The Steel Products Engineering Co.

In the Matter of THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OP MACHINISTS, PETITIONER Case No. 9-RC-6.-Decided February 24, 1948 Mr. Stewart L. Tatum, of Springfield, Ohio, for the Employer. Mr. Van B. Carter, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Petitioner. Halloran & Rosenthal, of Springfield, Ohio, for the Intervenor. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Spring- field, Ohio, on November 13, 1947, before Martin Sacks, hearing officer. At the hearing, the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition mainly upon the alleged.ground that the Petitioner is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. For reasons hereinafter discussed, the motion is denied. 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 1 makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Steel Products Engineering Company, an Ohio corporation, is engaged at Springfield, Ohio, in the manufacture of special machinery. During the last calendar year, the Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $750,000, of which approximately 50 percent was shipped to it from points outside the State of Ohio. During the same period, the Employer produced machinery valued in excess of 52,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Ohio. 'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -mnan panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. 76NLRB,No46 318 THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 319 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, claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer .2 Association of Steel Products Engineering Company Employees, Inc., herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization, claiming to represent employees of the Employer .3 III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On October 2, 1947, the Petitioner requested recognition from the Employer as bargaining representative of certain of its employees. The Employer refused to recognize the Petitioner until certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. The Intervenor contends that its oral collective bargaining agree- ment with the Employer entered into in May 1947, covering the em- ployees sought by the Petitioner,- bars the instant proceeding. The record reveals that during the month of May 1947, the Intervenor Ne- gotiated a contract with the Employer, purporting to renew a previous collective bargaining agreement. So far as appears, the terms of this last agreement, alleged by the Intervenor, were never reduced to writing. Where, as here, a contract has not been reduced to writing and signed by the parties thereto, it cannot operate as a bar to a cur- rent determination of representatives.' 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. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em- ployees at the Employer's Springfield, Ohio, plant, including ship- ping department employees, inside truckers, truck drivers, inspectors, set-up 1nen, leadmen, group leaders, stoker service men, but excluding 2 At the hearing, the Intervenor contended that the Petitioner is not a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of the Act We do not agree . The Board has found , on numerous occasions , that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act See Matter of Copolymer Corporation , 74 N L. R B 145, Matter of Continental Can Company, Inc, 73 N. L. R B. 243. 3 Contrary to Petitioner's contentions we find that the Intervenor has complied with Section 9 ( f), (g), and ( h) of the Act The Petitioners motion to dismiss upon this ground is hereby denied 4 Matter of Herman Lancaster, Inc, 75 N. L R B 377 , Matter of Gtiustina Brothers Lumber Company , 68 N. L. It . B 451 ; Matter of Sticfel Construction Corporation, 64 N L It. B 565 320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD watchmen, timekeepers, time-study employees, dispatchers, factory clericals, tracers, detailers, engineering and drafting employees, the nurse, one experimental employee, and all supervisors. The sole dis- pute concerns the inclusion of office janitors, whom the Intervenor would include in, and the Petitioner would exclude from the unit; the Employer takes no position with respect thereto. The Employer has two office janitors, whose functions are no differ- ,ent from those of the other janitors in the plant. These employees, whether working in the office or in the plant, are under the plant super- vision of the superintendent, and partake of the same benefits, such as vacation privileges and pay rates, as do all employees in the plant. Since the interests of the office janitors are the same as those of the -other janitors in the plant, we shall, in accordance with our usual prac- tice, include them in the unit hereinafter found appropriate .5 We find, in substantial accordance with the agreement of the parties, that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Springfield, Ohio, plant, including office janitors, shipping department employees, inside truckers, truck drivers, inspectors; set-up men, lead- men e group leaders,' stoker service men, but excluding watchmen, timekeepers, time-study employees, dispatchers, factory clericals, de- tailers, engineering and drafting employees, the nurse, the one experi- mental employee who is not engaged in production work, assistant fore- men, foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute 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 pur- poses of collective bargaining with Steel Products Engii,eering Com- pany, Springfield, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date ofthis 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 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 See Matter of K-D Lamp Division, Noma Electric Corporation of Maryland, 71 N L R B 708 "The record shows that these employees are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act T The record shows that these employees are not supervisors within the meaning of the .%(.t THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 321 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 rein- stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be represented by International Association of Machin- ists, or by the Association of Steel Products Engineering Company Employees, Inc., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. 0