Rockford Drop Forge Co.

In the Matter of ROCKFORD DROP FORGE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and ROCKFORD DIE SINKERS LODGE, INTERNATIONAL DIE SINKERS CON- FERENCE, PETITIONER Case No. 13-R-3873.-Deoided March 31, 1947 Messrs. Fyffe and Clarke, by Mr. A lbert J. Smith, of Chicago, Ill., for the Employer. Messrs. J. G. Meiner and W. T. Lynch, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Petitioner. Mr. P. L. Sieoniller, of Chicago, Ill., for the Machinists. Mr. A. J. Eberhardy, of Chicago, Ill., for the Blacksmiths. Mrs. Platonia P. Kaldes, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Chicago, Illinois, on October 1, 1946, before Robert T. Drake, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi- cial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing the International Association of Machinists, District No. 101, herein called the Ma- chinists, moved to dismiss the proceedings on the grounds that : (1) the unit petitioned for is inappropriate, and (2) the question concern- ing representation had not been raised properly. The motion was referred to the Board. For the reasons hereinafter set forth the motion is hereby denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. TIIE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER Rockford Drop Forge Company is an Illinois corporation engaged at Rockford, Illinois, in the manufacture and sale of drop forgings used in the automotive and agricultural industries. The principal raw materials used by the Company in the manufacture of its products are steel, coal, and oil. During the year 1945, approximately 25 percent 73 N. L. R. B., No. 5. 26 ROCKFORD DROP FORGE COMPANY 27 of such raw materials valued at approximately $750,000 was obtained by the Company outside the State of Illinois. During the same year, more than 35 percent of the finished products of the Company valued at approximately $2,000,000 was sold by the Company and shipped to points outside the State of Illinois. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is an unaffiliated labor organization, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. International Association of Machinists, District No. 101, herein called the Machinists, is a labor organization, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers, herein called the Blacksmiths, is a labor organization affili- ated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On April 26, 1945, the Petitioner requested the Employer to recog- nize it as the exclusive representative of all employees of the Employer's die room. On May 2, 1946, the Employer replied that it was "not in a position to start negotiations" with the Petitioner because the employees whose representation the Petitioner sought "are now represented by the Ma- chinists' Union, A. F. of L., in a joint contract with the Blacksmiths' Union." On June 17, 1946, the Petitioner filed a petition with the Board seeking to represent "all employees working on dies or part of dies," upon which petition the Board decided not to take further proceedings., On August 15, 1946, without making any further request to the Employer for recognition, the Petitioner filed the petition here being considered, in which it claims the appropriate unit to be one consisting of all employees in the Employer's machine, tool, and die shop. At the hearing the Machinists contended that, inasmuch as the unit now proposed by the Petitioner is different from that sought at the time it requested the Employer for recognition in April 1945, 1The Petition was docketed on the records of the Board as No 13-R-3711 The Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region acting pursuant to Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3. as amended , withdrew the notice of hearing oiigmally issued on that case and, pursuant to Article III, Section 4, of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations , the Petitioner appealed the decision of the Regional Duector to the Board On September 30, 1946, the Board dismissed the appeal 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and because the Petitioner had made no formal request for recogni- tion with respect to the unit now sought, no question concerning representation had been raised. However, at the hearing, the Em- ployer opposed the propriety of the unit now sought and admitted that if the Petitioner were to request recognition from it at this time its answer would be the same as that it had given the Petitioner on May 2, 1946.2 In any event, the filing of a petition per se raises a question concerning representation.3 Accordingly, we find no merit in the Machinists' contention. As hereinabove noted, the Employer's refusal to recognize the Petitioner is grounded, in part, upon the existence of a collective bargaining contract covering the employees here involved. The Employer apparently claims that this contract bars a present deter- mination of representatives. The contract in question was executed by the Employer, the Ma- chinists, and the Blacksmiths on June 23, 1945. It was effective initially until August 31, 1946, and thereafter, from year to year, unless notice to terminate, modify, or alter its terms was given by either party at least 60 days prior to any expiration date. More than 60 days prior to August 31, 1946,, the parties to the contract com- menced negotiations for a new agreement which had not yet been com- pleted at the time of the hearing. The parties have apparently been operating on a day-to-day basis under the terms of the 1945 agree- ment pending execution of a new contract. The negotiations for a new agreement rendered inoperative the automatic renewal clause of the 1945 contract and, at most, converted it to one of indefinite duration. Accordingly, this contract cannot be considered to bar a present determination of representatives .4 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 In its petition, the Die Sinkers describes the unit of employees it seeks to represent as consisting of "all production and maintenance employees in the machine tool and die shop (the unit presently bargained for by the [Machinists]) " excluding supervisory, clerical and all other employees.5 At the hearing it sought, alternatively, a See Matter of Ethyl Corporation, 67 N. L. R B. 1324 , 1325 , Matter of Houston Blow Pipe and Sheet Metal Works, 53 '\ L R B 184, 185 3 Matter of East Texas Electra, Steel Company, Inc , 72 N L R B 1144. ° See Matter of Henry A Welker, d/ b/a Welker Letter Company, 67 N L. R. B 792, 794 Matter of Hytron Radio & Electronics Corporation, 66 N L R B 267, 269. b Included in the group primarily petitioned for ate coin and trim the sinkers , die sinkers, forge die finishers , electricians, firemen, laborers, machine repairmen , machine operators, oilers, saw operators , trim and coin die workers , welders, and watchmen. This is substan- ROCKFORD DROP FORGE COAIPANY 29 unit of "all employees working on dies or parts of dies." The Em- ployer, the Machinists, and the Blacksmiths (the latter two some- times being referred to herein as the Intervenors) contend that a history of collective bargaining on a plant-wide basis exists and that this history precludes a finding that any unit smaller than a plant- wide unit is possibly appropriate. Accordingly, they oppose the propriety of either of the two units proposed by the Petitioner. The record reveals that in 1941, the Board, upon a petition filed by the Blacksmiths, found that all employees of the Employer in the forge, forge repair, shear, heat treat, and trimming department, exclusive of supervisory and clerical employees and the employees in the die room, die storage, electrical, shipping, and inspection department, con- stituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that on June 9, 1941, following an election, the Blacksmiths was certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of the employees in this unit .13 On July 28, 1944, the Blacksmiths filed a petition with the Board seeking the further representation of all employees in the inspection and shipping department of the Employer and on the same day the Machinists filed a petition seeking the representation of the'remaining employees who, as is noted above, comprise in the main the group presently sought by the Petitioner. Two separate consent elections were conducted on August 1, 1941,' as the result of which the above unions were designated as the exclusive representative of the group of employees each had petitioned for. The Blacksmiths and the Machinists have entered into joint con- tracts with the Employer since August 1941. In each of the contracts executed by the Employer and these unions, hours of employment, over- time rates, vacations, and other conditions of employment are set out generally for all employees; seniority, however, is on a departmental basis and there is no interchange of personnel except in cases of emer- gency. In the two most recent contracts entered into on, September 1, 1942, and June 23, 1945, respectively, wage scales for each group of employees coming within the respective jurisdiction of each union are set out in separate schedules. Negotiations for each contract entered into by the Intervenors were handled by separate bargaining committees of each union on behalf of the employees within their re- tially the same group of employees which designated the 'Machinists as its representative in a consent election conducted August 1, 1941, and which is currently represented by the Machinists in the respects hereinafter set forth . While it is not clear from the record whether all these employees ace in the machine, tool and die shop, it is undisputed that, with the possible exception of laborers, there are no other employees in the plant suni- larly classified 0Matter of Rockford Drop Forge Company, 31 N L R B 153 7 The Petitions in the foregoing consent election cases were designated on the records of the Board as 13-R-872 and 13-R-873, respectively. 30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spective jurisdictions, except for horizontal wage increases which were negotiated by the unions jointly.8 Grievances are similarly handled by each union on a separate basis for the employees within its jurisdiction. The Intervenors thus have acted both jointly and severally in the course of their bargaining relations with the Employer.9 It is evi- dent, therefore, that the bargaining history does not preclude the estab- lishment of a separate unit for the Employees primarily sought by the Petitioner.- As the facts set forth above disclose, the unit primarily sought is a residual unit covering employees not contained in the bar- gaining unit found appropriate by the Board upon petition of the Blacksmiths in 1941. We have heretofore found such residual units to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining as supple- ments to more homogeneously defined units.', No cogent reason has been advanced, and none is disclosed by this record, for not finding such a unit appropriate in the present case. On the other hand, with respect to the alternative unit sought, the Employer claimed, and the evidence clearly showed, that employees who work on dies or parts of dies are but part of the group in the machine, tool and die shop and cannot be properly segregated from that group for bar- gaining purposes. Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance em- ployees of the Employer in the machine, tool and die shop, including coin and trim die sinkers, die sinkers, coin and trim die makers, forge die finishers, machine repairmen, machine operators, saw operators, welders, electricians, firemen, watchmen, and laborers '12 but excluding clerical employees and all supervisory employees having 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. The two intervening unions aie piesently negotiating with the Employer on a separate basis ° On one occasion a grievance of emplol ces under the jurisdiction of the Blacksmiths resulted in the latter's calling a strike It is not clear from the record whether the Machinists voluntarily joined the strike or whethei thev did not work because they respected the picket line established by the Blacksmiths. The Machinists represented the latter to be the case to the Illinois Department of Labor for the purpose of obtaining compensation benefits The Illinois Department of Labor ruled against them upon findings that they acted jointly with the Blacksmiths in all matters including the particular labor dispute involved . while these findings are persuasive of the joint action by these two unions, they are not conclusive We note that the Regional War Labor Board treated the two unions separately in awarding maintenance of membership to one while refusing to award it to the other 10 Matter of Austin-Western Company, 67 N. L R B 692, 695 , Matter of Struthers-Wells Corporation . 59 N L . R B 454, 458 11 See Matter of Pepeekeo Sugar Company, et al , 59 N L R B 1532, 1541 , Matter of General Electric Company/, 54 N L R B. 1299, 1301. 12 See footnote 4, supra ROCKFORD DROP FORGE COMPANY DIRECTION OF ELECTION 13 31 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Rockford Drop Forge Com- pany, Rockford, Illinois, an election by secret ballot shall be con- ducted 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 Thirteenth 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 Reg- ulations-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 they desire to be repre- sented by Rockford Die Sinkers Lodge, International Die Sinkers Conference, or by International Association of Machinists, District No. 101, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither 14 CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. "Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to and approval thei eof by the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot. 14 The Blacksmiths has no interest in the unit found, nor has it sought to be placed on the ballot. 739926-47-vol. 73-4