Avey Drilling Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1942

44 N.L.R.B. 293 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of AVEY DRILLING MACHINE COMPANY and UNITED
EMPLOYEES OF AVEY DRILLING MACHINE COMPANY
Case No. R-4063.-Decided September 00, 194
Jurisdiction : drilling machine manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : re-
fusal to accord union recognition ; consent election held no bar when almost a
year had elapsed ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all production workers, excluding
office and clerical employees, engineering employees, watchmen, porters, and
supervisory employees having authority to hire and discharge; stipulation as to.
Mr. James G. Manley and Mr., G. K. McKee, of Cincinnati, Ohio,
for the Company.
Mr. Philip J. Kennedy, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the United.
Mr. J. E. Chapman, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the I. A. M.
Mr. Mozart G. Ratner, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by United Employees of Avey Drilling Ma-
chine Company, 'herein, called the United, alleging that a ' question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Avey Drilling Machine Company, Covington, Kentucky,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board, pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Thomas E.
Shroyer, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Cincinnati, Ohio,-
on July 22 and 23, 1942. The Company, the United, and the Inter-
national Association of Machinists, District No. 34, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, herein called the I. A. M., appeared,
participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to exam-
ine 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. The United
A 1 db ' f h 1 1 B d11 d dtd h I M fi Ie oar as cons l ere .. . . e re s w c-an t e
44 N. L. R B., No. 51•:
293
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS or FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Ave' Drilling Machine Company is engaged at its place of business
in Covington, Kentucky, in the manufacture and sale of drilling
machines. Its. annual sales average over $100,000 in value. Almost
all the Company's products are sold and distributed in States other
than Kentucky. The principal raw materials used in the Company's
business consist of castings, steel, brass, and bronze:, Approximately
80 percent of the raw materials used by the Company is shipped from
points outside the State of Kentucky. The Company admits that it
is engaged in commerce within. the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Employees of Avey Drilling Machine Company is an un-
affiliated labor organization, admitting to membership employees of
the Company.
International Association of Machinists, District No. 34, is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, ad-
mitting to membership employees-of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On November 11, 1,941, the I. A. M. requested the Company to
bargain collectively with it as the exclusive bargaining representative
of-the employees'of the Company. The Company refused, to do so
until the I. A. M. had been certified by the Board. On November
18, 19'41, the Regional Director for the Ninth Region conducted a
consent election to determine whether or not the employees of the
Company desired to be represented by the I. A. M. The I. A. M.
won the election and thereafter submitted a proposed contract to the
Company. On December. 3, 1941, the Company submitted a counter-
proposal to the I. A. M. At an open meeting conducted by the
I. A. M. on December 17, 1941, the employees rejected the Company's
proposal because it did not contain a provision for "premium and
contract," a form of bonus which the employees desired. The I. A. M.
then appealed to Jack Addicks, a Federal Conciliator , and a meeting
between the I. A. M. and the Company was subsequently held in
Addicks' office on or about January 17, 1942. At a second meeting
in Addicks' Office, on February 10, the Company, submitted further,
counterproposals. These were likewise rejected by the employees at
an open 'meeting on February 14, 1942. At this meeting the repre-
sentative of the I. A. M. suggested that unless the Company coln-
AVEY DRILLING MACHINE COMPANY 295
plied with 'the union's terms on or before March 6, the I. A. M. would
withdraw sonie'50 key men from the Company's plant and place. them
in defense work in other plants, thus,"slowing down" the, production
of the Company. After several more conferences between' the I.,A. M.
and the Company at Addicks' office, the' Company submitted a third
,counterproposal on March 6. . At a union meeting on March 7, this
counterproposal was likewise rejected.
It appears that many. of the employees who attended the J. A. M. ,
meeting on February 14 were outraged by the suggestion that pro-
auction be "slowed down," and furthermore were extremely displeased
with the inability of the I. A. M. to negotiate a satisfactory contract
with the Company. These employees thereupon determined to form
an unaffiliated labor organization for the purpose of bargaining with
the Company.
On March 12 the United presented to the Company a petition con-
taining 99 names and requested that the Company bargain collectively
with United on behalf of the Company's employees. The Company
accepted the petition but refused to bargain with United on the
ground that the I. A. M. had been certified by the Board as ekclusive
bargaining agency for the employees of the Company. Thereupon,
on March 28, 1942, the petition herein was filed.
. The I. A. M. contends that inasmuch as its statutory capabity to
act as bargaining representative was determined less than a year ago,
i. e., -in, the consent election of November 18, 1941, no question con-
cerning representation has arisen and the petition of the United
should be dismissed. Since, however, almost a year has elapsed since
the previous determination of representatives, we are of the opinion
and find that under the circumstances of this' case the consent election
of November 18, 1941, does not constitute a bar to the present
proceeding. -
A statement of the Field Examiner introduced in evidence at the
hearing indicates that both the United and the I. A. M. have sub-
stantial representation among the employees in the Company?
I The United submitted an affidavit of membership dated March 26, 1942, containing the
typewritten names of 123 employees, of which 95 were found to appear on the Company's
pay roll of July 3. The I. A. M. submitted 99, signed authorization cards dated between
September 1941 and February 1942. In addition the I. A. M. submitted a petition dated
April 14, 1942, containing the signatures of 90 employees. The Field Examiner found
that all the signatures affixed to the authorization cards and to the petition submitted
by the I. A. M. appeared to be genuine original signatures. Sixty-four of the names
appearing on the cards appear on the Company's pay roll. These 64 names likewise
appear on the petition. In addition, 11 names attached to the petition appear on the
Company's pay rol1;_making a total of 75 names submitted by the I. A. M., which appear
on the pay roll of the Company. Of the 90 names appearing on the I. A. M. petition of
April 14, 1942, 43 appear on the United's affidavit of March 26, 1942. Fifteen names
appearing on the United's affidavit of March 26, 1942, also appear on the I. -A. M.
authorization cards dated in October 1941, but do not appear on the I. A. M.'s petition
of April 14, 1942 The Compan V's pay 'roll of July 3, 1942, bears the names of 171
employees in the alleged appropriate unit.
296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 National Labor
Relations Act. -
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, that all
production workers employed by the' Company, excluding office and
clerical employees, engineering employees, watchmen, porters, and
supervisory employees having authority to hire and discharge, consti-
tute 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 an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election,
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 Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, 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 to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Avey Drilling
Machine Company, Covington, Kentucky, 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, under-the direction and super-
vision 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 the
employees in the unit found to be appropriate in Section IV, above,
who were employed during the-pay-roll period immediately preceding
the date of this Direction, including any such employees who did not
work during said 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 any who have since quit or been
discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be rep-
resented by United Employees of Avey Drilling Machine Company,
or by the International Association of Machinists, District No. 34,
affiliated with American Federation-of Labor, for the purposes of
collective bargaining, or by neither.
In the Matter of AVEY DRILLING MACHINE COMPANY and UNITED
EMPLOYEES of AvEY DRILLING MACHINE COMPANY
(lase No. R-4063
AMENDMENT TO DIRECTION OF ELECTION
October 7, 7942
On September 22, 1942, the National Labor Relations Board issued
a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceed-
ing.' Thereafter, the International Association of Machinists, A. F.
of L.) filed a written request asking that its name be withdrawn
from the ballot on the ground that its has no substantial interest in
the proceeding. 'The Board hereby grants the request,of the I. A. M.
and hereby amends its Direction of Election by striking therefrom
the words "to determine whether they desire to be represented by
United Employees of Avey Drilling Machine Company, or by the
International Association of Machinists, District No. 34, affiliated
with American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither," and by inserting in place thereof the
following : "to determine whether or not they desire to be represented
by United Employees of Avey Drilling Machine Company, for the
purposes of collective bargaining."
144 N. L. R. B. 293.
44 N. L. R. B., No. 51a.
297
11