St. Cloud Iron Works Co.

In the Matter of ST. CLOUD IRON WORKS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT 77, LOCAL 623, PETITIONER Case No. 18-R-1716.-Decided February 7, 1947 Quigley, Donohue and Quigley, by Messrs. Donohue and Leo M. Rosenberger, all of St. Cloud, Minn., for the Employer. Mr. James Ashe, of St. Paul, Minn., and Mr. Leonard G. Kernan, of St. Cloud, Minn., for the Petitioner. Mr. Benj. E. Cook, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at St. Cloud, Minnesota, on November 29, 1946, before Stephen M. Reynolds, 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 St. Cloud Iron Works Company, a Minnesota corporation, main- tains its office and place of business at St. Cloud, Minnesota, where it operates a job shop and foundry. During the calendar year 1945, the Employer's sales were valued at $130,000, 10 percent of which was shipped to points outside the State of Minnesota. The Employer did not question the Board's jurisdiction. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act. H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 72 N L R B, No. 84. 477 478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. TILE 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. TILE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner urges as appropriate a unit comprising employees of the Employer 's machine shop, excluding foundry employees, office and clerical employees , and all supervisory employees . The Em- ployer opposes the exclusion of the foundry employees , contending that a plant-wide unit, including both the foundry and the machine shop, should be established. The parties are also in dispute regarding the status of one employee who is classified as a truck driver. The record reveals that the Employer's machine shop, comprising seven employees , is located in a building separate and apart from the foundry and the remainder of the plant. Although the employees of the machine shop have the same wage scale as the foundry employees, punch the same time clock and are included in the same pay roll, the functions of the machine shop employees are completely different from those of the foundry workers ; each department has individual supervision ; each operates on different work shifts independent of the other ; and there is no interchange of employees. There is no his- tory of collective bargaining in the plant. Moreover, the Petitioner has limited its organizational activities to employees in the machine shop because employees in the foundry come within the jurisdiction of another labor organization. In view of the foregoing , we are of the opinion that the employees of the machine shop comprise a well-defined and functionally coherent group which may function as a separate bargaining unit Truelc driver: Some question arose at the hearing concerning the propriety of including in the unit an employee classified as a truck driver. Although employed as a truck driver, this employee devotes approximately 80 percent of his time to performing janitorial work in the machine shop. He is carried on the machine shop pay roll, and is under the direct supervision of the foreman of the machine shop. Ave are of the opinion that the duties performed by this employee suffi- ciently align his interests with those of the other machine shop em- ployees to warrant his inclusion in the unit. We shall include him. See Matter of Hershey Machine and Foundry Company, 69 N L R B 1308, Matter of Rolling Mill Division of the Miller Company , 57 N L R. B 1373. ST. CLOUD IRON WORKS COMPANY 479 We find that all machine shop employees of the Employer, includ- ing the truck driver, but excluding foundry employees, office and cleri- cal employes, and all supervisory employees with the authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes ]7l the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, consti- tute a unit appropriate 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 St. Cloud Iron Works Com- pany, St. Cloud, Minnesota, 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 Eighteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sec- tions 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appro- priate 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 em- ployees in the armed forces of the United States who present them- selves 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 Association of Machinists, District 77, Local 623, for the purposes of collective bargaining. 731242-47-vol. 72-32