The Beach Co.

In the Matter of THE BE ACII COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERN TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER Case No. 8-R-2304.-Decided February 11, 19417 Mr. J. W. Beach, of Coshocton, Ohio, for the Employer. Mr. H. F. Tausch, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Mr. R. D. Rust, of Mans- field, Ohio, for the Petitioner. Messrs. Robert Carton and Russell P. Grace, of Coshocton, Ohio, for the Intervenor. Mr. Ralph Winkler, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Coshoc- ton, Ohio, on September 17, 1946, before Thomas E. Shroyer, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing the Intervenor filed a motion to dismiss the petition which the hearing officer referred to the Board. The motion is hereby denied in accord- ance with our decision herein. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following: FINDINGS dF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Beach Company is an Ohio corporation engaged in the manu- facture of metal signs and displays. It annually purchases raw mate- rials valued in excess of $150,000, of which approximately 80 percent is obtained outside the State of Ohio; it ships out of the State approxi- mately 80 percent of its yearly production of finished products valued at approximately $300,000. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act. IL THE ORf,ANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is an unaffiliated labor organization claiming to rep- resent employees of the Employer. 72NLHB,No94 510 THE BEACH COMPANY 511 International Union of Operating Engineers, herein called the In- tervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa- tion of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. TILE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer for the rea- son that the employees sought to be represented are covered by a col- lective bargaining agreement executed on July 17, 1946, and which is presently in effect between the Employer and the Intervenor. This contract provides, inter alia, as follows : . . . this Agreement shall be from year to year following the date of this Agreement and may be reopened any time during the life of the Agreement on sixty (60) days' notice by notification of either signatory to this Agreement to the other. Inasmuch as the contract is terminable at any time upon 60- days' notice, we find that it does not constitute a bar to the present proceed- ing.i Accordingly, 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 restricted to all non-supervisory em- ployees in the Employer's toolroom and including a welder working outside the toolroomn. The afore-mentioned contract has plant-wide coverage 2 and the Employer and the Intervenor contend that such a plant-wide unit is appropriate. The toolroom personnel consists of skilled and apprentice die me- chanics j and a foreman whose authority is limited to the toolroom. Apart from the present contract which was executed on July 17, 1946, there is no established history of plant-wide bargaining in the Em- I Matter of Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Company, 65 N L R Ii 1416, Matter of Jobn Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, 62 N L R B 240, 243; Matter of Fisher Lumber Co , 62 N. L R B 543 , Matter of Summerill Tubing Company, 60 N L R B- 896 , Matter of Ionia Desk Company, 59 N L R B 1522 The Intervenor alleged that the Employees here involved have accepted benefits under the Intervenoi's contract and that the petition should be dismissed for this reason Inns- much as the contract is no bar to this proceeding we find no merit in this contention t The unit covered by the contract includes "all production workers and mechanics of any nature, shipping room employees and excludes supervisors, office employees, plant clerical employees, foremen and watchmen, engneeis and firemen " ' The Inter tenor alleged, as an additional ground for dismissing the petition, that the apprentices in the toolroom aie w orking under the Veterans' Training Program So far as the record shows, apart from any subsidy paid these veterans by the Government, thes" employees are employed under the same working conditions as the other employees herein Moreover, the Intervenor itself has purported to represent these employees under its con- tract with the Employer We therefore find no merit in the Intervenor''s contention See Matter of Atlantic Towing Company, 71 N L R. B 640. 731242-47-col 72 34 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployer's plant. The die mechanics and apprentices of the toolroom constitute a skilled craft group as to whom, in the absence of a bar- gaining history to the contrary, the Board has customarily permitted the establishment of a separate bargaining unit.' There has been no prior Board determination of the appropriate unit in this plant and the bargaining history adverted to by the Employer and the Inter- venor in opposing the establishment of such a unit is too recent to be considered a factor militating against the creation of a craft unit. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that a unit of die mechanics and their apprentices is appropriate. The welder whom the Petitioner also seeks to represent works out- side the toolroom and under separate supervision. We believe that his interests lie more closely with the other employees covered by the Employer's contract than with the toolroom employees. We shall exclude him. We find that all skilled and apprentice die mechanics of the Em- ployer's toolroom, excluding the welder, the foreman in charge, 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 ap- propriate 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 pur- poses of collective bargaining with The Beach Company, Coshocton, 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 unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed duping 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 represented by International As- sociation of Machinists, or by International Union of Operating Engi- neers (AFL), for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. 4 Matter of Ranco, Incorporated, 61 N L . R B 1174 , Matter of The Bastian-Blessing Company, 65 N L R B. 1023