Columbia Machine Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 1020 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of COLUMBIA MACHINE WORKS, INC. and SUPERVISORS
CLUB OF COLUMBIA MACHINE WORKS
Case No. 2-R--5958.-Decided March 21,1946
Mr. Eugene D. Powers, of New York City, for the Company.
Mr. Julius E. Bagley, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for the Union.
Mr. C. G. Kessler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Supervisors Club of Columbia Ma-
chine Works, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affect-
ing commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees
of Columbia Machine Works, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Jerome I. Macht.
Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at New York City, on No-
vember 9, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared and par-
ticipated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hear-
ing, the Company moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that
(1) the proposed unit is inappropriate, (2) the union is dominated
by the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and (3) the petition re-
lating to the proposed unit is vague and indefinite. The Trial Ex-
aminer referred this motion to the Board. For reasons stated in
Section IV, infra, this motion is denied. All parties were afforded
opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Columbia Machine Works, Inc., a New York corporation, is en- ,'
66 N. L . R. B., No. 127.
1020
COLUMBIA MACHINE WORKS, INC. 1021
gaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of electronic equip-
ment , forgings , and foundry products at its plant in Brooklyn, New
York. During the past year the Company purchased raw materials
consisting of steel , iron, and brass , valued in excess of $500,000, of
which approximately 25 percent represented shipments from points
outside the State of New York . During the same period, sales of
finished products were in excess of $1,000,000, of which approxi-
mately 75 percent represented shipments to points outside the State.
The Company admits , and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
IL THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Supervisors Club of Columbia Machine Works is an unaffiliated
labor organization admitting to membership supervisory employees
of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In a letter dated September 24, 1945, the Union requested the Coin-
pany to meet with it for the purpose of discussing wages and other
employment problems. The Company received the letter in due
course of mail, but apparently did not reply. The Company stated
at the hearing that it would not recognize or bargain with the Union
until it is certified by the Board.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
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 has petitioned for a unit of all foremen and assistant
foremen, including the chief inspector and the maintenance engineer
of the Company's Brooklyn plant, but excluding the chief engineer,
chief methods engineer, chief draftsman, chief estimator, chief guard,
chief timekeeper, and all other supervisory employees of clerical and
office workers. The Company seems to contest the appropriateness
of the unit on the ground of the dissimilarity in skills of the included
employees. It asserts also, as noted above in its motion to dismiss,
that because the foremen sought are part of management and because
1 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 22 authorization cards dated
in September 1945 . There are approximately 26 employees in the appropriate unit
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Company is engaged in a non-mass production industry the pro-
posed unit is inappropriate. The issues raised in this proceeding
were considered in great detail in the Young case .2 We there held,
as we do here, that foremen are "employees" within the meaning of
Sction 2 (3) of the Act; that, as "employees," they are entitled to be
placed in some appropriate unit under Section 9 (b) ; that the type of
industry in which the foremen are employed is immaterial; and that
the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the foremen is relevant
only insofar as it bears on the question of proper grouping of the
foremen for collective bargaining purposes.
The supervisory hierarchy in immediate and full-time charge of
the production and maintenance operations of the Brooklyn plant
appear to consist of the following :
1 Vice president and general manager
1 Personnel director
1 Works manager
1 Assistant works manager and general superintendent
1 Assistant superintendent
1 Production manager, 1 superintendent in charge of forge
and foundry, and 1 chief engineer 3
13 Foremen, 1 chief inspector, and 1 maintenance engineer4
11 Assistant foremen
As noted above, the Union would include in the unit, foremen, the
chief inspector, the maintenance engineer, and assistant foremen.
These employees who generally head their respective production and
maintenance departments,r, have substantially the same duties and
have similar supervisory powers over their subordinates. Assistant
foremen substitute for foremen in the latters' absence. Foremen, the
chief inspector, and the maintenance engineer, however, appear to
have more responsibilities than do assistant foremen. Although it
appears, as contended by the Company, that the skills of these em-
ployees are in many instances dissimilar, it is clear that they fall
in the two lowest levels in the employ of the Company. Accordingly,
in view of the similarity in their powers and duties, we are of the
opinion that foremen, the chief inspector, the maintenance engineer,
and assistant foremen may function together for collective bargaining
purposes.
Apparently the Union wishes to exclude from the unit any foremen
or supervisors of clerical, technical, or professional employees. In
5 See Matter of L. A. Young Spring d Wire Corporation, 65 N. L. R. B. 298.
The parties stipulated that the chief engineer should be excluded from any unit.
• The Company admitted that the maintenance engineer was a foreman and not an
engineer. In addition, the assistant superintendent referred to the chief inspector as a
foreman.
6 There are two foremen in the precision assembly department. There is no foreman
in the antenna shop which is supervised by an assistant foreman.
COLUMBIA MACHINE WORKS , INC. 1023
this group are the chief engineer , chief methods engineer, chief
draftsman , chief estimator , chief timekeeper , and also the chief of
the militarized guards. Other than as noted above, the Company
takes no position with respect to these supervisory employees. In-
asmuch as the unit petitioned for embraces, in effect, only super-
visors of rank and file employees in the production and maintenance
department, we shall, in accordance with the Union's request, exclude
the chief engineer, chief methods engineer, chief draftsman, chief
estimator , chief timekeeper , and chief guard from the unit.
As further ground for dismissing the petition, the Company urges,
in effect, that the Union is incompetent to represent these employees
because it is dominated by the same local of the Congress of Industrial
Organizations which represents the Company's rank and file em-
ployees. In support of this position, the Company asserted that the
Union's attorney in this present proceeding represented both the
local of the C. I. O. and the Union at the same time. In this con-
nection, it appears that although the Union's attorney did at one
time represent the C. I. O. local, he no longer is connected with
that group or any other similarly affiliated group. The Company
has, however, failed to show how the alleged dual representation
of the Union's attorney has in any way resulted in domination of
the Union by the C. I. O. local. There is no evidence to show that
the Union is not free to formulate its own policy, to decide its own
course of action, and to make its own collective bargaining contracts.
The C. I. 0., so far as it appears from the records, cannot dictate,
override, or limit the decisions of the Union. Accordingly, we find
that the Union is an independent, unaffiliated labor organization,
organized for the exclusive purpose of representing supervisory
employees.
The third ground of the Company's motion to dismiss the petition
is that the petition is vague and indefinite as to the unit sought. An
examination of the petition and amended petition reveals that they
conform to the standard established by the Board. In its brief, the
Company argues further that the record relating to the alleged unit
is also vague and indefinite and points to the varying positions taken
by the Union during the course of the hearing, with respect to the
composition of the unit sought. We find no merit in this contention.
The record clearly shows, in this connection, an attempt by the
Union to assist the Board in carrying out its duties under Section 9
of the Act.
Accordingly, we find that all foremen and assistant foremen, in-
cluding the chief inspector and the maintenance engineer of the Com-
pany's Brooklyn plant, but excluding the chief engineer, chief
methods engineer, chief draftsman, chief estimator, chief guard, chief
timekeeper , and all other supervisory employees of the clerical and
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
office workers, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. TIIE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among 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.6
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 Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Columbia Machine
Works, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 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 Second Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among
employees 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 employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces
of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls,
but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged
for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date
of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre-
sented by Supervisors Club of Columbia Machine Works, for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
a The Union 's request that it be designated upon the ballot as "Supervisors Club" is
referred to the Regional Director for determination.
COLUMBIA MACHINE WORKS, INC 1025
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting :
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Matter of
Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, I am constrained to
dissent from the majority opinion in this case.
656572-46-66