of their duties. Some of them give out work under the supervision of the general foreman. They do not, however, assign work on their own initiative, and they do not make out merit ratings. The general foreman neither seeks nor receives any information from group leaders as to the manner in which shop employees perform their assigned duties. It is clear from the record that the group leaders have no super- visory authority within the meaning of the Act, as amended 13 Accord- ingly, we shall include them in the unit. We find that all the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Cleveland, Ohio, plant including the group leaders, but excluding office and clerical employees, and all 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 The S-P Manufacturing Corpo- ration, Cleveland, Ohio, 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 Eighth 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 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 19 The group leader system was established by the Employer to facilitate the plocessmg of orders through the various departments, since it was felt that a single supervisor could not effectively cover the entire plant which is located on two floors . Each group leader assists approximately seven employees 13 See Mdtter of Motor Rebuilders, Inc , 74 N. L. R B.'945 ; Matter of Gaswag Corpora- tion, 74 N. L. R. B. 994; cf. Matter of Todd Galveston Dry Docks, Inc., 74 N. L. R. B. 1059. THE S-P MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 705 or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein- stated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by District 54, International Association of Machinists, for the purposes of collective bargaining.