Florida Machine & Foundry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1943

52 N.L.R.B. 793 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

n the Matter of FLORIDA MACHINE & FOUNDRY COMPANY and INTER-
NATIONAL MOLDERS AND FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION OF NORTH AMER-
ICA, LOCAL 347
In the Matter of FLORIDA MACHINE & FOUNDRY COMPANY and GATE=
WAY LODGE No. 731 , INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
Cases Nos. R-5936 and R-5937 respectively.Decided September 22,
1943
Mr. John W. Donahoo, of Jacksonville , Fla., for the Company.
Mr. Draper Doyal, of Cincinnati , Ohio, for the Molders.
Mr. D. W . Milian, of Jacksonville , Fla., for the IAM.
Mr. Glenn L. Moller, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 1. 1
Upon petitions tduly filed by International Molders and Foundry
Workers Union of North America, Local 347, herein called the
Molders, and by Gateway Lodge No. 731, International Association
of Machinists, herein called the IAM, alleging that questions affect=
ing commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees
of Florida Machine & Foundry Company, Jacksonville, Florida,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board
thereafter consolidated the said cases and provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice before Dan M. Byrd, Trial Examiner.
Said hearing was held at Jacksonville, Florida, on August 26, 1943.
The Company, the Molders, and the IAM 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 Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed: The Company moved
i Counsel for the Comany sought, on cross-examination , to elicit from the business agents
of the two unions admissions concerning their compliance or noncompliance with a statute
of the State of Florida requiring registration of business agents of labor organizations.
52 N. L. R. B., No.140.
793
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to dismiss the petitions on the grounds that the units sought are in-
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, that the Mold-
ers' petition fails to allege how or when the question concerning
representation arose, and that the IAM's petition fails to allege that
the TAM requested recognition by the Company. For the reasons
appearing hereinafter, the Company's motions are denied. All par-
ties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Florida Machine & Foundry Company is a Florida corporation
engaged at a plant in Jacksonville, Florida, in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of steel castings. During the year 1942, the
Company used raw materials valued at approximately $78,000, of
which about $40,000. represented the cost of materials purchased
and shipped to the Company from points outside the State of Flor-
ida. During the same period, the Company sold-finished products
valued at approximately $345,000, approximately 25 precent of
which was sold and-shipped to purchasers outside the State of Flor-
ida. We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North
America, Local 347, is a labor organization affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of
of the Company.
International Association of Machinists, Gateway Lodge No. 731,
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In May 1943 the unions jointly advised the Company that they
represented a majority of the employees' of the Company in a unit
consisting generally of all production and maintenance employees
The Trial Examiner permitted such questioning in one instance and refused to permit it
in the other . Compliance or noncompliance with such a statute is wholly irrelevant to the
issues involved in this proceeding , since it is the labor organizations , rather than the
busness agents thereof, that are here seeking designation as collective bargaining repre-
sentatives . The evidence elicited was therefore irrelevant to the issues . We do not pass
upon the question of the effect upon proceedings under Section 9 (c) of the Act of a State
statute requiring the registration of labor organizations.
FLORIDA MACHINE & FOUNDRY COMPANY 795
and thereafter filed a petition requesting such a unit. The Company
contended that although the' unions were petitioning jointly, they
were actually seeking craft units. On June 14, 1943, a hearing was
conducted on the joint petition and thereafter, on July 3, 1943,
we issued a Decision and Direction of Election. In our Decision
in that case, we said :
While the record contains some evidence which tends to lend
credence to the Company's argument, the petition itself requests
a single industrial unit, and we are of the opinion that such a
unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.2
Following the issuance of our Decision and Direction of Election,
but before an election was held, upon application of the Company,
we set aside our aforesaid Decision and Direction of Election and
dismissed the unions' joint petition.3 Thereafter, the unions filed
the separate petitions which are the basis of the instant proceeding.
Since the present petitions of the unions seek the very units which
the Company contended were sought by the unions in their previous
joint petition, the present contention of the Company that the peti-
tions should be dismissed because they fail to allege how or when the
question concerning representation arose or that there had been a
demand for recognition, is clearly without merit. The Company has
consistently refused and still refuses to accord recognition to either
union on the ground that the units here sought are inappropriate.
Statements of the Regional Director, introduced into evidence at
the hearing, indicate that each union represents a substantial num-
ber of employees in the unit sought by it. and hereinafter found
appropriate.'
We find that questions affecting commerce have 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 Molders in its petition seeks a unit consisting of all employees
of the Company, excluding machine shop employees, guards or watch-
Matter of Florida Machine & Foundry Company , Case No R-5527, issued July 3, 1943. .
With its motion to set aside the Decision and Direction of Election , the Company filed
a letter purporting to be from D W. Millan, the JAM representative, clearly indicating that
each union intended to bargain only on behalf of the members of its respective occupational
group . We issued an order to show cause why our Decision and Direction of Election
should not be set aside and thereafter took the action thus indicated.
4 The Regional Director reported that the Molders submitted 41 authorization cards
bearing the apparently genuine signatures of persons whose names appear on the Com-
pany 's pay roll for the week of July 26 to August 1, 1943 , which contained the names of 76
persons in the appropriate unit sought by the Molders.
The Regional Director also reported that the JAM submitted 5 application -for-member-
ship cards bearing the apparently genuine signatures of persons whose names appear on
the Company ' s pay roll for the week of July 26 to August 1, 1943; which contained the
names of 12 persons in the appropriate unit sought by the IAM.
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
men, clerical and supervisory employees. The IAM in its petition
seeks a unit consisting of all machinists, machinists' helpers, and
machinists' apprentices, including working foremen in the employ of
the Company. The Company contends that the units sought by the
unions are inappropriate and that only an over-all industrial unit is -
appropriate.
The Company's plant is located on a single tract of land upon
which are located the various buildings in which the business is con-
ducted. The office, machine shop, foundry, pattern shop, and ware-
house are each located in a separate building. Scrap steel is brought
into the plant, sorted, and either stored or thrown into the furnace
where it is melted and then poured into the moulds to form the cast-
ings. When the castings are removed from the moulds they are
cleaned, sometimes sent to the machine shop for finishing, and then
shipped or stored.
The entire operation is under the supervision of a general superin-
tendent, who is responsible directly to the president of the firm. Im-
mediately below the general superintendent in authority are the assist-
ant superintendent 'and the superintendent of, the foundry. The
former appears to have general supervision over the plant with the ex-
ception of the foundry, while the latter generally confines his activities
to the foundry. The above-described persons are the only supervisors
who have authority to hire or discharge. In addition to the afore-'
mentioned supervisory employees, there is an assistant superintendent
of the foundry and there are foremen in charge of the cleaning room,
the machine shop, and the core room, respectively. Although it ap-
pears that these foremen spend a major portion of their time doing
actual production work and their wages are no greater than the wages
of many non-supervisory employees, it appears that they lay out the
work for their subordinates, supervise their work, and have authority
to recommend the hire, discipline and discharge of their subordinates a
The foremen will be excluded from the appropriate units.
The record in the instant proceeding, as well as the record in the
previous case, indicates that the unions have confined their organiza-
tional activities to the employees whom they now seek to represent;
each having apparently recognized the jurisdiction of the other. While
the evidence of the close functional relationship between the machinists
and the remainder of the production and maintenance employees would
justify a finding that a single industrial unit is appropriate, there is
no history of previous organization or collective bargaining on any
basis. The unit sought by the IAM is sufficiently identifiable and
separate from the unit sought by the Molders, that it can also function
b In the preceding case, we included the working foreman in the unit, but the record in
that proceeding did not reveal the evidence contained in the instant record upon which
our present decision is based.
FLORIDA MACHINE & FOUNDRY COMPANY 797
as a separate craft unit. We have granted petitions for craft units
exactly like the unit here sought by the IAM so frequently that cita-
tion of specific cases seems unnecessary. We see no reason, in the
instant. proceeding, to deny the clear desire of the employees in the
respective units to bargain separately. Our previous finding that
a single unit was appropriate does not preclude us from reaching the
conclusion that separate units are appropriate at this time.6 The
Company offered evidence that some eight employees frequently work
in both the machine shop and in other parts of the plant as well. Two
of these employees are foremen and are therefore excluded from any
appropriate unit. As to the remaining six of these employees, H. A.
Crumley and Robert Blackford are machinists who do maintenance
work on the machinery throughout the plant, while the other four
merely help out now and then in the machine shop. 7 We find that
the latter group are part of the production and maintenance unit here-
inafter found appropriate.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany at its plant in Jacksonville, Florida, excluding watchmen, guards,
clerical employees, machinists, machinists' helpers, machinists' ap-
prentices, the superintendents and assistant superintendents, the fore-
men of the cleaning room and core room, and any other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discipline, discharge, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
We further find that all machinists, machinists' helpers and machin-
ists' apprentices in the Company's employ at its plant in Jacksonville,
Florida, excluding the machine shop foreman and any other employee
with authority to hire, promote, discipline, discharge or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, 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 questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by elections by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate units who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tions herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
9 Matter of Kentucky Fluorspar Company , 52 N. L . R. B. 227.
7 The four remaining employees are William Braun, Armitage , Lorenzo Washington, and
A. M. Thompson.
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
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 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions 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 Florida Machine
& Foundry Company, Jacksonville, Florida, elections 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 super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of of said Rules and Regulations,
among the following employees of the Company at its plant in Jack-
sonville, Florida, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately 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, (1) to determine whether or not the em-
ployees in the production and maintenance unit found appropriate
in Section IV, above, desire to be represented by International
Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, Local 347,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes
of collective bargaining, and (2) to determine whether or not the
employees in the machinists' unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, desire to be represented by Gateway Lodge No. 731, Inter-
,national Association of Machinists, for the purposes of collective
bargaining.