Clay & Bailey Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 17, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 210 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

21 0 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the meaning of the Act.3 We therefore find that Civilian
Cafeteria Board is not an employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2A2) of the Act, and we shall therefore dismiss the instant
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition]
s National Food Corporation, 88 NLRB 1500.
CLAY & BAILEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY and MORGAN
FOUNDRY COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE NO. 71, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 17-RC-1590. July 17, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Cyrus A.
Slater, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three -member panel ,[ Members Houston , Murdock, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employers.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employers within the
meaning of Section 9 ( c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the
Act.
4. The main issue in this case goes to the scope of the
unit. The Petitioner requests a multiemployer unit of the
production and maintenance employees of the Clay & Bailey
Manufacturing Company, herein called Clay & Bailey, and
of the Morgan Foundry Company, herein called Morgan
Foundry. International Molders and Foundry Workers Union
of North America, AFL, herein called the Molders , seeks to
represent only the Morgan Foundry employees. The two
Employers, in agreement with the Molders, contend that
only separate units for each company are appropriate.
Clay & Bailey is a machine shop engaged in the manufacture
and sale of plumbing specialties, oil equipment, and special
equipment for the storage, transportation , and marketing of
petroleum products . Morgan Foundry is a foundry engaged in
the manufacture and sale of gray iron castings made from
customers' patterns. Each company is a separate Missouri
corporation. Clay & Bailey purchases approximately 10 to 15
106 NLRB No 40.
CLAY & BAILEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 211
percent of its required castings from Morgan Foundry. These
purchases constitute about 25 percent of the latter company's
sales.
The record shows factors supporting the appropriateness
of the multiemployer unit sought by the Petitioner. Thus,
control and management of both corporations are vested in
three members of the Clay family and in Henry Bailey, who
together are the principal officers and members of the board
of directors of the two companies. Their plants are adjacent,
separated only by an alleyway. Both companies have the same
mailing address and telephone listing. One office building is
used by both companies, and, for a fixed weekly reimburse-
ment, clerical employees employed by Clay & Bailey do the
office work for Morgan Foundry, including maintenance of
personnel records and preparation of paychecks. The treasurer
of Morgan Foundry is carried on the payroll of Clay & Bailey
and does the accounting work for that company. The record
indicates that because of these facts, the employees of Morgan
Foundry generally consider themselves to be employees of Clay
& Bailey.
On the other hand, certain other factors support the appro-
priateness of a separate unit confined to the employees of
Morgan Foundry, as desired by the Molders. There is no
integration of the operations of the two companies; their
products are entirely different; and the skills required and
exercised by the two. groups of employees fall in unrelated
categories. There is no employee interchange or transfer
between plants. The employees are separately supervised,
have different working hours, and receive different rates of
pay and vacation benefits. From 1937 until 1940 the employees
of the two companies were represented under separate bargain-
ing agreements by the United Steelworkers of America, CIO.
From 1940 until approximately 1946 the employees of Morgan
Foundry were represented by the Molders. It does not appear
that any of the employees here involved have been represented
in collective bargaining since. While this bargaining history
is somewhat remote and, therefore, not controlling now,
it tends to give additional weight to the Molders' assertion
of the appropriateness of a separate unit for the Morgan
Company employees.
In view of the foregoing and on the entire record we are of
the opinion that the production and maintenance employees
of the 2 companies may together constitute an appropriate
unit; 1 they may also, if they so desire, constitute 2 separate
units, 1 for each plant.'
Accordingly, we shall make no final unit determination
at this time, but shall direct that the questions concerning
representation which exist be resolved by separate elections
by secret ballot among the employees in the following voting
groups:
'Lloyd A Fry Roofing Co., et al, 92 NLRB 1170.
2 Silverstein Brothers Inc , 93 NLRB 1047; Southern Industry Co , 78 NLRB 425.
322615 0 - 54 - 15
2 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. All production and maintenance employees employed at
the Clay & Bailey Manufacturing Company's Kansas City,
Missouri, plant, excluding truckdrivers, office clerical em-
ployees , professional employees , guards, and all supervisors
as defined in the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees employed at
the Morgan Foundry Company's Kansas City, Missouri, plant,
excluding truckdrivers , office clerical employees , professional
employees , guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
Upon the results of these elections will depend, in part, our
final unit determination . If the employees in group 2 select
a bargaining representative different from that selected by
the employees in group 1, the Board finds that the group 2
employees constitute a separate appropriate unit; and in these
circumstances if the employees in group 1 also select a
bargaining representative the Board finds that the employees
in group 1 also constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.
If the employees in the two groups select the same bargaining
representative , the Board finds that together they constitute
an appropriate unit. The Regional Director conducting the
elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certification
of representatives to the union or unions in the unit or units
which may result from the elections.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
LEE BROTHERS FOUNDRY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL AS-
SOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE NO. 178,
A.F.L., Petitioner. Cases Nos . 10-RC-2305, 10-RC-2306,
and 10 -RC-2307. July 17, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Gilbert
Cohen, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases
to a three -member panel [ Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate units:
In Case No . 10-RC -2306, the Petitioner seeks a separate
unit of all toolroom and machine shops' employees at the
106 NLRB No. 42.