The American Gage & Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of TILE AMERICAN GAGE &-, MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and AMERICAN GAUGE EMPLOYEES INDEPENDENT UNION, PETITIONER Case No. 9-R-1960.-Decided September 10, 19416 Mr. A. A. Anglemyer, of Dayton, Ohio, and Mr. Howard Miller, of Ludlow Falls, Ohio, for the Employer. Mr. Fayette Bourne, of Eaton, Ohio, for the Petitioner. Mr. Andrew Gad, of Dayton, Ohio, for the CIO. Mr. David C. Buchalter, of oounsel,to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Dayton, Ohio, on July 3, 1946, before Martin Sacks, Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. TilE BUSINESS OF TILE EMPLOYER 1 ,The American Gage & Manufacturing Company, an Ohio corpora- tion-with its plant and offices located in Dayton, Ohio, is engaged in the manufacture of tools, dies, gages, and precision checking devices. The Employer purchases all its raw materials from warehouses in the State of Ohio. Its finished products are valued annually in excess of $250,000, of which about 50' percent represents shipments to points outside the State. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is-an unaffiliated labor organization claiming to rep- resent employees of the Employer.2 1 The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing , 2At the hearing a question was raised as to the status of the Petitioner as a labor organization However, the record contains undemed testimony that Petitioner was organized -for the purpose of bargaining collectively with the Employer concerning its employees as to wages , hours , and working conditions. 70 N. L. R. B., No. 117. 1273 J 1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Ldda1- No. 8, herein'called the -CIO, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer .3 III. 771E QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining `representative of employees of the Employer in' the ab- sence of,definite proof of its majority representation. 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. TI-IF APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees of the Employer, in- cluding the guard, but excluding office clerical workers, tool designers, officials, foremen, and supervisors. The CIO's only disagreement with the requested unit relates to the guard, whom it would exclude from the unit. The Employer takes no position in the matter. Except for-the guard, the employees sought herein, have heretofore been the subject hatter of collective bargaining negotiations between the Employer and the CIO. In 19,43, the CIO won a consent election conducted under Board auspices among these employees. Thereafter, on August 26, 1943, it entered into an agreement with the Employer covering the employees in the designated unit which was effective for a period of 1 year. Although the CIO thereafter instituted proceed- ings affecting these'employees before the War Labor Board and a final directive was issued by that Board considerably before the filing of the petition herein, no other contracts have ever been consummated by the parties: - The CIO would exclude the guard in issue in this case because guards were specifically excluded from the contract unit. The record dis- closes in this connection that during the contract period, the Employer, which was then engaged in wartime production, employed four guards who were militarized and performed monitorial duties. It shows further that, at the present time, the only guard in its employ is neither deputized nor militarized, does not appear to perform monitorial func- tions, and is`essentially an armed and uniformed night watchman.' His duties consist of protecting plant property against fire, theft, and other 'At the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted the CIO's motion to intervene without, prejudice to its position in its then pending appeal in Case No 9-C-2218 from the Regional Director's refusal to issue a complaint based on unfair labor practice charges filed by it against the Employer Thereupon , the CIO moved to dismiss the instant petition because of this unresolved question on appeal before the Board However, subsequent to the instant hearing, the Boaid administratively sustained the above -mentioned ruling of the Regional Director . Accordingly, we shall deny the CIO's motion to dismiss this petition. THE AMERICAN GAGE & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1275 hards,°and of performing certain janitorial tasks. And when cur cumstances require that a shipment be expedited after the close of the working day he acts as a shipping clerk. It thus appears tliat the reason for the exclusion of the 'Employer's only guard from the unit, i. e., his monitorial and militarized status, no longer exists . We also note that to exclude the guard, in accordance with the CIO's request, would deprive him of the opportunity for collective action and repre- sentation since there is apparently no other labor organization at the plant to which he is eligible for membership . In view of the fore- going, we shall, notwithstanding the prior contractual relationship, includ e: the guard in the unit 4 Accordingly, we find that all employees of the Employer, including the guard, but excluding office clerical workers, tool designers , officials, foremen, supervisors , and all or any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote , discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees , or effectively recommend such ac- tion,'constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- g,iining 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 The American Gage & Manu- facturing Company,, Dayton, 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 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-rol l period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, avid in- cluding 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 they desire to be represented by American Gauge Employees Inde- pendent Union or by United Electrical , Radio & MachineWorkers of America, 'Local No. 8, CIO , for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. MR.-'JA-NIES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 4 Cf Matter of Pittsburgh Equitable Dieter Company , 61 N L. R. B. 880.