The Schaible Co.

In the Matter of TAE SCHAIBLE COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0. Case No. 9-R-2063.-Decided July 15, 1946 Mr. J. Mack Swigeet, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Company. Messrs. Glenn R. Hess and J. L. Davis, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the CIO. Me. Phil J. Kennedy, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Independent. Mr. Bernard Dwnau, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a second amended petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the CIO, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- ployees of The Schaible Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board, on May 8, 1946, con- ducted a prehearing election pursuant to Article III, Section 3, as amended, of the Board 's Rules and Regulations, among employees of the Company in the alleged appropriate unit to determine whether they desired to be represented by the CIO, or by the Independent Union of Schaible Employees, herein called the Independent, or by neither, for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally shows that of an approximate number of eligible voters of 309, 2 cast void ballots, 112 voted for the CIO, 120 for the Independent, 4 voted against representation by either of the labor organizations , and 48 ballots were challenged. Thereafter, pursuant to Article III, Section 10, as amended, of the Rules and Regulations, the Board provided for an appropriate hear- ing upon due notice before Thomas E. Shroyer, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Cincinnati, Ohio, on May 28, 1946. The Com- pany, the CIO, and the Independent appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and 69 N. L. R. B., No. 65. 527 528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE COMPANY The Schaible Company, an Ohio corporation, has its principal office and place of business in Cincinnati Ohio, where it is engaged in the manufacture of plumbing supplies. During the year preceding the hearing, the Company purchased raw materials, valued in excess of $2,000,000, of which about 80 percent was shipped to its plant from points outside the State of Ohio. During the same period of time, the Company produced finished products, valued in excess of $3,000,000, of which about 80 percent was shipped from its plant to points outside the State. We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Steelworkers of America is a labor organization , affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , admitting to member- ship employees of the Company. Independent Union of Schaible Employees is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to grant recognition to the CIO or the Independent as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Com- pany's employees until one or the other has been certified by the Board in an 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 parties agree that a unit consisting of all the production and maintenance employees of the Company, but excluding guards, cler- ical and salaried employees, foremen and assistant foremen, and all supervisory personnel, is appropriate. They disagree concerning the inclusion in the unit of timekeepers, inspectors, and cafeteria workers, THE SCHAIBLE COMPANY 529 all of whom were challenged at the election. In addition, there is dis- agreement concerning the supervisory status of the following named employees, all of whom the CIO challenged at the election : Thomas Dillinger, John Schaffer, Love, Walton Berkley, Steve Reynolds. At the election the Board's agent challenged William Gilmartin, R. B. Clark, and Clinton Roberts to determine whether they were included within a unit represented by the Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union, Local #68, AFL, which has a cur- rently effective agreement with the Company. Timekeepers: The Company employs seven timekeepers, of whom six voted in the election and were challenged, who maintain records in which are reported time data relating to the beginning, interruption, and conclusion of particular operations from which the wages of the employees are subsequently computed. The timekeepers work at a desk within the department to which they are assigned. Their records are open to inspection by any interested party. They are listed on the factory pay roll, and are under the supervision of a Chief Time- keeper. The CIO and the Company would exclude the timekeepers, and the Independent would include them. In accordance with our usual practice, we shall exclude the timekeepers from a unit composed of production and maintenance employees.' Inspectors: The Company employs 27 inspectors, of whom 25 voted in the election and were challenged, who work 8 hours per day at an hourly rate and who are listed on an inspectors' pay roll separate from the production and maintenance employees. They are responsible to supervisors who are in turn responsible to a Chief Inspector. With the exception of one receiving inspector who spot-checks materials re- ceived at the plant from outside sources, the common characteristic of their functions is the inspection of materials in the process of man- ufacture for the purpose of detecting flaws. Defects are primarily caused by faulty machines rather than negligent workmanship. The inspectors report defects to the foremen or to the set-up men who then make the necessary adjustments. Rejections of work affect the amount of pay of employees, and inspectors' reports are in some measure an index to the efficiency of employees. The CIO and the Independent would include these employees; but the Company would exclude them. The Company contends that the work of these inspectors in overseeing the production process is managerial in nature, and that their inclu- sion in the production and maintenance unit would result in a divided loyalty on their part inconsistent with a disinterested discharge of duties. The work of the inspectors is an integral part of the produc- tion process ; their working conditions are essentially similar to those See Matter of Dougla8 Aircraft Company, Inc., 60 N . L. R. B. 876. 701592-47-vol. 69-35 530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the production and maintenance employees, and the risk of their improper discharge of duty affords no basis for excluding then" from the unit. We shall include them in the unit.] Cafe,teria Eml)loyec8. The Con"pany employs one chief and four cook's helpers who work exclusively in the cafeteria preparing and serving food to the production and maintenance employees. They are hourly paid and rated, and they work raider the supervision of the personnel manager. They are classified in the same manner as pro- duction and maintenance employees, and personnel policy pertaining to them is apparently the same as that applied to the production and maintenance employees. The CIO and the Company would exclude them from the unit. The Independent would include theist. Luis- much as their work is essentially different from that of the production and maintenance employees, and since there is a disagreement concern- ing their inclusion, we shall exclude them from the unit.' Gilmartin, Clark, Robei°t.,; ' The Company employs these individ- uals as truckers to haul materials from the plating, buffing, and polish- ing departments to a stockroom located in another section of the plant. They are rarely used for work in other departments. Ill accordance with a current contract between the Company and the Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union, Local #68, AFL, executed November 13, 1945, the Company recognized that Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of "all employees of the Polishing, Buffing and Plating Departments." The contract was negotiated at about the time the Company resumed operations of these departments after their curtailment during the war and prior to the time the truckers were hired. A representative of the Polishers' Union testified that the contract was intended to cover polishers, buffers, platers and plater helpers only, and that the union does not bargain on behalf of the truckers here involved. Ile further testified that unless tactically expedient during the initial period of organization the union chooses not to bargain for employees other than those tradi- tionally included within the polishers' craft. The truckers are prob- ably ineligible for uieuibership in the Polishers' Union. We find that the truckers are not covered by the contract with the Polishers' Union, and we shall include them in the tnlit as production and maintenance employees. See matter of Chrgsler- Corporation , 44 N. L. K. B. 881, 856. See Hatter of General Cigar Co., Inc., 64 N. L. R . B. 300 : Matte, of Chrysler Corpora- tion. A irtemp Divi.sion . Indianapoli0 Plant, 61 N. L . It. B. 953. See Matter of Dag and Night Mann factaring Conapanlt, 65 N. L. It. B . 916 ; Hatter of Rockford Jlachine Tool Company , 64 N. L . It. B. 1400; Matter of Mark , Judson . Voehringer Company of North Carolina, Inc., 63 N. L. It. B. 96; Matter of Iona Packing Company, 53 N. L. R. B. 446. The rliseu."iou herein applies enlually ' to the plating inspector who is incltuled in the unit. THE SCHAIBLE COMPANY 531 Dzlhingei,: Tins employee is a tool and gauge checker who examines tools fabricated by the tool makers for accuracy prior to placing them in the tool crib. In the absence of the nlachine or tool room super- intendent, he acts as lead mi,n in the department. This occurs on. infrequent occasions, and does not involve the exercise of supervisory functions. We shall include 111111 ill the unit. Schafjer^ and Lo,,,,. Schaffer and Love are respectively set-up men in the screw nlachine and iilaclline ,]top departments. They set up the machinery for new jobs which are then turned over to the opera tors. They sometimes instruct newly hired employees. They have no authority to change operators from one machine to another with- out assent of the foreman. They perform no supervisory duties. We shall include them in the unit as production and maintenance employees. Berkley: This employee is the lead man of two other employees, all of whom work in the toolroolu assembling and repairing plating racks. He exercises no supervisory authority. We shall include him in the unit as a production and Maintenance employee. Reynolds: This individual is listed with the general plant em- ployees, and is designated chief trucker. He is the lead man of two other truckers, all of whom haul materials from one department to another. He is an hourly rated employee, and his pay is substantially the sane as that of the other two truckers. He has no supervisory functions. We shall include hint in the unit as a production and maintenance employee. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com- pany including inspectors, and tool and gauge checker, but excluding timekeepers, guards. cafeteria workers, clerical and salaried em- ployees, foreulen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisory enl- ployees with authority to hire. promote, discharge, discipline, or other- wise 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. V. TAE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We find that the timekeepers and the cafeteria employees were ineligible to vote in the election, and, accordingly. their ballots will not be counted. We find that the 2:i inspectors and the named em- ployees discussed in Section 1V `' were eligible to vote in the election, and, accordingly, we shall direct that their ballots shall be opened and counted, and that a supplemental Tally of Ballots shall be prepared as set forth in the Direction. a Gilmartin . Clark. Hubert.. Selialfer, Love, link ley. 1O •cnold . and Dillinaer. 532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The CIO challenged the eligibility to vote in the election of one Walter Ruehlmann on the ground that he had been discharged and was not an employee of the Company at the time of the election. Upon his return from military service, this employee was placed in the foundry to learn the molding trade. Because of his height he was inadaptable to the work, and he was transferred to another department. Prior to the election he was injured during the course of his employment, and he was absent from work for several weeks. He was not working at the time the election was held, but he was retained on the company pay roll throughout this period. At the time of the hearing he had re- turned to work. The CIO sought to elicit an admission from the plant manager to the effect that the latter or another company representative had stated at a conference between the Company and the CIO that this employee had been discharged, but the plant manager denied that any such statement had been made . We find. that this individual was eligible to vote in the election. DIRECTION 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 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 The Schaible Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, the Regional Director for the Ninth Re- gion shall, pursuant to said Rules and Regulations, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count the challenged ballots of the 25 inspectors and of the following named employees : Gil- martin, Clark, Roberts, Dillinger, Schaffer, Love, Berkley, Reynolds, and Ruehlmann. He shall thereupon prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a Supplemental Tally of Ballots including therein the court of the afore-mentioned challenged ballots. He shall further forward forthwith to the Board in Washington, D. C., the Supple- mental Tally of Ballots which, together with the record previously made, shall constitute the record in the case, and the Board shall there- upon decide the matter forthwith upon the record, or shall make such other disposition of the case as may be appropriate.