Florence Pipe Foundry & Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 20, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 828 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
So far as the record shows , the Petitioner did not attend
any of the above-described meetings. He claims that he signed
the petition herein, and certain letters purporting to transmit
said petition and accompanying documents to the Board, at the
request of one Darlington , a laundryman in the town, whose
wife was once employed at the Employer's plant. Thereafter,
he apparently handed the petition back to Darlington and, at
Darlington's further request, actually placed in the mail only
the letters of transmittal to the Board, together with a docu-
ment containing employee signatures supporting a request for
a decertification election, without actually reading any of the
material. He stated that he did not know who actually filed the
petition, and that, in fact, he had no real interest in the pro-
ceeding of any kind and solicited no employee signatures in
support thereof. The record shows that Anderson resigned his
employment 5 days after the petition was filed.
As indicated above, Anderson disclaimed any knowledge of
UMW participation in this proceeding. In his testimony, which
was extremely evasive and contradictory, he first denied
knowing Eakin; then, under close questioning, later admitted
that he knew Eakin well throughout the period here in question,
that he had seen Eakin at least once or twice a week for the
past year, and that he and Eakin had visited each other's
home at least once. His testimony further revealed that he
had been previously employed at the Columbian Paper Company
during a period of time when the UMW was the sole union then
holding a contract. Although denying any recollection of what
union was involved, he admitted joining a union at that time
and paying dues under a check-off arrangement.
Under all the above circumstances , we are convinced that in
filing the petition, William H. Anderson was in fact acting on
behalf of representatives of the United Mine Workers of
America, a noncomplying labor organization. We shall, there-
fore, grant the Employer's motion to dismiss the decertification
petition. 2
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2 See Tuntn Industries , Inc., 104 NLRB 359.
FLORENCE PIPE FOUNDRY & MACHINE CO. and PATTERN
MAKERS LEAGUE OF NORTH AMERICA, PHILADELPHIA
ASSOCIATION, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-1971. August
20, 1953
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 Julius Topol,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
106 NLRB No. 130.
FLORENCE PIPE FOUNDRY & MACHINE CO. 829
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
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 Peter-
son].
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
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.
The Employer and the Intervenor have bargained collectively
since 1940 for the production and maintenance employees.
Proper notice was given for modification of their most recent
collective-bargaining agreement . No contention is made that
this agreement constitutes a bar to the instant proceedings.
The Employer and Intervenor have also entered into three
supplemental agreements with respect to disability payments,
pensions, and a job-evaluation program . They urge that these
agreements are presently in effect and bar determination at
this time of the representation question raised by the Petitioner.
The disability and pension agreements were entered into,
effective as of March 1, 1950, for 5-year terms. Both provide,
however, that the Employer has the right to modify, amend,
or discontinue the plans any time after March 1, 1952. The
agreement relating to the job-evaluation program requires the
Employer to accrue a wage fund based on the number of hours
worked by all plant employees, to be distributed so as to
eliminate wage inequities between the various job classifica-
tions . The accrual was to be completed no later than May 22,
1953, although the parties recognized that the actual distribu-
tion of the fund would have to await final agreement on the job
evaluations and on the correction of inequities.
We do not believe that bargaining agreements limited in
scope to the supplemental topics covered here can, under any
circumstances , prevent a rival union from obtaining a deter-
mination of its representative status . 2 Moreover , the pension
and disability agreements are now terminable at will by the
Employer.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the established pro-
duction and maintenance unit the patternmakers and appren-
tices employed at the Employer's plant at Florence, New
Jersey. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that only
the comprehensive production and maintenance unit is appro-
'United Steelworkers of America, CIO, and its Local 2040, intervened on the basis of a
current contractual interest.
2B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company, 101 NLRB 1033; R-P&C Valve Division and Reading
Steel Casting Division of the American Chain and Cable Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 1023.
830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
priate in view of the 13-year bargaining history based on this
unit, the joint interests of the patternmakers with those of the
other employees, and the integration of the patternmakers'
work in the production processes.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of cast iron
pipe, hydrants, valves, and related fittings and machinery
castings. The pattern shop is located in a separate building
adjacent to 2 pattern storage buildings and the main machine
shop. There are 9 patternmakers, 2 apprentice patternmakers,
a pattern storageman, a janitor, a flaskmaker, a truckdriver,
and a helper assigned to the pattern shop. They are all under
the immediate supervision of the pattern shop foreman who is
directly responsible to the assistant to the general foundry
foreman. The patternmakers perform the usual tasks of their
craft and exercise the customary skills of journeymen pat-
ternmakers. They are engaged in repairing metal patterns,
making new patterns, and checking the dimensions of patterns
against blueprint specifications. They do not perform any
production work. The pattern storageman , although a former
patternmaker, no longer performs the duties assigned to the
craftsmen in the pattern shop. The Petitioner seeks to rep-
resent only the patternmakers and apprentices. The Employer
and Intervenor do not contend that the exclusion of the other
employees in the pattern shop would make the unit inappro-
priate.
We are satisfied that the Employer's patternmakers and
patternmaker apprentices constitute a well-recognized craft
group, such as the Board has frequently held may be repre-
sented in a separate unit notwithstanding their previous inclu-
sion in a broader unit.3 However, we shall make no unit
determination as to these employees until we have first
ascertained their desires in the matter.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election among all pattern-
makers and patternmaker apprentices in the Employer's
pattern shop at its plant in Florence, New Jersey, excluding
all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in this group vote for the
Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to be represented in a separate unit, and the Regional Director
conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue
a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such a
unit, which the Board under these circumstances finds to be
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If,
however, a majority of the employees in the group vote for
the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to remain part of the existing production and maintenance unit,
and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certifica-
tion of results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.
3National Malleable and Steal Castings Company, 99 NLRB 737; R-P&C Valve Division
and Reading Steel Casting Division of the American Chain and Cable Company, Inc„ supr.
ROBERTS.CAHOON 831
Member Peterson , dissenting:
I dissent from the majority opinion herein solely on the
severance issue . The Employer and the Intervenor appear to
have bargained effectively and harmoniously for 13 years for
an inclusive production and maintenance unit . The pattern-
makers have participated in the bargaining negotiations and
some of them have held office in the Intervenor ' s organization.
There is no indication that the Petitioner had obtained mem-
bership among them prior to the establishment of the broader
unit . Although the Petitioner is adhering to its traditional
craft jurisdiction and does not seek to represent employees
who do not meet the qualifications of its craft , the considera-
tions previously mentioned lead me to the conclusion that
severance is unwarranted in this case . See my dissenting opin-
ion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627.
ROBERT S. CAHOON . August 21, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 14 , 1953, Jerold B. Sindler , hearing officer in Cone
Mill Corporation (Tabardrey Plant ), Case No . 11-RC-416, a
proceeding to determine representatives for the purposes of
collective bargaining, filed with the National Labor Relations
Board , herein called the Board , a report, in substance that,
during the course of the hearing , an altercation or serious
disturbance , involving counsel representing the parties, had
occurred in the presence of the hearing officer.
Upon consideration of the hearing officer's report, it ap-
peared to the Board that Robert S. Cahoon, an attorney at law,
may have engaged in misconduct of such an aggravated nature
as to constitute grounds for suspension or disbarment from
further practice before the Board , pursuant to Section 102.58
(d) (2) of subpart C of the Board ' s Rules and Regulations,
Series 6 , as amended.'
Thereafter , on June 26, 1953, the Board issued a rule to
show cause directing the Respondent , Robert S. Cahoon, to
show cause in writing, under oath, on or before July 13, 1953,
why he should not be suspended or disbarred by the Board
from further practice before it.
On July 13, 1953, the Respondent filed his "Response to
Rule To Show Cause."'
1 That section provides that "Misconduct of an aggravated character, when engaged in by an
attorney ... shall be ground for suspension or disbarment by the Board from further prac-
tice before it after due notice and hearing." This rule, effective June 3, 1952, appears at
17 F. R. 4982.
2 As our decision herein is based upon the facts admitted to be true by the Respondent in
the return to the show- cause order , we find it unnecessary to hold a formal hearing in this
matter.
106 NLRB No. 138.