The Eclipse Lawn Mower Co.

In the Matter of THE ECLIPSE LAWN MOWER Co., EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS & FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION OF N. A.,. A. F. OF L., PETITIONER Case No. 13-R-3985.-Decided April 9, 1947 Bull, Yost & Ludens, by Mr. Mason Bull; and Mr. Robert H. Potter, both of Morrison, Ill., for the Employer. Mr. William E. Parkins, of Batavia, Ill., for the Petitioner. Mr. Bertram McNamara, of Sterling, Ill., for the Intervenor. Mr. Arthur Christopher, Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Prophets- town, Illinois, on December 19, 1946, before Gustaf B. Erickson, hearing 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 I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Eclipse Lawn Mower Co., an Illinois corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of lawn mowers at its plant in Prophetstown, Illinois. During the 12-month period before the hearing, more than 50 percent of the raw materials used by the Employer was shipped to its plant from sources outside the State of Illinois. During the same period, the Employer manufactured and sold finished products worth more than $50,000, of which, amount in excess of 50 percent represented shipments to points outside the State. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 73 N. L. R. B, No. 49. 258 THE ECLIPSE LAWN MOWER CO. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 259 The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. United Steelworkers of America, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi- zations, 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 certain 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 a unit composed of all foundry department employees of the Employer, including working foremen, but excluding watchmen and supervisors. The Intervenor opposes the establish- ment of a separate unit of foundry employees, contending that the appropriate unit should be plant-wide and should consist of all the Employer's production and maintenance employees, including the employees herein sought by the Petitioner. The Employer takes a neutral position with respect to the unit issue. On June 1, 1942, the Employer ceased manufacturing lawn mowers and commenced producing tank tread links for military purposes. As foundry work was unnecessary for the production of tank tread links, the foundry was discontinued. Thereupon, foundry employees were given an opportunity to transfer to other departments of the Em- ployer; however, only a few transferred and practically none of these remained with the Employer longer than a week after the closing of the foundry. On October 12, 1942, following a Board Decision and Direction of Election,2 the Intervenor was certified as bargaining rep- resentative for all production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's plant.3 Later in 1942, the Employer entered into its first contractual relations with a labor organization when it executed an 'On December 10, 1945, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a 1-year collective bargaining contract embracing all the Employer's employees, including the foundry em- ployees, which provided that 30 days before the terminal date a joint conference should be held between the contracting parties for the purpose of negotiating a new agreement. Neither of the contracting parties asserts that this contract is a bar to a present determi- nation of representatives, nor could it be, inasmuch as the petition in this case was filed more than 30 days before the terminal date of the contract and it has in fact expired. Y 43 N. L. R. B. 1178. 8 44 N. L. R. B. 1097. 260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL-LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agreement with the Intervenor embracing the employees in the above- mentioned unit. During July 1945, because of "cut-backs" in defense production, the Employer reopened its foundry for the purpose of reconversion to the production of lawn mowers. On December 10, 1945, the Employer executed the 1-year collective bargaining contract with the Intervenor, mentioned above,4 covering all production and maintenance employees, including the foundry employees. At present, the Employer's manufacturing process comprises two, principal operations, the foundry on the one hand and lawn mower machining on the other. These operations are performed in separate buildings, the foundry being located in a building that is utilized solely for purposes of foundry work, whereas lawn mower machining is conducted in the "defense plant" building which is located about 200 or more feet from the foundry building. Although the output of the foundry is used by the Employer in making its finished products, the foundry is under separate supervision, foundry employees check in at a separate time-clock, and these workers perform specialized work which has long been recognized as involving a substantial amount of skill. There is practically no interchange of employees between the foundry and the other departments of the Employer's plant. It appears that the Employer's foundry employees constitute an apprenticeable and well-defined craft, as exemplified by the fact that apprenticeship training extending over at least 4 years is necessary to achieve journeyman status. Moreover, it appears that separate bar- gaining for similar craft groups exists in similar industries .5 It is also clear that the Employer's foundry employees have never had an opportunity to demonstrate in a Board election whether or not they desire separate representation. In view of the foregoing, particularly considering the recent collective bargaining history embracing foun- dry workers, and the fact that these employees constitute a homo- geneous group with interests differing substantially from those of other employees, we are of the opinion that they could comprise a sepa- rate appropriate unit. Although these employees could also be bar- gained for as part of a plant-wide unit, inasmuch as the Intervenor indicated that it does not want its name to appear on the ballot in any separate election among foundry workers which might be directed as a result of this proceding,6 we shall not direct a self-determina- ' See to 1, supra. 5 See Matter of Turner Manufacturing Company, 57 N. L. R B. 251, and cases cited therein. 6 Although the Intervenor's representative stated that, "If the Board decides that the foundry is an appropriate unit in itself, we will not ask to go on the ballot," it appears that the Intervenor's true intent is not to appear on the ballot if a separate election is directed among these employees THE ECLIPSE LAWN MOWER CO. 261 tion election as is our customary practice in such cases,7 but shall, instead, establish a separate unit composed of the foundry employees. Accordingly, we find that all employees in the foundry department of the Employer's Prophetstown, Illinois, plant, including working foremen,8 but excluding watchmen, foremen, superintendents, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis- charge, 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. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the, purposes of collective bargaining with The Eclipse Lawn Mower Co., Prophetstown, Illinois, 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 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 Regula- tions-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 International Molders & Foundry Workers Union of N. A., A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining. CHAIRMAN IIERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 7 See Matter of International Minerals and Chemical Corporation (Potash Division), 71 N. L R B 878, and Matter of The Jaeger Machine Company, 67 N L R B 683 8 Working foremen employed at the time of the hearing did not possess supervisory- authority within the meaning of the Board 's customary definition.