Hamilton Foundry & Machine Co.

HAMILTON FOUNDRY & MACHINE COMPANY 51 in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] HAMILTON FOUNDRY & MACHINE COMPANY and UNITED SITYLWORlCERs OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1111. April 27, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Allen Sinsheimer, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 12. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner requests an election in a voting group consisting of all molders, core makers, core assemblers, and two miscellaneous job classifications defined as service man #2 sandslinger and machine operator roll-over core unit, but excluding guards, industrial engi- neering department employees, laboratory department employees, pro- duction schedule clerks, timekeepers, all clerical employees, superin- tendents, supervisors, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. If successful in an election directed among these employees, the Petitioner further requests authority to merge this group in one plant-wide bargaining unit with the produc- I The International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, Local 68, AFL, hereinafter termed the Intervenor, moved to intervene at the hearing The Petitioner and the Employer oppose the intervention on the ground no showing of interest was made. The Intervenor , until 1949 , was the contractual representative of the employees in the unit sought herein , and is currently picketing the Employer's plant in the course of a strike called in April 1949 The hearing officer's ruling granting intervention is hereby affirmed and the Intervenor's name will be placed on the ballot in the election hereinafter ordered 94 NLRB No. 24. 52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion and maintenance employees it now: represents. The Employer And the Intervenor oppose the request of the Petitioner and assert that the molders, core makers, and core assemblers should constitute a separate bargaining unit. The bargaining history at the Employer's plant commenced in 1937, at which time the Intervenor and the Employer entered into a contract covering a plant-wide unit. Following the expiration of this agreement in 1938, bargaining lapsed until 1941 when the same parties executed a contract restricted to a unit of molders, core makers, and core assemblers. The Intervenor continued as contractual representa- tive in this unit until 1949. In 1942, a petition by the Intervenor for a unit of all iron pourers was dismissed by the Board on the ground the unit was inappropriate.2 The Petitioner was certified, in 1945, as representative of a unit of all production and maintenance employees excluding the foundry unit .3 Thereafter, until 1949 when the Inter- venor's last contract with the Employer expired, collective bargaining at the plant was conducted on a two-unit basis. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of castings and has a total plant employment of approximately 400 employees. Of these employees approximately 117 are classified as core makers, molders, and core assemblers, and perform the customary duties and exercise the same type of skills of those standard classifications. Two hun- dred other employees, in the unit now represented by the Petitioner, including workers with skills comparable to those of the foundry group, service or work with the molders, core makers, and assemblers. There is substantial interchange between the two groups and transfers of employees from positions in one unit to the other are frequent. Foundry employees are not segregated within the plant and share the same supervision as production and maintenance employees in some instances. In previously recognizing separate foundry and production and maintenance units in the Employer's plant, the Board took cognizance of the functional interdependence of all operations and employees at the plant 4 Because, on the other hand, foundry employees had com- prised a separate bargaining unit for some years prior to the establish- 2 Hamtilton Foundry & Machine Company, 41 NLRB 1001. From 1941 to 1942, the Intervenor, by contract with the Employer, also represented the night shakeout men at the plant. 8 Hamilton Foundry & Machine Company, 64 NLRB 82. The Petitioner was certified as representative of a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employees, includ- ing gang leaders , but excluding guards, industital engineering department laborer, labora- tory department employees , production schedule clerk, timekeepers , all clerical employees, molders, core makers, core assemblers, and apprentices, and supervisors The classifica- tions of service man #2 sandshuger, and machine operator roll-over core unit, were later, by agreement of all parties, taken from the Petitioner's production and maintenance unit and added to the Intervenor's foundry unit. 4 See footnote 3, supra. At that time both the Employer and the Intervenor asserted only a plant -wide unit was appropriate. HAMILTON FOUNDRY & MACHINE COMPANY 53 ment of the second unit, were a highly skilled and identifiable group, and because no union, on that occasion, sought an election in a plant- wide unit, a separate production and maintenance unit was established. This bargaining history and the Board's prior certification, however, do not constitute a barrier to the creation of a single plant-wide unit at this time. The instant record indicates, anew, the appropriateness of such a unit in view of the functional interdependence of operations, the appreciable interchange of employees, common supervision, and a plant-wide community of interest of all employees. On the entire record, and, as the Petitioner has expressed its willingness to accept these employees as part of the existing production and maintenance unit, the Board considers that the foundry employees may, if they so desire, be represented as part of the existing bargaining unit.5 We shall therefore direct an election among employees in the fol- lowing voting group : All molders, core makers, and core assemblers of the Employer's Hamilton, Ohio, plant, including the service man #2 sandslinger and machine operator. roll-over core unit, but ex- cluding guards, industrial engineering department employees, labora- tory department employees, production schedule clerks, timekeepers, all clerical employees, superintendents, supervisors, foremen, assistant foremen, all other employees, and all supervisors as defined in the amended Act. If a majority of the employees in the voting,group cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be a part of an over-all production and maintenance unit, and the Petitioner may bargain for such employees as part of the existing unit. If a majority of the employees, on the other hand, select the Intervenor as their bargaining representative, they will be considered to have expressed a desire to remain in a separate bargaining group, represented by the latter labor organization. 5. The determination of representatives : A strike has been in progress at the Employer's Hamilton, Ohio, plant since 1949. The Petitioner and the Employer contend that only employees now working at the plant should be eligible for participa-' tion in an election directed at this time. The Intervenor asserts that both strikers who have returned to work and those still on strike should be eligible for voting and that replacement workers should be held temporary employees not entitled to vote. The Employer's foundry workers went on strike on April 4, 1949, after the last contract between the Intervenor and the Employer had expired. At that time there were 78 employees in the classifications concerned herein. The plant remained closed until May 18, 1949, when the Employer notified the striking employees that they must return to work or be permanently replaced. The plant reopened at 5 See Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, 92 NLRB 583. 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that time and has been in continuous operation to the present. Although picketing is still being carried on, the last meeting between the Employer and the Intervenor relative to a settlement of the strike was in May 1949. There are now 117 employees at work in the foundry, of whom 18 are strikers who have returned to work.6 On the entire record, the Board finds that the strikers' positions have been permanently filled by replacements hired since May 18, 1949. As the instant situation involves an economic strike none of those individuals presently on strike is entitled to reinstatement and we accordingly find they are not eligible to vote in the election hereinafter directed.7 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 6 Three other strikers returned to work and later quit their employment. Of the remainder , 17 notified the Employer they wished to end their employment, 1 striker died, and 39 strikers , according to the Intervenor , now occupy temporary positions elsewhere pending the termination of the dispute. 4 See Midwest Screw Products Company, 86 NLRB 643 and cases cited therein. WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED and COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 5-RC 790. April 27,1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before David C. Sachs, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The request for oral argu- ment is denied as we believe that the issues, the positions of the parties, and the arguments are adequately reflected in the record. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Employer and Point Breeze Hourly Employees Association, Inc., herein called the Intervenor, allege as a bar to this proceeding their contract,2 which provides in pertinent part as follows : 'International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, herein called IBEW, intervened specially at the hearing for the purpose of having its name placed on the ballot in the event an election were directed. 2 The Intervenor was certified by the Board on September 23, 1949, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees here in question. 94 NLRB No. 9.