Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co.

In the Matter of LIBBEY-OWENS-FORD GLASS COMPANY and FEDERA- TIoN OF GLASS, CERA_IIIC AND SILICA SAND WORKERS of AMERICA 1 In the Matter of LIBBEY-OWENS-FORD GLASS Co.2 and NATIONAL FLAT GLASS WORKERS OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Cases Nos . C-1771 and R-2164.-Decided April 03, 1941 Jurisdiction : glass manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices Collective Bargaining: charges of refusal to engage in, dismissed. Employer's refusal to include employees at one of its plants in the unit for which it recognized and dealt with the union held not to constitute a refusal to bargain collectively where the Board found such employees to constitute a separate unit appropriate for collective bargaining. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : par- ties stipulated that the Company refused to recognize either of rival unions at one of its plants ; election necessary. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance em- ployees at one, of the Company's plants, including watchmen, janitors, fire- men, power employees, truck drivers, and sub-foremen, but excluding window- glass cutters, supervisory employees, timekeepers, and clerical employees not directly connected with production. Practice and Procedure : complaint dismissed. Miss Hag y Telker, for the Board. Marshall, Melhorn, Davies, Wall cPc Bloch, by Mr. Leland L. Lord, of Toledo, Ohio, for the respondent. Holmes d Lewis, by Mr. H. B. Holmes and Mr. W. T. Lewis, of Columbus, Ohio, for the Federation. Mr. Joseph A. Padway, •by Mr. James A. Glenn, of Washington, D. C., and Hoff & Moore, by Mr. William Bruce Hoff, of Parkers- burg, W. Va., for the National. Mr. Louis Newman, of counsel to the Board. 1 Prior to August 1940, when it adopted its present name, the Federation was known as Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America This was the name under which its charge was filed and which accordingly was used in the complaint and amended complaint. At the close of the hearing herein, the Trial Examiner granted a motion by counsel for the Board to amend the complaint to conform to the proof as to the Federation's present name 2 The correct corporate name of the respondent is "Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company." 31 N L. R B., No. 38. 441843-42-vol 31-17 243 244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DECISION ORDER AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed by Federation of Glass, Ceramic and Silica Sand Workers of America, herein called the Federation, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued its complaint dated May 12; 1939, against Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, Toledo, Ohio, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging' in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and of notice of hearing thereon were duly served on the respondent, the Federation, and the National Flat Glass Workers Union of the American Federation of Labor, herein called the National. On May 23 and June 3, 1939, respectively, the National and the respondent filed their answers to the complaint, each requesting, inter alia, the postponement of further proceedings herein.3 On June 9, 1939, the Regional Director ordered the previously noticed hearing adjourned until further notice. On August 12, 1940, the National filed with the Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa- tion of the respondent's employees at its Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant and requesting an investigation and certification of representa- tives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On October 23, 1940, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. In its order of October 23, 1940, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 36 (b), and Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regulations, also directed consolidation 3 The respondent, in its answer, requested postponement of further proceedings herein pending decision by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on a petition filed by the respondent on March 16 , 1939 , requesting the Court to review and set aside the Board 's Decision and Certification of Representatives in' Matter of Lsbbey- Owens-Ford Glass Company and Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America, 10 N. L. R B 1470 A similar petition was filed with the same Court by the National on April 20, 1939. These petitions were dismissed by the Court on April 12 , 1940„and March 11, 1940, respectively. , LIBBY-OWENS-FORD GLASS COMPANY 245 of the representation proceeding and the unfair labor practice proceeding. Thereafter, the Board, by its Regional Director, issued its amended complaint dated November 4, 1940, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the amended complaint and of notices of hearing in the consolidated proceedings were duly served on the respondent, the Federation, and the National. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint alleged in substance that, on February 21, 1939, and at all times there- after, the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Federa- tion as the exclusive representative of the respondent's employees in an appropriate unit, although the Federation was, on and after Janu- ary 30, 1939, the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees in such unit and had been,certified by the Board on January 30, 1939, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit.' Thereafter, the respondent filed its answer to the amended com- plaint, verified December 2, 1940, admitting its refusal to bargain with the Federation, but denying that it had engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of the Act. The answer alleged, in part, that since the hearing in the prior representation proceeding on September 22 and 23, 1938, "... there have been material and substantial changes in the facts with regard to the selection of representatives by respond- ent's employees and in other respects. By reason thereof the order, decision and certification of January 30, 1939, is no longer applicable and is directly contrary to the conclusions of law which would neces- sarily follow from the facts as they now exist." The answer further alleged that the unit fixed by the Board in its Decision and Certifica- tion of Representatives of January 30, 1939, was not at the time, and is not now, an appropriate unit, and that the Board should now make "... new findings of fact and conclusions of law . . . that the appro- priate unit ... is the plant unit." Pursuant to notice, a hearing in the consolidated proceedings was held at Columbus, Ohio, on November 25, 1940, before Howard Myers, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The respondent, the Federation, and the National were represented by counsel, and all participated 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 4 Matter of Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company and Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America, 10 N. L ,R. B 1470 This Decision and Certification of Representatives and the record upon which it was based have by stipulation been made a part of the record in the present proceeding. 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR - RELATIONS BOARD- course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner denied a motion by the respondent to dismiss the complaint for lack of evidence that the appropriate unit should include all the plants of the respondent. The Trial Examiner reserved decision on another motion to dismiss the complaint made by the respondent at the close of the hearing, but subsequently denied the motion in his Intermediate Report. For rea- sons hereinafter stated, these rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby reversed and the motions are granted. Other rulings on motions and on the admissibility of evidence were also made by the Trial Examiner during the course of the hearing. The Board has reviewed these rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. These rulings are hereby affirmed. Briefs were filed with the Trial Examiner by the Federation on December 7, 1940, and by the National on December 7 and December 11, 1940. Thereafter, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re- port dated December 30, 1940, copies of which were duly served on the respondent, the Federation and the National. In his 'Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner found that the respondent had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. On January 24,.- 19411 the respondent filed with the Board its exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of the exceptions were filed with the Board by the National on January 25, 1941, and February 7, 1941, respectively. Pursuant to notice duly served on all the parties, a hearing was 'held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on February 11, 1941, for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent, the Federation, and the National were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. The Board has considered the exceptions and the briefs submitted by the parties, and hereby sustains the exceptions in so far as they relate 'to the Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 5 The respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu- tion of many types of flat glass. It has plants at Shreveport, Louisi- 5 The following facts are taken from the Board's findings , in Matter of Libbell-Owens- Ford Glass Company and Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America, 10 N. L. R. B. 1470. At the hearing in the present proceeding the parties stipulated that "The facts as to the size and interstate character of the business of the company, as found by the Board in its Decision in Case No. IX-R-237, R-]028, reported in 10 N. L. R. B. 1470, are substantially true as of the date of this hearing" and that "All other facts concerning the business of tha company are substantially the same as shown by the evidence taken in Case No IX-R-237, R-1028." LIBBY-OWENS-FORD, GLASS COMPANY 247 ana; Ottawa, Illinois; East Toledo and Rossford, Ohio; and Charleston and Parkersburg, West Virginia. Its principal office is at Toledo, Ohio. In 1937, the total sales of the respondent amounted to approximately $40,000,000. More than 50 per cent of the products of each of the respondent's plants are shipped to points outside the State in which the plant is situated, and more than 50 percent of the raw materials used at each plant are shipped to it from points outside the State in which it is situated. There were 3,974 employees on the respondent's pay rolls for September 1-15, 1938, at all its plants. The Shreveport plant, employing 347 men, is engaged solely in the production of window glass. The Charleston plant, employing 693 men, makes window glass and also rough plate glass. It does not finish this rough plate glass for sale by grinding and polishing it. The Ottawa plant, employing 1,279 men, makes rough plate glass, part of which is there ground and polished for sale as finished plate glass, and part of which is there made into safety glass. Some of the rough plate glass made at the Charleston plant is also sent to Ottawa to be processed further for sale as finished plate or safety glass. At East Toledo, there are two plants, one ;of which, employing 292 men, is engaged solely in the processing of rough plate glass sent there from Charleston, Ottawa, and Rossford, into finished plate glass ; the other, employing 537 men, is engaged solely in the produc- tion of safety glass from rough plate glass sent there from Charleston, Ottawa, and Rossford. The Rossford plant, employing 692 men, manufactures rough plate glass, only part of which is there finished for sale by grinding and polishing. The Rossford plant also makes a structural building glass known by the trade name of vitrolite. Only black vitrolite can be produced at Rossford. The Parkersburg plant, employing 134 men, is engaged solely in the production of vitrolite. Any vitrolite requiring bending, polishing, or grinding, whether made at Rossford or Parkersburg, must be sent to Rossford for these operations. All vitrolite, regardless of where it has been made or finished, is sent to Parkersburg for cutting and marketing. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Federation of Glass, Ceramic and Silica Sand Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or=, ganizations. It admits to membership production and maintenance employees of the respondent. National Flat Glass Workers Union of the American Federation of Labor is a labor organization affiliated with the American Fed- eration of Labor. It admits to membership the same employees of the respondent as does the Federation. 248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The alleged refusal to bargain collectively A. The appropriate unit The -paI'ties have stipulated that "The classes of employees which should -be included in the unit or units found appropriate for collec- tive bargaining with the company are all production and maintenance employees, including watchmen, janitors, firemen, power employees, truck drivers, and sub-foremen, but excluding window-glass cutters, supervisory employees, timekeepers, and clerical employees not di- rectly connected with production." The amended 'complaint alleges that these classifications of employees at all the respondent's plants are an appropriate unit. The respondent and the National contend that the stipulated classifications of employees at the Parkersburg plant and at each of the respondent's other plants constitute a sepa- rate unit appropriate for collective bargaining purposes. The Parkersburg plant, as we pointed out in our Decision and Certification of Representatives of January 30, 1939,6 has a' history of separate organization and bargaining. Since January 30, 1939, the respondent, faced with the conflicting claims of the 'Federation and the National, has refused to bargain with either as the repre- sentative of the Parkersburg employees. The Federation had no members at the Parkersburg plant when it was certified, and it has apparently gained none in the period of approximately 2 years which has elapsed since the prior proceeding. There is no showing that it now has 'any representation there. The record shows, and it is not dis- puted, that the National is and has been the designated representatic7c of almost all the employees at the Parkersburg plant. Upon con- sideration of all the facts, we are convinced that the Parkersburg plant is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining.? We find that all production and maintenance employees of the respondent at its Parkersburg plant, including watchmen, janitors, firemen, power employees, truck drivers, and sub-foremen, but exclud- ing window-glass -cutters, supervisory employees, timekeepers. and clerical employees not directly connected with production, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that 6 See footnote 4, supra. 7 Cf Matter of Hood Rubber Company, Inc. and Rubber Workers Federal Labor Union No. 21914 (AFL ), 20 N. L. R. B. 485; Matter of United States Rubber Company ( Provi- dence Plant) and Rubber Workers Federal Labor • Union, Local # 22014, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 20 N L R B 473; Matter of Briggs Manufacturing Company and Briggs Indiana Corporation and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I . 0., 13 N L. R. B 1326 ; Matter of Chrysler Corporation and United Automobile Workers of America, Local 871, affiliated with C. 7..0., 13 N. L. R. B. 1303. LIBBY-OWENS-FORD GLASS - COMPANY 249 said unit will insure to these employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and will otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. B. The refusal to bargain It is stipulated that the respondent has, since January 30, 1939, refused to bargain collectively with the Federation as-the -exclusive representative of the employees at all the respondent's plants, includ- ing those at the Parkersburg plant. The respondent has, however, recognized and bargained 'collectively with the Federation as the ex- clusive representative of the employees at all the respondent's plants other than the Parkersburg plant, and on. February 6, 1940, entered into a contract with the Federation as such representative. The charge and 'complaint herein are, therefore, based solely on the respondent's refusal to include the Parkersburg employees within the unit for which it recognized and dealt with the Federation. We have found, above, that the stipulated classifications of em- ployees at the respondent's Parkersburg plant constitute a separate unit, appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The respondent's refusal to include these employees within the unit for which it recognized and dealt with the Federation is, therefore, not an unfair labor practice within the meaning either of Section 8 (5) or of Section 8 (1) of the Act." These being the only unfair labor practices alleged, the complaint will be dismissed. IT. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION As stated above and as stipulated by the parties, the respondent has refused to recognize and bargain collectively with either the Federation' or 'the National as the representative of the Parkersburg employees. The record shows that the National has as members 'a substantial number of the employees in the unit which we find to be appropriate." We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the respondent at its Parkersburg plant. V. 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 respondent 8 Cf. Matter of tioldwell Lawnmower Company and International Association of Machin- ists, Lodge No. 757, afl,ated with the American Federation of Labor, 14 N. L R. B. 38. It appears that the National , in October 1940 , had 140 members in gocd standing at Parkersburg. 250 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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. VI. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The National's petition, as amended at the hearing, alleges that-, the stipulated classifications of employees at the respondent's Park- ersburg plant constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. In Sec- tion III, A, above, we have found this to be an appropriate unit. VII. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We find that the question which has arisen concerning representa- tion can best be resolved by an election'by secret ballot. The record does not indicate whether the Federation desires to participate in any election directed to be held or whether it has any membership among- the employees-in the appropriate unit. In view, however, of the previous certification and of the 'competing requests for recognition made by the Federation and the National since January 30, 1939, we shall direct that the names • of both organizations appear on the ballots to be used in the election. If the Federation does not desire to participate in the election, its name will be omitted from the ballots upon request to that effect filed by it, with the- Regional Director for the Ninth Region not more than five (5) days after the date of this Decision, Order, and Direction of Election. In accordance with our general practice, we shall direct that all employees in the appropriate unit who ,were employed by the re- spondent during the pay-roll period next preceding the date of our Direction of Election herein, subject to such limitations and additions as are set forth in the Direction of Election, shall be eligible to participate in the election. On 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. Federation of Glass, Ceramic and Silica Sand Workers of America and National Flat Glass Workers Union of the American Federation of Labor are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent has not engaged in-any unfaiF labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) or (5) of the Act: LIBBY-OWENS-FORD, GLASS COMPANY 251 - 3. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the respondent at its Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant, within the meaning of, Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. All production and maintenance employees of the respondent at its Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant, including watchmen, janitors, firemen, power employees, truck' drivers, and' sub-foremen, but ex- cluding window-glass cutters, supervisory employees, timekeepers, and clerical employees not directly connected with production, con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint against the respondent, Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Com- pany, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 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 Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, Toledo, Ohio, 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 Director • for the Ninth 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 employees of the respondent at its Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant who were employed by it during the pay-roll period next preceding the date of this Direction of Election, includ- ing watchmen, janitors, firemen power employees, truck drivers, sub-foremen, and employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or in 'the active military service or training of the United States, or temporarily laid off, but excluding window-glass cutters, supervisory employees, time- 252 DECISIONS •OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD keepers, clerical employees not directly connected with production, and -any employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Feder- ation of Glass, Ceramic and Silica Sand Workers of America or by National Flat Glass Workers Union of the American Federation of Labor for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. MR. EDWIN S. Stunt, dissenting I dissent from this decision. Since January 30, •1939, when the Board duly certified the Federation as exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of employees in a unit comprising all the respondent's plants, the respondent has refused to recognize the Federation as the repre- sentative of employees at Parkersburg. The respondent's sole defense is that the Board's earlier finding of an employer-wide appropriate unit is erroneous, that the Parkersburg employees comprise a separate appropriate bargaining unit. Although the circumstances have in no way changed since the Board's original determination of appropriate unit, the majority of the Board now reverses that determination. In doing so, the ma- jority ignores the considerations which led the Board to conclude that the employer unit is appropriate. Those considerations may well be restated. The Federation has successfully organized and bargained for the respondent's employees at all its other plants by treating those plants as one unit, and the National has never bargained for the employees at any of those plants. , The separate organization and bargaining of the Parkersburg plant are fortuitous, resulting solely from the fact that the respondent did not own that plant when the Federation first organized it. When the respondent acquired the Parkersburg plant it was already in contractual relationship with Federation on the basis of a unit covering all the plants then owned by -it. How- ever, the contract between the Federation and the respondent's prede- cessor at'Parkersburg, which the respondent assumed, always expired several months after the expiration of the contract covering' the respondent's employees at its other plants. Thus the Federation's, request to include Parkersburg with the other plants merely sought the reestablishment of the previously existing employer unit. Partially manufactured products are, continually being sent from one plant to another for further processing. Parkersburg is as firmly interlocked with the other plants as they are with each other, and the functional interdependence of the plants inevitably results in an interdependence of the interests of the employees at the plants. There is no evidence that Parkersburg's previous independent organization and bargaining,would impede or obstruct its bargaining successfully LIBBY-OWENS-FORD GLASS COMPANY 253 together with the other plants. On the contrary, it is of importance to the employees at all the plants to present a united front when bargaining with the respondent. Other reasons advanced as to why Parkersburg would function better as a separate unit are equally if not more applicable to any one of the respondent's other plants which have bargained together successfully in one unit since 1934. While Parkersburg was acquired by the respondent at a different time than any of its other plants, each of the other plants was acquired at a different time from the rest. The distances separating some of the other plants are much greater than the distances between Parkersburg and those plants. The Parkersburg plant superintendent has no more independence in the operation of that plant than the other plant superintendents have. Such differences as exist between Parkersburg and the other plants in regard to processes and products are no greater than those differ- ences among the Company's other plants which have successfully bargained as a single unit. The present decision of the majority of the Board is based in part upon the separate organization and bargaining of the Parkersburg plant and in part upon the fact that the Parkersburg employees have chosen the National as their representative. Both factors were con- sidered and rejected by the Board in its earlier decision. The first, as has been shown, resulted solely' from the fact that the respondent acquired the Parkersburg plant after it had already concluded a con- tract with the Federation covering all the other plants. As to the second, the Board stated, I believe correctly : To grant the request of the National and its 133 Parkersburg members, who constitute but a very small minority of the 3,640 employees of the Company here involved, for a separate bar- gaining unit at Parkersburg would seriously impede and obstruct the efforts of the far larger number of employees at the other plants effectively to organize and bargain collectively. I am of the opinion that the Board's earlier determination that all the respondent's plants together constitute an appropriate unit was and remains correct. One of the purposes of the Act in protecting the right to self - organization and collective bargaining is to restore equality of bar- gaining power between employers and employees,10 and the Board must exercise its authority 'to determine the appropriate bargaining unit with that purpose in mind. Equalization of bargaining power is most nearly achieved when bargaining proceeds on the basis of the broadest industrial unit in which self-organization has been ef- 1 section 1. 254 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR`REL'ATIONS BOARD fective.11 That is the "appropriate" unit within which the majority rule is to be applied.12 The desires of employees at one of ' several organized manufacturing plants of a single employer no more justify carving out a plant unit than would analogous desires of employees in a section or department of a plant justify impairment,-of a plant unit. 13 Early in the Board's history it enunciated the rule that, where the factors favoring craft organization evenly balance those which nor- mally render industrial organization more effective, the desires of the craftsmen should determine whether or not a separate craft unit is appropriate.' In cases in which organization and bargaining on the craft basis has antedated self-organization on an industrial basis I have concurred in the application of that rule.15 But the consid- erations underlying it are wholly inapplicable to representation dis- putes between industrial unions seeking to bargain for ordinary production employees who have to craft tradition of separateness. Beginning with the Chrysler case 16 the Board's decisions have evidenced a tendency, exemplified in the present decision, to permit the scope of industrial units to be determined by the desires of the employees in the smallest industrial grouping for which a contention u As stated in the Board's original decision , in England and Sweden collective bargain- ing agreements are now commonly negotiated on the basis of an industry-wide unit. Re- port of the Commission on Industrial Relations in Sweden (1938), p. 4; Report of the Commission on Industrial Relations in England ( 1938 ), p. 4. The Report of the Commis- sion on Industrial Relations in England, in regard to the effect of such large bargaining units upon strikes and other forms of industrial unrest and strife, and the process of collec- tive bargaining itself, states (pp. 23-24) : We can , however, state with certainty that among the persons we conferred with there was a common feeling of confidence in the existing method of handling industrial relations, and that in those industries where collective bargaining between national unions and national associations of employers have long been established , strikes have been rare, and in a few instances non-existent (with the exception of the general strike in 1926 ) since the very beginnings of the collective bargaining arrangements .. . .. the acceptance and general practice of collective bargaining on an industry basis places upon the employers ' and workers' organizations, because of the sheer numbers of men and the magnitude of interests involved, a peculiarly heavy responsi- bility calculated by its very nature to call forth patience, understanding, and a desire to make and keep agreements and to achieve industrial peace. '-2 See Matter of Tennessee Electric Power Company and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 7 N. L. R. B. 24; Matter of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company and Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America, affiliated with 0. I. 0., 10 N. L. It. B. 1111 ; 15 N. L. It. B. 515; Matter of Admiar Rubber Company and American Federation of Labor on behalf of Employees of Company, 9 N. L. R. B. 407. 13 See for example El Paso Electric Company, a Corporation and Local Union 585, Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; and N. P. Clay, et al., 13 N. L. R. B. 213; Matter of Tovrea Packing Company, a corporation and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 313, 12 N L R B 1063. 14 Matter of Globe Machine and Stamping Co. and Metal Polishers Union, Local No. 3; International Association of Machinists, District No. 54; Federal Labor Union 8788, and United Automobile Workers of America, 3 N. L R B. 294 is See Matter of American Hardware Corporation and United Electrical and Radio Work- ers of America, 4 N. L. R. B. 412. 16 Matter of Chrysler Corporation and United Automobile Wo, kers of America, Local 371, affiliated with the C. I. 0., 13 N. L. R. B. 1303. s . I LIBBY-OWENS-FORD GLASS COMPANY 255 is made.17 This seems to me unfortunate. It weakens the bargain- ing power of employees in dealing with a unified management, multi- plies the 'problems of management in dealing with employees, and aggravates existing divisions in the ranks of organized labor. It undermines the bargaining' process at atime when considerations of national welfare render of paramount importance the effectuation of the policy of the Act : .. . to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the. prac- tice and procedure of collective bargaining . . .18 0 I would sustain the allegations of the complaint.\ 17 See, for example, Matter of Briggs Manufacturing Company and Briggs Indiana Corpo- ration and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the C. 1. 0., 13 N. L. R. B . 1326 ; Matter of Hood Rubber Company, Inc . and Rubber Workers Federal Labor Union No. 21914 (AFL), 20 N. L. R B 485; Matter of United States Rubber Company (Providence Plant ) and Rubber Workers Federal Labor Union, Local # 22014, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 20 N L. R. B. 473. v Section 1.