Swartzbaugh Mfg. Co.

In the Matter of SWARTZBAUGII MFG. Co., EMPLOYER and METAL POL- ISIIERS, BUFFERS, PLATERS AND HELPERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL No. 2 (AFL), PETITIONER Case No. 8-R-2378.-Decided April 24, 194 Mr. H. W.. Eschedor, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Employer. Mr. Robert A. Wilson, of Washington,-D. C., for the Petitioner. Mr. Lowell Goerlich, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Intervenor. Mr. Philip Licari, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Toledo, Ohio, on November 6, 1946, before John R. Hull, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that, (1) an existing contract between it and the Employer is a bar to a present determination of representatives; '(2) supervisory employees participated in the organization of the', employees sought by the Petitioner; and (3) the unit sought is in- appropriate. For the reasons stated in Sections III and IV, infra, the motion is denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board ,makes the following: FIN DINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Swartzbaugh Mfg. Co., an Ohio corporation, is engaged at Toledo, Ohio, in, the manufacture of electrical appliances and hospital food service equipment. During the past 12 months, the Employer pro- duced finished goods valued in excess of $3,000,000, of which approxi- mately 80 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Ohio. During the same period,, the Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $600,000, of which approximately 50 percent was received from sources outside the State of Ohio. 73 N. L. R. B, No. 107. . 538 ' SWARTZBAUGH MFG. CO. 539 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 a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.- International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, herein called-the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATI0,N On or about July 31, 1946, the Petitioner requested recognition of the Employer as the bargaining representative of certain of its em- ployees. The Employer refused to grant such recognition until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board. - The-Employer and the Intervenor contend that the present collec- -tive bargaining agreement dated May 3, 1946, and automatically re- newable from year to year, constitutes 'a bar to,thls proceeding. How- ever, inasmuch as this agreement may be terminated in less than 1 mouth, we find that it does not bar a determination of representatives within the next thirty (30) days pursuant to our usual Direction of Election.' 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.2 IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OP REPRESENTATIVES The Petitioner seeks a unit of all the Employer's employees of the polishing aii`d plating departments located in the "factories building plant" in Toledo, Ohio, -excluding the shop foreman.3 - The Employer and the Intervenor contend that such a unit is inappropriate because of the existing plant-wide production and maintenance unit, which included the employees sought by the Petitioner. ' See Matter of Ellis Canning Company, 67 N. L R B 384, and Matter of The Olivcr Coo p, 72 N L R B 841 - The Intervenor contends that an alleged supervisory employee, Eugene Ryzmeek, solic- ited designation cards among the employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner, and, there- fore, the petition should be dismissed on the ground that supervisory employees assisted in its organizational efforts. The record reveals that Ryzmeck is an experieiiced hourly paid eniplo3 ee who, on occasion, substitutes as foreman'of his` department on the day shift and also assists other less-skilled employees It is clear, however, that he has no supervisory authority within the ineaning of the Board's definition thereof Accordingly, we find tins contention to be without merit I I 3The Petitioner, in effect, desires at unit of all polishers, plater, and buffeis on a craft basis 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer has 2 departments, in which it performs all its polish- ing and plating operations , namely, Department 66 and Department 18.4 Department 18 is the smaller of the 2 and is located in the Enn- ployer's main plant. Department 66, on the other hand , has approxi- mately 17 employees and is located in a building identified as the ``factories building" which is about 2 miles distant from the main plant. The employees in- these-2' -departments are solely engaged in polishing, plating, grinding, and related operations. They are,under separate supervision, and there is no interchange of employees between these and other departments in the plant. These employees comprise a well-recognized craft group, who, the Board has held, may form a separate approporiate unit.' The Employer for a long time prior to 1921 had an established polishing and plating department , the employees of which had always been represented by the Petitioner . The record reveals that because of a disagreement between the Employer and the Petitioner herein, this department was discontinued and was not reestablished until 1941. At that time, the Employer employed 3 polishers and the Petitioner, upon request, was recognized by the Employer as their bargaining represen tative. Some time in 1942, the Employer reduced, its force in the polishing, department to I employee , who only worked, part time as a polisher. It.appears that in view of this-reduction the Petitioner was no longer interested in continuing its representative status as to the part-time employee. In October 1942, as a result of a consent election conducted under the auspices of the Board , the Intervenor was certified as the bargaining representative of all the production and maintenance employees in a plant-wide unit. In 1944, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into a collective bargaining agreement , which in- eluded provisions for wage rates for the metal polishers . On May 3, 1946, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into a new contract, providing not only for wage rates for_the,metal.,polishers but also for the kgrinders,. At the time of the execution' of this last contract, there were only 2 polishers and 1 grinder employed at the plant . However, since that time the number of polishers , buffers, platers, and grinders and their helpers in the employ of the Employer have more than quad- rupled; there are now about 20 such employees . It further , appears that the Employer intends , in the near future, to engage in polishing and plating operations on products of other manufacturers as well as The Petitioner seeks to exclude from the unit employees in Department 18, on, the ground that , contrary to the Employer's contention , there is only one employee in this de- partment, who is eng.aged part time ins polishing operations The,record shows , however, that,there are two,polishers and one grinder presently employed in Department 18 . 5 See Matter of The Scott & Fetzer Co., 66 N L R B 469 ; Matter of Balcrank, Inc., 66 N L R B 600 ; Matter of Dasclier Manufacturing Company, 63 N L . R B 777 , Matter of Johnson Motors, 63 N L R. B. 802 SWARTZBAUGH MFG. CO. -541 its own; consequently it is considering approximately to double its k7l present force in the unit sought by the Petitioner. - Although It is true that the Employer and the Intervenor have niain- tained contractual relations since 1944 for all of the Employer's pro- duction and maintenance workers, including polishers and grinders, it is clear-that this bargaining history was based upon a consent'election aihd not upon aii-y^-Board',,determination as to the appropriate unit. Moreover; and most important, at the time the consent election was held there was not then employed a representative group of the employees presently sought by the Petitioner. It is, therefore, our opinion that 1 his recent bargaining history is not controlling in passing on the propriety of a separate unit for the employees involved herein 6 In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the employees sought by the Petitioner are a well-recognized craft group. When, as indicated ,,by the earlier bargaining history, a representative number of the em- ployees in the unit sought by the Petitioner have been employed, they have been bargained for in a group separate from the other employees in the, plant; a representative number of these employees have never been included in the unit covering the other production and mainte- nitnce"employees in the plant.' They have not had an opportunity to demonstrate in a Board election whether or not they desired separate representation or representation as part of a larger group -s Accordingly, we shall direct an election among all polishers, buffers, platers, and helpers of the Employer employed in its Departments 66 and 18, excluding foremen and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action. We shall make no determination of the appropriate unit at this time. Such determination will depend, in part, upon the results of the election: If The employees in -the voting group select the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit; if they choose the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to remain part of the existing production and maintenance unit. DIRECTION OF, ELECTION 9 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with ' Swartzbaugh Mfg. Co., Toledo, See Matte,, of Remington Rand; Inc, Pi opener Division, 62 N L R. B 1419 ; and Matter of-The•American"Fork & Hoe Company, 72 N L R B 1025 See Matter of Ptittsburgh Stopjier Company, 71 N L. R. B 1416; Matter of St. Johns River Skipbuildmq Company, 59 N L R B 415 8 See Matter of The Ameican Fork & Hoe Company, supra. 9 Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot. 8 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Eighth 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 voting group 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 teiilporarily 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 represented by Metal; Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union Local No. ,2 (AFL), or by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (CIO), for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. I 0