Foote Bros. Gear and Machine Corp.

In the Matter of FOOTE BROS. GEAR AND MACHINE CORPORATION and UNITED FOREMEN OF AMERICA Case No. 1.3-R-3008.-Decided April 12, 1946 Me88rs. Winston, Strawn & Shaw, by Mr. G. B. Christensen, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Arthur W. Coppin, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company. Me88r8. Meyers & Meyer.,s by Mr. Ben Meyers, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union. Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by United Foremen of America; herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Foote Bros. Gear and Machine Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an ap- propriate hearing upon due notice before J. G. Evans, Trial Exam- iner. The hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on various dates between June 3 and 13, 1945, inclusive. The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Company moved at various times during the hearing for dismissal of the petition. In each instance, the Trial Examiner reserved ruling upon the motion for the Board. For reasons stated in Section III, infra, the motions are hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All par- ties were afforded 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 Foote Bros. Gear and Machine Corporation, a Delaware corpora- tion, is engaged in the manufacture of gears of various types at 4 67 N. L R. B., No. 43 318 FOOTE BROS . GEAR AND MACHINE CORPORATION 319 plants located in Chicago, Illinois, with which we are hereby con- cerned. The principal raw material used by the Company is steel, and its principal manufactured product is finished gears. The Com- pany annually receives from points outside the State of Illinois shipments of raw materials valued at more than $1,000,000. The Company annually ships in interstate commerce finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Foremen of America is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to membership supervisory employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its supervisory personnel. In support of its motion to dismiss the petition, the Company contends that the supervisory personnel sought to be represented by the Union are not "employees" within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act. The Company has set forth no argument in justification of its contention which was not fully considered by us in the Packard 1 and Soss 2 cases, wherein we held that foremen are "employees." We find, in accordance with our determinations in those and subsequent cases," that the supervisory personnel involved herein are "employees" within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act .4 A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear- ing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.5 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. ' Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N L. R. B. 4, and 64 N. L. R. B. 1212. 2 Matter of Soss Manufacturing Company, et al., 56 N. L. R. B. 348. 6 See Matter of L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N. L. R B. 208; Matter of The R. F. Goodrich Company, 65 N. L R B 294; Matter of Simmons Company, 65 N L R B 984; Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company, Parrish & Bingham Division, 65 N. L. R B. 997. 4 See N. L. R. B. v. Armour and Co., 154 F (2d) 570 (C C. A. 10) ; Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation v. N. L. It. B, 146 F. (2d) 833 (C C. A 5) ; N. L. R. B. v. Skinner & Kennedy Stationery Company, 113 F. (2d) 667 (C. C. A 8). 6 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 150 designations and that the cards were all dated April 1945, He further reported that there are 205 employees in the appropriate unit. 320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Union seeks a unit of all assistant plant production managers, general foremen, foremen, assistant foremen, working foremen, pro- duction supervisors, foreladies, and female supervisors engaged in the Chicago plants of the Company, excluding all other employees. The Company contends, in effect, that, except for the female super- visors who exercise no supervisory authority, none of the persons sought to be represented by the Union are employees and, conse- quently, cannot be included within a collective bargaining unit. Apart from this contention, the Company takes no position regarding the appropriate unit. Inasmuch as we have already found in Section III, above, that the persons sought herein are "employees" within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act, it is clear that they may comprise an ap- propriate collective bargaining unit. However, the record indicates that the female supervisors sought by the Union are engaged in doing "administrative work and are not part of the operating management." The record contains no evidence indicating that they exercise supervisory functions within the mean- ing of our customary definition, and, accordingly, we shall exclude them. We find that all assistant plant production managers, general fore- men, foremen, assistant foremen, working foremen, production super- visors and foreladies engaged at the Chicago plants of the Company, excluding female supervisors and all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose 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 employees 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. 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 Foote Bros. Gear and Machine Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, an election by secret FOOTE BROS. GEAR AND MACHINE CORPORATION 321 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 Seventh 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- tions, among 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 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 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 United Foremen of America, for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting : For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Matter of Pack- ard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, I am constrained to dissent from the majority opinion in this case. 682148-46-vol. 67-22