Builders Iron Foundry

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1942

40 N.L.R.B. 1393 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of BUILDERS IRON FOUNDRY and INTERNATIONAL
MOLDERS AND FOUNDRY WORIcERs UNION (A. F. L.)
Case No. R-3727.-Decided May 14, 194.
Jurisdiction : metal products manufacturing industry
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to accord petitioner recognition ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all employees at Company's foundry,
including all apprentices (except pattern-maker apprentices), but excluding
office employees, engineering and drafting employees, machine-shop employees,
guards and watchmen, foremen and subfoienlen, pattern makers, their handy-
men, pattern-maker apprentices, and maintenance men
Messrs. Hinckley, Allen, Tillinghast. cC Wheeler, by Mr. Chauncey
E. Wheeler, of Providence, R. I., for the Company.
Mr. Herbert W. Clements, and dlr. Edward F. Kennedy, of Boston,,
Mass., for the Union.
Mary M. Persinger, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition and amended petition duly filed by- International
Molders and Foundry Workers Union (A. F. L.), herein called the
Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of Builders Iron Foundry,_
Providence. Rhode Island, herein called the Company, the National
Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice before Albert J. Hoban, Trial Examiner. Said hearing`
was held at Providence, Rhode Island, on April 13, 1942. The
Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Ex--
aminer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial errors
and are hereby affirmed.'
1 Subsequent to the hearing , the Company filed a motion to correct the transcript of the
hearing with respect to certain minor matters The motion is hereby granted
40 N. L. R. B., No. 248.
455771-42-vol 40--88 1393
1394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to permission granted, the Union on April 17 and the
Company on April 27, 1942, filed briefs which the Board has duly
considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Builders Iron Foundry is a Rhode Island corporation with its
offices and principal place of business at 9 Codding Street, Providence,
Rhode Island. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of
metering and controlling equipment, machine tools, special machinery,
water-pipe fittings, gray iron, and metal castings. It operates a
foundry at 9 Codding Street, herein called the Foundry, which is
the only one of its plants here involved. During the calendar year
1941 the Company used raw materials amounting to more than $500,-
1000 in value, of which 50 percent was shipped to the Providence
plants. from points outside the State of Rhode Island. During the
same period the Company manufactured more than $1,000,000 worth
of finished products, of which 80 percent was shipped to points out-
side the State of Rhode Island. The Company concedes that it is
.engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Molders and Foundry Workers Union is a labor
.organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, ad-
mitting to membership employees of the Company employed at the
Foundry.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The parties stipulated at the hearing that on March 2, 1942, the
Union requested the Company to bargain with it as exclusive repre-
sentative of certain employees in the Foundry, and that the Company
declined to recognize the Union as such representative.
A statement by the Regional Director, introduced into evidence at
the hearing, shows that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit alleged by it to be appropriate.2
2 The Regional Director reported that the Union submitted for inspection 124 member-
ship application cards. 76 of which bore dates between January and March 1942, and 48
of which were undated ; that 119 of the signatures on the cards appeared to be genuine
signatures ; and that 112 were the names of persons on the Company's March 1942 pay roll.
This pay roll, according to the report, listed 327 employees in the unit alleged to be
appropriate.
BUILDERS IRON FOUNDRY 1395
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 Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends, and the Company does not object, that em-
ployees at the Foundry constitute an appropriate unit. The parties
agree that all office employees, engineering and drafting employees,
machine-shop employees, guards and watchmen, and foremen and
subforemen should be excluded from the unit. The Union contends,
in addition, that maintenance men, pattern makers, the two handy-
men in the pattern division, and the pattern-maker apprentice, should
also be excluded. The Company desires the inclusion of all these
persons except the pattern-maker apprentice. It asserts that all
apprentices employed in the Foundry should be excluded from the
unit.
At the outset of the discussion it should be noted that the Company
has had no agreement with any labor union for the past 20 years.
We shall consider below the groups in dispute.
Apprentices: The Union desires that we include apprentices in
the unit, alleging that the wages and working conditions of appren-
tices are customary subjects of collective bargaining between the
Union and other employers in the industry. The Company contends
that apprentices should be excluded because the Company considers
that they are future supervisory employees and because the appren-
tices are bound under individual indenture agreements for a specified
number of years and at a definite wage.
Apprentices at the Foundry are indentured by individual con-
tract and at a specific graduated wage; all are under the supervision
of a special apprentices' supervisor, no matter in which department
they work; and about 5 percent of their time is spent in a trade
school at the expense of the Company. Although the-Company con-
tends that these employees are future supervisory material, Foundry
Works Manager Bradley admitted at the hearing that since 1934 only
one apprentice has become a supervisor and that the others have
merely been promoted to regular foundry work. We see no valid rea-
son for departing from our usual practice of including apprentices
within a unit of foundry workers.3 Our ruling in this respect does
not include the pattern-maker apprentice, who comes under the juris-
diction of a craft union other than the union here involved and whom
'Matter of Brown and Sharpe Manufacturing Company and International Association
of Machinists , et al, 36 N L R B. 1083 See also MMMattcr of Endicott , Forging and Mfg.
Co, and National The Sinkers Conference , 29 N L R B 218 and cases cited therein.
'I
1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
we exclude below with other employees also subject to the jurisdiction
of such other union.
Pattern makers, handynwn, and the pattern-maker apprentice: The
Union contends that the pattern makers, their handymen, and the
pattern-maker apprentice , are not under its jurisdiction , but are cov-
ered by that of the-Pattern Makers of North America (A. F. L.).
It therefore asks that they be excluded from the appropriate unit.
The Company asserts that these employees (except the apprentice)
come .within a, foundry unit because of their community of interests
with the other employees and because their work is closely related to
that of all foundry operations.
The Company introduced evidence that these employees work in the
Foundry; that their foreman is responsible to the Foundry super-
intendent; that they make patterns used in foundry production work;
that "a few men have been transferred from foundry work to pattern
making and vice versa ; -and that the pattern makers are paid on an
hourly basis and are treated similarly to other foundry employees
with respect to wage increases , bonuses, vacations , and hours of em-
ployment. While this evidence indicates that a unit of foundry work-
ers which included pattern makers might be appropriate under other
circumstances , the fact remains that the only union involved here
has organized the Company's employees along historical craft lines
and does not desire the inclusion, in such a unit, of employees who
work at a separate and distinct craft. Consequently, we shall exclude
the pattern makers, their handymen, and pattern-maker apprentices,
from the appropriate unit.
Maintenance men: The Union alleges that these employees are not
engaged in actual foundry production and that therefore they should
be excluded from a foundry workers' unit. The Company contends
that the maintenance men are necessary to the operation of the
Foundry and have a community of interests with all other foundry
workers and that therefore they should come within the unit.
There are 34 maintenance men in the Foundry, including car-
penters, bricklayers, electricians, plumbers, steam fitters, handymen,
and engineers. They keep all Foundry buildings in repair, and all
machinery operating. They work at the same basic rate of pay and
are treated otherwise as foundry workers. Since, however, these em-
ployees are eligible for membership in other unions affiliated with the
A. F. of L., we shall exclude them from a foundry workers' unit.
We find that all employees of the Company at its Foundry at 9
Codding Street, Providence, Rhode Island, including all apprentices
(except pattern-maker apprentices), but excluding office employees,
engineerii g and drafting employees, machine-shop employees, guards
and watchmen , foremen and subforemen , pattern makers ,-their handy-
BUILDERS IRON FOUNDRY 1397
men, pattern-maker apprentices, and maintenance men, constitute 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
employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of
Election herein, 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, 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 Builders Iron
Foundry, Providence, Rhode Island, 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 supervision
of the Regional Director for the First 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 em-
ployees in the unit found 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
1discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by International Molders and Foundry Workers Union,
affiliated' with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes
of collective bargaining.