Eaton Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of EATON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, SPRING DIVISION, EMPLOYER and LOCAL 368, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMO- BILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO) , PETITIONER Case No. 7-R-296.-Decided October 4, 1946 Messrs. Paul E. Minsel and Frank L. Goodrich, of Detroit, Mich., for the Employer. Messrs. Maurice Sugar and Jack N. Tucker, by Mr. Jack N. Tucker, of Detroit, Mich., for the Petitioner. Cllr. Benj. E. Cook, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon an amended petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Detroit, Michigan, on July 17, 1946, before Robert J. Wiener, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer'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 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Eaton Manufacturing Company, an Ohio corporation, operates 12 plants located in Michigan, Ohio, and Canada. The Spring Division, Detroit, Michigan, the only plant involved in this proceeding, manu- factures leaf and coil chassis springs for automobiles and miscellaneous coil springs. The Employer's monthly purchases of raw materials are valued in excess of $200,000, 90 percent of which is shipped to its Detroit plant from points outside the State of Michigan. The Em- ployer's monthly sales of finished products are valued in excess of $400,000 approximately 5 percent of which is shipped to points out- side the State of Michigan. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. I During the course of the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the original and amended petitions on the grounds that checkers should be excluded from the bargaining unit. For reasons set forth in Section IV, infra, the Employer's motion is denied. 71 N. L R. B., No. 29 263 264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming 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. 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. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks to represent all checkers of the Employer and requests that they be merged in a single unit with the production and maintenance employees whom it currently represents 2 or, in the alternative, that the checkers be established as a separate unit. The Employer contends that the checkers are confidential and managerial and consequently may not be represented either separately or as part of a unit of production and maintenance employees. The primary duties of checkers are to record information relating to employee attendance and to count or weigh the number of pieces produced by each employee . Checkers work under the supervision of the time-study department , are hourly paid, and all enjoy substantially the same wages and working conditions . Checkers have been excluded under prior contract between the Petitioner and Employer. We are of the opinion that the duties of the checker are neither managerial nor of a fonfidential nature relating to the Employer 's labor relations.3 Accordingly, we see no reason why the checkers should be deprived of the privileges of collective bargaining. However, inasmuch as their duties and interests differ substantially from those of the production and maintenance employees, we are of the opinion that the checkers should constitute a separate unit. , We find that all checkers of the Employer at its Detroit plant, ex- cluding all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action , constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 2 The Petitioner and the Employer have executed collective bargaining contracts covering thy, production and maintenance employees since 1937 3 See Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company, Shipbuilding Division ( Boston Yards), 60 N L R' IT 203 , Matter of Ordnance Steel Foundry Company, 60 N L R. B 207. EATON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 265 DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Eaton Manufacturing Com- pany, Spring Division, Detroit, Michigan, 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 super- vision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, 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-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 reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Local 368, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), for the purposes of collective bargaining.