The Crosley Corp.

In the Matter of THE CROSLE- CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL Case No. 11-R-837.-Decided December ^?9, 1945 Messrs. J. W. Craig and C. M. Ricker, both of Richmond, Ind., for the Company. Mr. James E. Reilly, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. H. B. Blanken- ship, of Akron, Ohio, for the Union. Mr. A. Summer Lawrence, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, AFL, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- ployees of The Cros}ey Corporation, Richmond, Indiana, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Clifford L. Hardy, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Richmond, Indiana, on August 6, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the is- sues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Crosley Corporation, an Ohio corporation, operates a plant at Richmond, Indiana, where it is engaged in the manufacture of elec- trical war material. During the past 12 months, the Company pur- chased for use at its Richmond plant raw materials valued in excess 65 N. L. R. B., No. 4. 18 THE CROSLEY CORPORATION 19 of $500,000, of which more than 75 percent was obtained from points outside the State of Indiana. During the same period, the Company manufactured at its Richmond plant'finished products valued in excess of $500,000, of which more than 75 percent was shipped to points out- side the State of Indiana. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT The Union seeks to represent the Company's group leaders at its Richmond plant and requests that, if the Board grants an election and the Union wins, the Board include group leaders in the existing unit of the Company's production and maintenance employees for whom the Union is the certified bargaining representative. The Com- pany, although not specifically contesting the appropriateness of the unit claimed by the Union, suggests that the group leaders in question perform substantial supervisory duties as bearing upon the property of their requested inclusion within the production and maintenance unit. The status of the Company's group leaders at its Richmond plant was considered by the Board in a previous decision wherein the Board found that group leaders were supervisory employees and directed that they be excluded from the production and maintenance unit' We are of the opinion that the evidence adduced in the instant case is not persuasive that the status of group leaders has changed since our earlier decision or that we should now depart from our previous find- ing as to the status of such employees.2 Accordingly, we find that the group leaders involved herein are supervisory employees. Since the ultimate unit sought by the Union in this proceeding includes group leaders together with production and maintenance employees, we find that such unit is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition herein. Matter of The Ctosley Corporation, 56 N. L . R B. 1722 2 The evidence mainly relied upon by the Union as indicating a change in the status of group leaders from supervisory to non -supervisory employees, is a bulletin defining the authority of group leaders alleged to have been distributed by the Company to the group leaders at its Richmond plant since the date of the Board's previous decision . While the Company admits that this bulletin was distributed at its Cincinnati plant, the evidence does not establish that the bulletin was distributed generally to group leaders at the Company's Richmond plant. 20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Since, as found in Section III, above, the bargaining unit sought to be established by the petition is not appropriate, we find that no question has arisen concerning representation of - employees of the Company within the weaning 'of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certi- fication of representatives of employees of The Crosley Corporation, Richmond, Indiana, filed herein by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, be, and it hereby is, dismissed, l