Hartzell Industries Inc.

In the Matter Of HARTZELL INDUSTRIES INC. and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO) Case No. 8-R-1988.-Decided January 5, 1946 Mr. R. I. Blayney, of Piqua, Ohio, for the Company. Mr. John Thomas , of Sidney, Ohio, and Miss Bebe Ober, of Piqua, Ohio, for the Union. Miss Frances Lopinsky, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (CIO), herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Hartzell Industries Inc., Piqua, Ohio, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before George F. Hayes, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Piqua, Ohio, on October 2, 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 issues. 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 Hartzell Industries Inc. is a Delaware corporation engaged in the business of processing timber and lumber, and manufacturing veneers, wooden and metal propellers and fans at its four plants in Piqua, Ohio. During the past 6 months the Company purchased raw materials in excess of $10,000 from outside the State of Ohio. The value of finished products shipped outside the State of Ohio during the past 6 months has exceeded $50,000. 65 N. L. R. B, No. 35. 179 180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, affili- ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organi- zation admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to recognize the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of its employees until the Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. A statement of a Field Examiner for the Board, introduced into evi- dence at the hearing indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.' We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the' Company within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The parties are agreed and we find that all production and main- tenance employees of the Company's four Piqua plants, including watchmen, but excluding all engineers, firemen, oilers, time clerks, draftsmen, professional employees, and supervisors with the authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action,' con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by means of an election by secret ballot among the employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the 1 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 75 authorization cards bearing names of employees listed on the Company 's pay roll for the week ending September 16, 1945, 52 of which were dated in August 1945, 4 of which were dated in July 1945, and 19 of which were undated. There are approximately 147 persons in the appropriate unit. We find no merit in the Company 's contention that the Trial Examiner erred in admitting the Field Examiner's report into evidence without allowing the Company an opportunity to cross-examine the Field Examiner on his report . See Matter of George L . Mesker & Com- pany, 51 N . L R. B. 528. ' Assistant foremen employed by the Company have authority to make effective recom- mendations, and, therefore , fall within the supervisory exclusion. HARTZELL INDUSTRIES INC. 1, 181 pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein , subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Rules and Regulations-Series 'a, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Hartzell Indus- tries, Inc., Piqua, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible , but not later than sixty ( 60) 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 Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations , among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed dur- ing the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direc- tion, including employees who did not work during such 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 any 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 or not they desire to be represented by United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Indus- trial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.