Metco Plating Co.

METCO PLATING COMPANY 615 METCO PLATING COMPANY and METAL POLISHERS , BUFFERS, PLATERS, AND HELPERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LoCAL No. 1 , AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-2424. October 27,1954 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds that: 1. Metco Plating Company, hereinafter referred to as Metco, con- tends that the Board lacks jurisdiction over it because its operations do not affect interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. Metco performs finishing operations, including deburring, buffing, and plating upon miscellaneous parts 1 for Ajax Manufacturing Com- pany, hereinafter referred to as Ajax. Metco and Ajax are located in Detroit, Michigan, in adjacent buildings. During the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1952, Metco purchased materials and supplies in the amount of $112,000, of which less than $300 worth was shipped to Metco directly from out of State. During the same period Metco rendered services to Ajax valued at approximately $200,000. Metco engaged in no other work 2 Ajax in turn sells all its products, includ- ing some on which Metco performs no services, directly to Chrysler Corporation. During approximately the same period of time Ajax's sales to Chrysler amounted to $1,200,000. All these products were shipped to Chrysler plants in the State of Michigan, except for about $4,000 worth, which were shipped to Chrysler in Canada. Metco and Ajax are separately incorporated, and there is no com- mon ownership of their stock nor is there any family relationship between their owners. The president of Metco is also a director of Ajax 3 Milton Pitts is the vice president and general manager of Ajax and is also the assistant general manager of Metco. He is in charge of overall labor and personnel policies for both corporations, and performs active managerial duties for both corporations, includ- ing determination of hours of work and overtime and the hiring and discharging of 'employees. In his capacity as general manager of Ajax, he determines how much work Metco will receive from Ajax. He would represent both corporations in any negotiations with a labor 'These parts consist of hood ornaments, name plates, ashtrays, and similar accessories for automobiles manufactured by the Chrysler Coiporation 2 There was testimony at the hearing that Metco is seeking other business so as to become less dependent upon Ajax However, at the time of the hearing, its services were still being performed exclusively for Ajax. 8 The only witness who testified as to the structure and relationship of the two corpora- tions , Milton Pitts, stated that he believed that the president of Metco was also the sec- retary-treasurer of Ajax, but that he was certain that he was at least a director of Ajax 110 NLRB No. 89. 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD organization. At the time of the hearing, he received all of his salary from Ajax and no compensation from Metco; the record does not indi- cate whether Metco compensates Ajax in any way for his services. Each corporation keeps separate books, but office employees of Ajax currently perform all clerical work for Metco, including preparation of'.payrolls. Ajax employees also perform maintenance and janitorial work for Metco. Both corporations employ the same auditor. Em- ployees of both corporations punch a common time clock, but have differently colored time cards. Each corporation leases its space sepa- rately; however, the two rooms used for most of Metco's operations are separated by a third room which Metco leases but Ajax uses. A conveyor belt used by Metco passes through this room. In addition, Metco's chemist works in a location leased by Ajax, and on occasion Ajax stores property in parts of the space leased by Metco. A wall between the Ajax and Metco buildings has been broken through for access between the buildings. The record does not indicate whether Metco compensates Ajax for its clerical and maintenance services or whether any compensation is made by either corporation to the other for use of space. The method used in determining Metco's compensa- tion by Ajax for its services is not revealed in the record. -Metco receives, on skid boxes or in large tubs, fabricated parts from Ajax for finishing. Metco's employees take them directly from the containers and deburr and buff them. The parts then are placed on racks which move to an automatic plating machine. After they have been plated, the parts are removed from the racks, inspected, and placed on a conveyer belt leading directly into one of Ajax's rooms where they are again inspected and either wrapped or sent on for further processing by Ajax employees. On rare occasions girls em- ployed by Metco as rackers are sent into the Ajax packing room to pack finished parts for Ajax. No compensation is made by Ajax to Metco for their services. Upon the above facts, including particularly the interrelated char- acter of the operations of both Metco and Ajax, the common con^r•'ol of their labor relations, and the extent to which they have common management, we conclude that, notwithstanding their separate owner- ship, Metco and Ajax are operated as a single integrated business enterprise. We therefore find that they constitute a single employer for purposes of asserting jurisdiction.4 Accordingly, as Ajax fur- nishes goods to Chrysler Corporation in excess of $1,000,000 in value, we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris- diction here.5 ' See F Hilgeme¢er d Bro, Inc, 108 NLRB 352; Marvel Roofing Products, Incorporated, et at., 108 NLRB 292 ; Rushville Metal Products, Inc, 107 NLRB 1146. 6 The Board has heretofore found that Chrysler Corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and ships far in excess of $50,000 worth of its finished prod acts -directly into interstateicommerce. B. g., Chrys{er Corporation, 69 NLRB 1424. METCO PLATING COMPANY 617 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer employs approximately 12 buffers, 2 polishers, 4 burrmen, 1 stockboy, 1 tankman, 1 buffing foreman, 1 plating foreman, 1 chemist, and 6 rackers and inspectors. The Petitioner seeks to repre- sent all except the foremen, chemist, and rackers and inspectors as a separate craft unit. The Employer contends that the employes sought by the Petitioner are not a craft group and that the only appropriate unit is a plantwide unit. There is no bargaining history for any of the Employer's employees. The burrmen remove burrs from zinc die castings received from Ajax. The polishers also deburr parts a major portion of their time and,, in addition, use polishing wheels to reach concave surfaces which the burrmen cannot reach with deburring belts. After parts are de- burred and polished, they move to the buffers who buff them in prepa- ration for plating. They use buffing wheels and automatic buffing machines in this operation. Buffed parts are placed on a conveyor belt which carries them to the rackers and inspectors, who are located in the same room as the buffers, polishers, and deburrers. The rackers and inspectors, all of whom are women, remove the parts from the con- veyer belt, inspect them, and place them on plating racks if they are to be plated directly or in boxes for storage until they can be plated at a later time. The stockboy does heavy lifting for the rackers and inspectors and elsewhere around the shop. On occasion he deburrs parts. The racks containing parts to be plated are placed on a conveyer belt which carries them to a separate room where the tankman removes,' them and places them on an automatic plating machine. The machine then carries the racks through the various plating solutions automati- cally. After the parts have been plated the inspectors inspect them and place them on a conveyer belt which returns them to Ajax. The buffers are required to buff zinc die castings only, and handle no other metals. They perform essentially the same repetitive operation on all parts and work on a production line on a piece-rate basis. None of them is required to do any plating or to exercise any of the other skills normally associated with the polishing and buffing craft. Although the Employer hires only buffers who have had previous buffing experience, there is no apprenticeship program in the plant, nor does it appear that the Employer requires that employees it lures as buffers be journeymen. We conclude that the buffer employees are not employed as craftsmen but at most perform highly specialized 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD production works The polishers' duties require even less experience and skill than the buffers; the burrmen, tankman, and stockboy are required to have no experience and perform tasks requiring little or no skill or training. Accordingly, as employees in the proposed unit "are not employed as craftsmen, we find that they do not constitute an appropriate unit on a craft basis. Nor does this group constitute an appropriate unit on any other basis. Thus, the proposed unit neither conforms to lines of super- vision nor is it confined to employees in a separate area in the plant. For example, while the burrmen, polishers, buffers, and stockboy are all supervised by the buffing foreman, the tankman, whom the Peti- tioner would also include in its unit, is under the same supervision as the rackers and inspectors whom it would exclude. In addition, the tankman works in a separate location from the other employees in the proposed unit, whereas the rackers and inspectors work in the same room with them, emptying parts from conveyer belts leading directly from the buffers and inspecting such parts. Accordingly, Ave find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate. It is clear, however, that the plantwide unit of Metco employees, re-• quested in the alternative, is appropriate, as such a unit is coextensive with Metco's operations and comprises all employees- engaged in the polishing, buffing, and plating operations. As the Petitioner has a sufficient showing of interest therein, we will direct that an election be held in the plantwide unit. There remains for consideration the status of the plating foreman as a supervisor. The Petitioner contends, contrary to the Employer, that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The plating foreman's principal duty consists of operating the automatic plating machine and making necessary adjustments to it. In addition he tells the rackers and inspectors which parts to place on the plating racks and tells the tankman which racks to place on the machine. These in- structions are derived from a production schedule established by the assistant general manager. He has no authority to hire, discharge, or discipline employees independently, and while he may make recom- mendations as to discharge and discipline of the rackers and inspec- tors and the tankman, all of his recommendations are independently investigated by the assistant general manager before any action is taken. Of the employees he instructs, only the tankman works in the same area as he does; the rackers and inspectors work in a separate area and it is not possible for him to observe them in the performance of their duties. We find that the plating foreman does not responsibly direct the work of any other employees and does not exercise any other e Magio Chef, Inc., Federal Foundry Dvaasson, 108 NLRB 392; Kwikget Locks, Inc., 107, 247. SCHWABACHER HARDWARE COMPANY 619, supervisory duties within the meaning of the Act.7 Accordingly, we find that he is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and will include him in the unit. We find that the following unit of employees of Metco Plating Com- pany, at its Detroit, Michigan, plant, is appropriate for,purposes of collective-bargainng-withinthe meaning of Section 9 (b) ' of the Act : All employees including buffers, polishers, burrmen, stockboy, tank- man, rackers and inspectors, and the plating foreman, but excluding the buffing foreman, the chemist," guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBERS PETERSON and BEESON took no part in the consideration of, the above Decision and Direction of Election. 7 Cone Mills Corporation (Tabardrey Plant ), 107 NLRB 866 . The Employer's assistant general manager testified that the plating foreman received his classification at a time, when the Employer had no automatic plating machine and employed a plating crew which the plating foreman supervised. He added that since the Employer acquired the • ;avtema.tic plating °machine, the entire plating crew, except the tankman, has been dis- charged and the plating foreman's duties have been changed, but his classification has remained the same. 8 Both the Employer and the Petitioner agree that the buffing foreman is a supervisor ; and that the chemist is a professional employee. They are accordingly excluded from the unit. SCHWABACHER HARDWARE COMPANY and O'ICE EMPLOYEES INTERNA-, TIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 8, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 19-RC-' 1475. October , 7,1954 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on June 14, 1954,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 30, 1954, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Upon conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of the 26 bal- lots cast in the election, 8 were for the Petitioner, 16 were against the Petitioner, and 2 were void. On July 8, 1954, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct allegedly affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the objections and, on August 6, 1954, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections. In this report, the Regional Director found that the Petitioner's objections did not raise substantial or i Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 110 NLRB No. 82.