Bucyrus-Erie Co.

In the Matter of BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY,, EMPLOYER and PATTERN MAKERS' LEAGUE OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 6-R-1687.-Decided March 2, 1948 Mr. Arthur R. Donovan, of Evansville, Ind., for the Employer. Mr. C. D. Madigan,,i of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Petitioner. Mr. Phillip M. Curran, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Mr. John Gravey, of Erie, Pa., for the Intervenor. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Erie, Pennsylvania, on August 7, 1947, before Henry Shore, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi- cial error and are hereby affiriiied.2 Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Bucyrus-Erie Company, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the production, sale, and distribution of power shovels, drag lines, cranes, tractor winches, trailers, and gun carriage mounts. This pro- ceeding is concerned only with the Employer's plant at Erie, Pennsyl- vania. During -the past year, the Employer purchased for use at its Erie plant raw materials valued in excess of $1,500,000 from sources outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the same period, the Employer manufactured at this plant $5,000,000 worth of products, 93 percent of which was sold and shipped to purchasers outside the Commonwealth. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. ' The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. % The Intervenor' s motion to dismiss is denied for reasons stated herein 76 N. L R B., No. 74. 781902--4&--vol . 76-32 483 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. The United Steelworkers of America, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or- ganizations, 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 DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Petitioner seeks a unit of all wood and metal pattern makers and apprentices at the Erie, Pennsylvania, plant of the Employer. The Intervenor contends that the appropriate unit is a plant-wide unit, including pattern makers, which it has represented since it was certi- fied by the Board in 1942. The Employer asserts a preference for the existing unit, although its formal position is neutral. In August 1942, the Board certified the Intervenor to represent a unit of production and maintenance employees, which included pattern makers.3 Thereafter, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into successive collective bargining contracts, the most recent one of which was executed in June 1947.4 During the 15-day escape period provided in the June 1946 contract, the pattern shop employees withdrew from the Intervenor and notified the Employer to cease checking off their dues.r, In December 1946, these employees joined the Petitioner, and in the following month the latter made its first request of the Employer for recognition on behalf of the pattern makers. Although the benefits derived from the Intervenor 's contracts with the Employer have been extended to the employees in the pattern shop, there is no evidence that the Intervenor handled, or refused to handle, grievances for them. The pattern makers perform the usual skilled work of their craft. They construct patterns which are used essen- tially for the production of castings at the Erie plant . They are S Matter of Bucyrus -Erie Company, 42 N L. R. B 1265 4 This contract is presently in effect ; it is not asserted as a bar. 5 The record indicates that there was a plant-wide strike from January to June 1946. BUCIRUS-ERIE COMPANY 485 separately located and are under the separate direction of a super- visory working foreman. Seniority is on a departmental basis. It appears that the pattern makers sought herein constitute a genuine craft group 6 and that the Board has in numerous instances established similar bargaining units of pattern makers in the industry generally. Therefore, we find that they may be bargained for separately, if they so elect.? However, we shall make no final unit determination at the present time but shall direct an election among all wood and metal pattern makers and apprentices at the Erie, Pennsylvania, plant of the Employer, excluding the pattern shop foreman,8 and all other supervisory employees. If the majority of these employees vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Bucyrus-Erie Company, Erie, Pennsylvania, 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 Sixth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among all wood and metal pattern makers and apprentices, excluding the pattern shop foreman, and all other supervisory employees, 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 tempo- rarily 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 employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Pattern Makers' League of North America, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining .9 CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. ° See Matter of Kaiser-Frazer Corporation, 73 N L 11. 11,109. 7 Cf. Matter of York Corporation, 74 N L R B 934 ; Matter of Combustion Engineering Company, 74 N. L. R. B. 556 ; Matter of The National Cash Register Company, 74 N L. R. B 1350. s Harry Breter Jr ° Having failed to comply with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act , as amended, the Intervenor will not be accorded a place on the ballot The Inter- venor's contentions contained in the document it filed with the Board entitled "Objections of Intervenor to Proposed Denial of Status as Party in Interest and Request for Oral Argument" are hereby rejected and request for oral argument is hereby denied for reasons stated in Matter of Rite-Form Corset Corn peep, 75 N. L. R B 174.