Chain Belt Co.

In the Matter Of CHAIN BELT COMPANY and STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZ- ING COMMITTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION. OF IRON, STEEL & TIN WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA, LODGE #1527. Case No. R-1541.Decided November 2, 1939 Chain and Machinery Manufacturing Industrzy-Investigation of Representa- tives: controversy concerning representation of employees : refusal of employer to?reL16gnizeipetltiening 'union as the exclusive representative of,its .employees- Unit Appropriate for Collectin;e Bargaining: production and maintenance em- ployees in Milwaukee County plants, excluding supervisory and clerical employees ; single unit comprising five plants in single county located within area of 2'12 miles, substantial functional interrelation , common management, previous collective agreement with union on inter-plant basis , organization of union, desires of union uncontested by any other labor organization or employee representative-Representatives: testimony that union has majority, no desire for certification without election-Election Ordered Mr. Frederick P. Mett and Mr. Morris L. Forer, for the Board. Wood, Warner & Tyrrel, by Mr. Edgar W. Wood, of Milwaukee; Wis., and Lines, Spooner ce Quarles, by Mr. Leo Mann, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the Company. Mr. W. O. Sonnemanun, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the Union. Mr. Albert J. Hoban, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On June 28, 1939, Steel Workers Organizing Committee, on behalf of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Lodge #1527, herein called the Union, filed with the Re- gional Director for the Twelfth Region (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con- cerning the representation of employees of Chain Belt Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations. Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On August 25, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules 17 N. L. R. B., No. 8. 155 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and Regulations-Series 2, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On September 5, 1939, the Regional Di- rector issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were, duly. served upon the Company and the Union. Pursuant to an amended notice duly served upon the parties, a hearing was held on September 18 and 19, 1939, at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, before P. H. McNally, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, and the Union were represented by counsel and partici- pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was' afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner Inade several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and-finds that no prejudicial errors were cons mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On October 9, 1939, the Company filed a brief with the Board. Pursuant to notice duly served upon the parties, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on October 11, 1939. The Company was -represented by counsel and participated in the oral argument. The Union did -not appear but on October 12, 1939, filed a brief with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Chain Belt Company is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal office at Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It is engaged in the manufacture of chains, sprocket wheels, conveying equipment, concrete mixers, moto mixers, road pavers, contractors' pumps, grey-iron castings, and malleable iron castings. The principal plants of the Company are located in Milwaukee and in the village of West Milwaukee; in the county of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It also maintains a plant at Chi- cago, Illinois, which is not involved in this proceeding. In 1938 the value of the raw materials used by the Company at its Milwaukee County plants, consisting chiefly of pig iron, scrap, steel, steel tubing, rivets, bolts, steel castings, and steel forgings, amounted to $700,000. Eighty per cent of these raw materials were shipped to the Milwaukee County plants from points outside Wisconsin. Dur- ing the same year, the Company manufactured products to the value of $5,700,000 at these plants, 87 per cent of which was shipped to purchasers outside Wisconsin. On August 25, 1939. the Company had 1,174 persons in its' employ in the Milwaukee County plants. CHAIN BELT COMPANY II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 157 Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Lodge #1527, is a labor organization affiliated, with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership production and maintenance employees of the Company, excluding supervisory and clerical employees. III. THE QUESTION -CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On August 7, 1937, the Union and the Company entered into a written agreement in which the Company recognized the Union as the representative of its members. The agreement contained pro- visions pertaining to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. In December 1937, the Union, acting in accordance with a'clause in the agreement, served notice of termination on the Company. Shortly thereafter, 'represeritatives of both parties met -for,..the.;:purpose of negotiating a new agreement. The Union de- manded exclusive recognition as the representative of the Company's production and maintenance employees. The negotiations were sus- pended after approximately 8 weeks. In May 1939, the Union renewed its demands, but the Company refused to recognize it as the exclusive representative of all produc- tion and maintenance employees at its Milwaukee County plants until the Union had legally established that it represented a majority. We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to` trade,'traffic, and commerce among the :several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Union and the Company agree, and we find, that the unit or units which we designate in this proceeding should consist of all production and maintenance employees at the Milwaukee County plants of the Company, exclusive of supervisory and clerical employees. 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Union urges a single unit to comprise the five Milwaukee County plants, while the Company would have us segregate the plants into four units. Plant No. 1, located in the city of Milwaukee, consists of the chain division in which chains are manfactured and assembled, and the grey-iron foundry, in which the Company produces grey-iron cast- ings. Plants Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 are located in the village of West Milwaukee, about 21/2 miles from plant No. 1. Plant No. 2 produces malleable iron and Z-steel castings; plant No. 3, concrete-mixing machines; and plant No. 4, conveying equipment. Plant No. 5 is a general machine shop. The Company groups these five plants into three divisions : the chain division, the machinery division,,compris- ing plants Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and'the foundry division. Upon the basis of this classification, the Company argues that the chain division, the machinery division, and the foundry division should be established as separate units. The Company further con- tends that the foundry division should be divided into two separate units " consisting of the grey-iron foundry and the malleable-iron foundry. Although the two foundries do not exchange materials or skilled men with each other, there is a substantial degree of integration among the Milwaukee County plants. Plant No. 5 operates as a general machine shop for each of the other plants. Almost 50 per cent of the output of the foundry division goes to the chain and machinery divisions for further fabrication. " Some of the material "produced by the chain division is shipped to the machinery division for, its use in manufacturing concrete mixers and conveying equipment.. The Company maintains a single personnel office and John T. Brown, the vice president and works manager, handles all labor relations for the five Milwaukee County plants. Although the record indicates that some labor organizations had certain dealings with the Company on behalf of different groups of employees, the Milwaukee County plants have no definite bargaining history. prior to August 7, 1937. On that date the Company entered into an agreement. with the Union. This contract recognized the Union for its members only, but it applied to all Milwaukee County plants and, in addition to grievance machinery for each plant, it set up a General Grievance Committee with authority over all the Mil- waukee County plants. The Union terminated this agreement in December 1937 in order to secure exclusive recognition. The Union desires a single unit. Employees of all five plants are eligible for membership in the Union which is a single lodge of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers. No labor. CHAIN BELT COMPANY 159 organization or other employee representative has appeared to con- . test the appropriateness of an inter-plant unit. Because of the physical proximity of the plants, their substantial degree of functional interrelation, the common ultimate management, the collective agreement with the Union on an inter-plant basis, the organization of the Union, and its desires uncontested by any labor .organization or other employee representative, we shall include all five Milwaukee County plants in a single unit. Accordingly, we find that all the production and maintenance employees of the Company at its Milwaukee County plants, excluding supervisory and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of . collective bargaining and that such unit will insure to the employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and will otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Union asserts, by testimony of its president and of its at- torney, that it has a majority of the employees comprising each plant's portion of the appropriate unit. The Union did not produce other evidence of majority designation. In view 'of'the statement by the Union that it did not seek certification without an election, the Company introduced no evidence on this issue. Under the' cir- cumstances we find that the question concerning representation can best be resolved by means of an election by secret ballot. During the hearing, the Company and the Union entered into a stipulation in which they agreed that September 11, 1939, the pay- roll date nearest the hearing, should be used in' determining the eligibility of employees to vote in the election. We see no reason for departing from the desires of the parties in this respect. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Chain Belt Company, Milwaukee, Wis- consin, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. All the production and maintenance employees of the Company at its Milwaukee County plants, excluding supervisory and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Re- lations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, it is hereby . - DIREcTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective, bargaining with Chain Belt Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 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 of Election, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di'rector' for the Twelfth, Region, acting in this matter as agent for. the National Labor Relations Board and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all production and maintenance em- ployees at the Milwaukee County plants of the Company whose names appear on the September 11, 1939, pay roll of the Company, including employees whose names did not appear -on said pay roll because they were ill or on vacation and employees who were then or who have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding super- visory and clerical employees and any employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they. desire to be represented by Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Lodge #1527, foi the>purposes of collective bargaining. MR. WILLIAM M. LEisERSON, . concurring : I agree with the result reached in this case. But I do not think that the integration of the employer's production processes and the unified personnel office for the.five plants should be made the basis for determining the bargaining unit. Employers who regularly make collective bargaining contracts with different organizations representing a number of separate bargaining units also have inte- grated production and management but the employees' method of self-organization for collective bargaining must be the primary factor in determining the bargaining unit. Since there is only one organization of employees contending for the right to act as exclusive representative in the present case, and this includes production and maintenance employees from all five plants organized to bargain as a single unit, in the absence of any contract or established custom or practice to the contrary, this em- ployees' unit must be held appropriate.