National Electric Coil Co.

In the Matter of NATIONAL ELECTRIC COIL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and ELECTRICAL COIL WORKERS INDEPENDENT UNION OF COLUMBUS, OHIO, PETITIONER Case No. 9-R-2129.-Decided July 13, 194.6 Messrs. Webb Vorys and Fred W. Kirby, of Columbus, Ohio, for the Employer. Messrs. Charles S. Miller and W. L. Bourne, of Columbus, Ohio, for the Petitioner. Mr. James Desmond, of Columbus, Ohio, for the Automobile Workers. Mrs. Augusta Spaulding , of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Columbus, Ohio, on June 28, 1946, before Hyman H. Ostrin, Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner'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 National Electric Coil Company manufactures electric windings for electric motors and generators and various types of electric in- sulating materials at its Columbus, Ohio, plant, which is the only plant involved in this proceeding. For this plant, the Employer annually purchases raw materials exceeding $100,000 in value, of which more than 90 percent comes to the plant from points outside Ohio. The products finished at this plant annually exceed $100,000 in value, of which more than 90 percent is shipped to points outside Ohio. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 69 N. L. R. B.r No. 58. 475 476 _ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is an unaffiliated labor organization, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.' United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, herein called the Automobile Workers, is a labor organi- zation affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claim- ing to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner-has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. On April 7,1943, the Employer and the Automobile Workers entered into an exclusive bargaining contract, covering production and main- tenance employees at the Columbus plant, for a 1-year term with an automatic renewal clause. In September 1945, the parties thereto opened their contract for further negotiations. On March 15, 1946, the Automobile Workers called a strike, which is still in effect. The Employer gave appropriate notice to terminate the contract as extended by the parties during their negotiations. The contract, thus, is no bar to a determination of representatives at this time. 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) and (7) of the Act. IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Employer, the Petitioner, and the Automobile Workers agree that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Columbus, Ohio, plant, excluding office and shop clerical employees, engineering employees, watchmen, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisory employees, constitute an appropriate unit. They disagree as to group leaders. The Employer and the Petitioner would include, and the Automobile Workers exclude, group leaders. There are six group leaders employed at the Columbus plant. Group leaders devote approximately 90 percent of their time to active production work and the remainder of their time to setting up work and training new employees. Like other production employees, they work under the direction of the foremen or assistant foremen in the several departments to which they are assigned. They are hourly paid, highly skilled employees and receive a premium of 5 cents per hour above the pay received by their less skilled co-workers. They ' The Automobile workers , intervenor herein, contends that the Petitioner is not a bona fide labor organization . We find no merit in this contention. NATIONAL ELECTRIC COIL COMPANY 477 work with helpers as do other skilled employees. Group leaders do not have authority to hire or to discharge employees or to recommend such action. Although group leaders as such were not expressly in- cluded in the unit found appropriate for employees at the Columbus plant in a prior representation proceeding, they voted unchallenged in the election conducted by the Board which resulted in the certifica- tion of the Automobile Workers as bargaining representative in 1942.2 Group leaders have been expressly covered by the contract between the Automobile Workers and their Employer since that time, and their dues have been checked off pursuant to its provisions. Under these circumstances we will include group leaders in the bargaining unit. The parties disagree as to the status of E. E. Burton and W. L. Bourne. Burton is listed on the Employer's records as a group leader. He spends a small percentage of his time on photographic work in the pro- duction department. His duties otherwise are those of other group leaders. As group leader, Burton is deemed included in the bargain- ing unit. Bourne is a highly skilled employee in the service department. He receives the same rate of pay as other workmen in his section doing similar work. In the absence of the department foreman, due to vacation or illness, Bourne or another highly skilled employee in the department is designated as the man in charge to transmit orders from the plant superintendent to other workers in the department. He receives no extra pay for this additional service. He is not author- ized to hire or discharge any employee or to recommend such action. In 1945 Burton substituted for the foreman of his department for 14 days. During the first 6 months of 1946 he has not served in place of the department foreman. Bourne has been covered by the contract between the Automobile Workers and his Employer since 1943. His. duties have not changed during that period. They are similar to, those of other skilled workers to whom helpers are assigned for compli- cated jobs and whose inclusion in the unit is not questioned. We find that Bourne is a highly skilled production employee and, as such, he is included in the unit. The Employer on occasion hires extra help to assist in the unloading of coal, the removal of waste, the cleaning and painting of the plant, and the installation of special equipment. Such persons are hired individually for the particular job they are asked to do, or the job, as such, is let out to an independent contraefor. These occasional and incidental employees do no production work, and they are not listed on the Employer's regular pay roll. The inclusion of occasional and 3 Matter of National Electric Coil Company, 45 N. L. R. B. 1060.. 478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD incidental employees was not in issue in the prior representation pro- ceeding concerning employees at this plant. In the contract between the Employer and the Automobile Workers, however, occasional and incidental employees were expressly excluded from coverage. Under these circumstances, and since it clearly appears that occasional and incidental employees do not share employment interests similar to those of regular production and maintenance employees, we shall exclude occasional and incidental employees from the bargaining unit. We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Columbus, Ohio, plant, including group leaders, but excluding office and shop clerical employees, engineering employees, watchmen, occasional and incidental employees, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, 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 National Electric Coil Com- pany, Columbus, 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 Ninth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appro- priate 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 rein- stated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Electrical Coil Workers Independent Union of Columbus, Ohio, or by United Automobile, Aircraft & Ag- ricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.