Parris-Dunn Corp.

In the Matter Of PARRIS-DuNN CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE No. 1300 Case No. 18-R-1494.-Decided July 9, 1946 Swarr, May, Royce, Smith do Storey, by Messrs. A. E. Royce and Edison Smith, of Omaha, Nebr., and Mr. W. G. Dunn., of Clarinda, Iowa, for the Company. Messrs. James Ashe, of St. Paul, Minn., and Joseph L. Dreier, of Omaha, Nebr., for the Union. Mr. Arthur Christopher, Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by International Association of Machin- ists, Lodge No. 1300, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- ployees of Parris-Dunn Corporation, Clarinda, Iowa, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board on April 16, 1946, conducted a prehearing election pursuant to Article III, Sec- tion 3,1 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, among employees of the Company in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 39 eligible voters and that 36 of these eligible voters cast ballots, of which 28 were for the Union, 3 were against the Union, and 5 were challenged. Thereafter, pursuant to Article III, Section 10,2 of the Rules and Regulations, the Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon 1 By amendment of November 27, 1945, this Section of the Rules now permits the conduct of a secret ballot of employees prior to hearing in cases which present no substantial issues. 2As amended November 27, 1945 , this Section provides that in instances of prehearing elections, all issues, including issues with respect to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the election results and issues raised by challenged ballots , shall be heard at the subsequent hearing 69 N. L. It. B.; No. 39. 310 PARRIS-DUNN CORPORATION 311 due notice before Stephen M. Reynolds, Trial Examiner. The hear- ing was held at Clarinda, Iowa, on-May 3, 1946. The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce 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 opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Parris-Dunn Corporation is an Iowa corporation with its office and plant located at Clarinda, Iowa. It is engaged in the manufacture of mechanical devices known as windchargers which generate electricity through the utilization of the power of the wind. The Company's annual purchases of raw materials exceed $25,000, approximately all of which represents shipments to its plant from sources outside the State of Iowa. Its annual sales of finished products exceed $50,000 in value, approximately 95 percent of which represents sales and shipments to points outside the State. The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1300, is an un- affiliated labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to recognize the Union as the collective bargaining representative of its employees in the alleged appropriate unit. 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, including tool and die makers, and working foremen, but excluding clerical employees and all supervisory employees.,' The sole disagreement between the parties relates to the 8 The election was held among employees in this alleged appropriate unit. 312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD working foremen, whom the Company would exclude from the unit on the ground that they are supervisory employees within the Board's customary definition of that term. This disagreement was reflected at the election in the five ballots which were challenged by the Company. However, inasmuch as the Company at the hearing withdrew its challenge to the ballot of Rufus Douthit, admitting that he was a production and maintenance em- ployee and eligible to participate in the election, there remains for disposition only the challenged ballots of Clyde Anderson, M. L. Smith, Roy Palmer, and Milton Cooper. These 4 working foremen are assigned to the tool and die, pro- peller, welding, and machine shop departments, respectively. Each one, in addition to spending a substantial portion of his time in manual work, during normal plant operations oversees the work of from 3 to 10 employees, allocating work to them and arranging for their transfer within the department when necessary. The working fore- men also have the power effectively to recommend changes in the status of their subordinates.4 Accordingly, we find that Clyde An- derson, M. L. Smith, Roy Palmer, and Milton Cooper are supervisory employees within our customary definition of that term and we shall exclude them from the unit. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Company, including tool and die makers but excluding clerical em- ployees, working foremen,,' and all supervisory employees with author- ity to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The results of the election held previous to the hearing show that the Union has secured a majority of the valid votes cast and that the challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Under these circumstances, we shall not direct that any of the challenged ballots be opened and counted but instead we shall certify the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. + At the time of the hearing , the Company was operating with a somewhat diminished staff of employees , but was anticipating an increase in the size of its employee complement when materials become available. Of the four working foremen in issue, Palmer was prob- ably the most seriously affected by the reduction in staff in that his subordinates were reduced in number from three to one It is , however, clear that he has in the past effec- tively recommended changes in the status of his subordinates , and that his authority in this respect has not been revoked because of this seemingly temporary reduction in the number of his subordinates. 5 Employee Rufus Douthit is not included within this category. PARRIS-DUNN CORPORATION CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES 313 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, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, IT IS HERESY CERTIFIED that International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1300, has been designated and selected by a majority of all production and maintenance employees of Parris-Dunn Corporation, Clarinda , Iowa, including tool and die makers , but excluding clerical employees , working foremen , and all supervisory employees with au- thority to hire, promote , discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status • of employees, or effectively recommend such action, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargain- ing, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organiza- tion is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of employment. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives.