Buffalo Tool & Die Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 1343 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

BUFFALO TOOL & DIE MFG. CO. 1343
had solicited for the Union, yet did nothing with respect to the em-
ployee who actively electioneered against the Union.
As to the Employer's third contention, it is well settled that failure
to lodge a preelection protest is not a waiver of a union's right to have
the Board consider, on the merits, any alleged election interference
which occurs after stipulation for certification on a consent election e
Accordingly, we find that the Employer's conduct interfered with
the employees' freedom of choice in the selection of a bargaining repre-
sentative, and we shall therefore order that the election be set aside.'
We shall also direct the Regional Director to conduct a new election
at such time as he deems appropriate.
[The Board set aside the election and remanded this proceeding to
the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting a new election.]
CHAIRMAN FARMER and MEMBER MURDOCI, took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order setting aside election.
5Tite Liberal Market, Inc, 108 NLRB 1481, The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Com.
pang, 101 NLRB 1118.
0In the light of this determination , we find it unnecessary to pass upon any additional
reasons which the Regional Director found for setting the election aside.
PETER HOSTA, JR. & ELEANOR HOSTA D/B/A BUFFALO TOOL & DIE MFG.
Co. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT, AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 55, CIO,
PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-1394. September 14, 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 Robert Corlett, hear-
ing 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 :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim 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 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties are in agreement that the production and mainte-
nance unit proposed by the Petitioner is appropriate. However, the
parties are in disagreement as to the inclusion and eligibility to vote
of the following individuals.
109 NLRB No. 179.
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Draftsmen: Contrary to the Employer and Buffalo Tool & Die
Employees Independent Union, herein called the Intervenor, the
Petitioner would exclude the draftsmen. There are six draftsmen
who have separate headquarters and are supervised by the chief
engineer. The draftsmen primarily prepare detail drawings from
designs submitted by customers, make blueprints, and assist the lay-
out man in interpreting these drawings. Infrequently, when draft-
ing work is slack, they do routine production work in the plant.
They are required to have 4 years of drafting work at a technical
school. We find that they are technical employees. It is established
Board practice to exclude technical employees from production and
maintenance units, where their unit placement is an issue . Accord-
ingly, we shall exclude them.'
Group leaders, In disagreement with the Employer and the In-
tervenor, the Petitioner would exclude three group leaders as super-
visors. There are 3 group leaders each of whom is in charge of from
12 to 20 tool- and die-makers and machine operators. The group
leaders assign the work to members of their group, check the quantity
and quality of the work, instruct employees when necessary, and make
effective recommendations for wage increases. In addition, they at-
tend management meetings where production and personnel matters
are discussed. We find that the group leaders are supervisors and ex-
clude them from the unit.
Parents of Employer: In disagreement with the Employer, the
Petitioner would exclude Peter Hosta, Sr., and Helen Hosta, parents
of Peter Hosta, Jr., one of the partners, because of this family relation-
ship. The mother and father are employed as a maintenance man
and charwoman, respectively. Neither of them has any financial in-
terest in the business.
The record shows that although the regular working hours for the
first shift, on which the father works, are 9 a. m. to 5: 30 p. m., now
and then he has left the plant before his shift was over , and has re-
turned with his wife who works on the second shift, beginning at 6
p. m. However, there is no evidence in the record that such absentee-
ism occurred either with the consent or knowledge of the Employer.
The duties of Helen Hosta, the mother, consist of dusting, sweeping,
and washing windows. Although the Employer also has a sweeper
and retains an independent window cleaning firm, there is no indi-
cation in the record that these additional workers relieve the char-
woman wholly or partially of her assigned duties.
The Employer stipulated that the parents of Peter Hosta, Jr., were
given paid leaves of absence of about a month every year, although
they were entitled only to 2 weeks' annual vacation with pay. We
believe that this manifestation of filial generosity was not intended to,
1 Heintz Manufacturing Company, 100 NLRB 1521, 1527.
BUFFALO TOOL & DIE MFG. CO. 1345
nor did it in fact, alter the employer-employee relationship of the
parties nor did it change the conditions or interests of employment of
the parents. The Board has recently held in International Metal
Products Company,2 "the mere coincidence of a family relationship
between an employee and his employer does not negate the mutuality
of employment interest which an individual shares with fellow em-
ployees, absent evidence that because of such relationship he enjoys
a special status which allies his interests with those of management." 8
We are not persuaded that the minor deviations from standard em-
ployment conditions disclosed herein are sufficient to establish that
the Employer's parents enjoy such special status as to negate the
community of interest the record shows they have with other em-
ployees. Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Buffalo, New York, plant, including the maintenance
man and charwoman, but excluding draftsmen, office clerical em-
ployees, guards, professional employees, group leaders, and other
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
5. There remains for consideration the status of 9 individuals termi-
nated in the past 2 months, and whom the Petitioner contends are
nevertheless eligible to vote. As 6 of them have been discharged for
cause, and the other 3 have been laid off for business reasons and do
not have a reasonable expectancy of reemployment within the fore-
seeable future, we find that the 9 individuals have lost their status
as employees, and therefore are ineligible to Vote .3
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and BEESON, dissenting in part:
We cannot agree with the decision of the majority insofar as it
includes in the appropriate unit Peter Hosta, Sr., and Helen Hosta,
the parents of one of the partners. In the International Metal case'
a majority of the Board held "that the mere coincidence of a family
relationship between an employee and his employer does not negate
the mutuality of employment interest which an individual shares with
fellow employees, absent evidence that because of such relationship
he enjoys a special status which allies his interests with those of man-
agement." In our opinion, however, the majority has incorrectly
applied that rule in this case.
'Adam D Goettl and Gust Goettl, d/b/a International Metal Products Company, 107
NLRB 65
3 F H. Rogers Silver Company , 95 NLRB 1430.
* Supra. Although Member Murdock dissented from that holding believing that the Board
should adhere to its long-standing rule finding close relatives excluded from the unit and
ineligible to vote, he considers himself bound by it
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record shows that the father, although assigned to the first
shift, leaves the plant before his shift is over and returns with his
wife who works on the second shift. It seems apparent that the
Employer has knowledge of and consents to these irregular working
hours of the father. Helen Hosta, the mother, also enjoys the priv-
ilege of leaving the plant before her shift is over with the apparent
knowledge and consent of the Employer. In addition she is paid 15
cents more an hour than the other regular employee who performs
the same work she does. Also on a number of occasions she has re-
ceived 40 hours' pay for 30 hours' work. Another special privilege
enjoyed by the parents of Peter Hosta, Jr., is a month or more paid
vacation each year. Under established company practice based on
seniority they would be entitled only to 2 weeks' annual vacation with
pay. These facts indicate to us that the parents of Peter Hosta, Jr.,
are accorded special treatment and receive special benefits not enjoyed
by other employees. If this evidence of the special treatment granted
to Hosta's parents does not show that they enjoy a "special status
which allied [their] interests with those of management" within the
meaning of the International Metal decision, it is difficult for us to
imagine what would.
On the basis of the foregoing facts we must conclude that the parents
of Peter Hosta, Jr., do enjoy such a "special status" because of their
relationship to management and we would therefore exclude them
from the unit under the rule of the International Metal case.
BICKFORD SHOES, INC. and LOCAL #138, BOOT AND SHOE WORKERS'
UNION, AFL and THE SHOE WORKERS' ASSOCIATION OF MILFORD,
MASSACHUSETTS, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT
THE SHOE WORKERS' ASSOCIATION OF MILFORD, MASSACHUSETTS and
LOCAL #138, BOOT AND SHOE WORKERS' UNION, AFL . Cases Nos.
1-CA-1603 and 1-CB-258. September 15,1954
Decision and Order
On April 9, 1954, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondents, Bickford Shoes, Inc., here called Bickford, and The Shoe
Workers' Association of Milford, Massachusetts, here called the As-
sociation, had not engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaints and recommending that the complaints be dismissed
in their entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging
Union, Local #138, Boot and Shoe Workers' Union, AFL, here called
109 NLRB No. 188.