Columbus Bolt Works Co.

In the Matter of CoLu-^NIBus BOLT WORKS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER Case No. 9-R-2696.-Decided February 20,19 -118 Mr. 1V. Ray Speer, of Columbus, Ohio, for the Employer. Mr. Van B. Carter, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Petitioner. Harrison, Thomas, Spangenberg and Hull, by Mr. Ralph Rudd, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Mr. James Desmond, of Columbus, Ohio, for the Intervenor. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Columbus, Ohio, on July 17, 1947, before Richard C. Swander, hearing officer. At the hearing the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought by the Petitioner was inappropriate. For reasons discussed in Sectioi [V, infra, the motion is hereby denied. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi- cial 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 Columbus Bolt Works Company, an Ohio corporation , is engaged in the manufacture and sale of bolts, nuts , rods, and small drop forg- ings at its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. During the year 1946 the Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $1,000,000 , of which approximately 75 percent derived from sources outside the State of Ohio. During the same period the value of its finished products exceeded $4,500,000, of which approximately 75 per cent was shipped to points outside the State of Ohio. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 76 N.L R B No 42 305 306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD U. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization, claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer. Local 852, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, herein called the Inter- venor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 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 employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We- find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. - IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit of machine shop employees in depart- ment 95 of the Employer's plant, including planer operators, shipper operators, engine lathe operators, tool makers, internal grinders, sur- face grinders, die specialists (machine operators), tool grinders, ap- prentices, machinist-maintenance men, milling machine operators, tool inspectors, machine operators-bench hands, machine repair men; but excluding janitors, tool expediters, the tool delivery man, depart- mental clerks, and all supervisors. Without contesting the Petitioner's unit description insofar as the inclusions and exclusions are concerned, the Intervenor contends that the machine shop employees in depart- ment 95 have merged their interests with those of the production and maintenance employees over a period of years and should be included within the plant-wide unit of production and maintenance employees which it currently represents. The Employer favors the single large unit.' The record shows that the employees,sought by the Petitioner are highly skilled craft employees, working in a separate machine shop under the supervision of their own departmental supervisor and fore- men. When repairing or tearing down machinery in other locations in the plant, as they frequently do, they are accompanied and supervised by a foreman from department 95. The various skills in the depart- ment are apprenticable. The Employer has a regular contract plan 'At the hearing the Employer indicated that its preference was based on a desire to bargain with one union rather than two. COLUMBUS BOLT WORKS COMPANY 307 whereby learners or trainees undergo a 3- or 4-year period of appren- ticesllip before being classified as journeyman operators. Interchange between the machine shop employees and employees in other depart- ments is relatively rare, totaling approximately four during the past 7 years. The evidence further reveals that plant seniority rules in regard to hiring and discharge do not permit in older employee in another department to displace an employee in department 95 unless the former has had previous machine experience or can pass a test in the particular job classification. From the above it is apparent that the establishment of the employ- ees in department 95 as a separate unit is clearly feasible. We have only to consider, therefore, whether the history of collective bargain- ing, upon which the Intervenor relies in support of its unit contentions, should operate to deny these craft machine shop employees an oppor- tunity to indicate in a Board-conducted election whether or not they desire separate representation. The pertinent facts relating to the bargaining history in the Employer's plant are as follows: The Intervenor and its predecessor, American Bolt Workers of Columbus, an independent union, have represented the machinists on an industrial basis since 1941. In 1945 the Intervenor was certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of all production and main- tenance employees, including the machinists, but excluding the die sinkers in department 94, who are currently represented in a separate craft unit by the International Die Sinkers Confere'nce.2 It thus appears that as between the Intervenor and the Employer the bar- gaining history is of relatively short duration.3 In view of the fore- going facts, we are of the opinion that the bargaining history is not' sufficient, in and of itself, to deny these employees the privilege of formally expressing their desire for or against representation apart from the plant-wide unit.' Accordingly, we shall direct that an election by secret ballot be held among all employees in department 95 of the Employer's. Columbus, Ohio, plant, including planer operators, shipper operators, engine lathe operators, tool makers, internal grinders, surface grinders, die specialists (machine operators), tool grinders, apprentices, machin- ist-maintenance men, milling machine operators, tool inspectors, machine operators-bench hands, machine repair men; but excluding 2 The die sinkers are not involved in this proceeding . The parties agree that they should he excluded from any unit found appropriate by the Board 3 An existing contract between the Intervenor and the Employer, effective July 18, 1947, i^ not pleaded as a bar to the instant proceeding Article XXI thereof takes cognizance of the petition pending before the Board and stipulates that the contract does not apply to employees in department 95 unless it is determined that the Petitioner does not have the legal right to represent them See Matter of International Minerals cE Chemical Corporation, 71 h L it B. 878 7S1902-4S-vol 76-21 308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD janitors, tool expediters, the tool delivery man, departmental clerks, and all supervisors. However, the Board will not make any unit determination until it has first ascertained the desires of the employees involved. If the employees in the above voting group select the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit ; if they select the Intevenor they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain a part of the existing production and maintenance unit. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 5 xs part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Columbus Bolt Works Com- pany, Columbus, 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 Ninth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 5, among the employees in the voting group described 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, 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, and also excluding employ- ees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be represented by International Association of Machinists or by Local 852, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. 5 Ann 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.