Foote Bros. Gear and Machine Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1943

52 N.L.R.B. 861 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of FooTE BROS. GEAR AND MACHINE CORPORATION and
AMALGAMATED MACHINE TOOL & DIE LOCAL 1114-U. E. R. M. W. A.,
CIO
Case No. R-5676.Decided September 25, 194.3
Mr. George S. Freudenthal, Jr., for the Board.
Mr. Arthur TV. Ooppin, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company.
Mr. Joseph D. Persily, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Amalgamated Machine Tool & Die
Local 1114-U. E. R. M. W. A., C. 1. 0., herein called the Union, alleg-
ing that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of Foote Bros. Gear and Machine Corpora-
tion, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Russell Packard, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held
at Chicago, Illinois, on July 14, 1943. 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 Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All
parties were afforded an 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
Foote Bros. Gear and Machine Corporation, an Illinois corpora-
tion, has its principal offices in Chicago, Illinois, where it has five
factories and two warehouses and is engaged in the manufacture of pre-
cision and industrial gears, speed reduction equipment and special
52 N. L . R. B., No. 150.
861
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
machinery. In addition to its Chicago offices, the Company also main-
tains branch offices in New York City, Detroit, Michigan, and Cleve-
land, Ohio.
During the 6 months' period next preceding the date of the hear-
ing, the Company purchased for use at its Chicago plants, raw ma-
terials obtained from points outside the State of Illinois and valued
at approximately $1,000,000. During the same period, the Company's
sales of finished products from its Chicago plants to points outside
the State of Illinois amounted in value to approximately $10,000,000.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Machine Tool & Die Local 1114-U. E. R. M. W. A.,
is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about May 18, 1943, the Union requested in writing that the
Company recognize it as exclusive bargaining representative for the
armed guards of the Company's four plants located at 4545, 5225,
5301, and 5331 South Western Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. The Com-
pany declined to recognize the Union unless certified by the Board.
A statement of the Regional Director, together with other evidence
introduced at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in the units 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 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
At the hearing the Union amended its position with respect to the
appropriate unit by contending that all employees in the plant-pro-
i The Regional Director reported that the Union had submitted 64 designations of which
52 bore the apparently genuine original signatures of persons whose names appear on the
Company's pay roll of guards for June 12 , 1943, containing 90 names, exclusive of captains,
sergeants , and matrons. At the hearing, the Union submitted 6 additional designation
cards bearing the apparently genuine original signatures of persons whose names appear
on the said pay roll, making a total of 58 designations bearing signatures which correspond
with names on the Company 's pay roll of guards . In addition to the guard pay roll, the
Company submitted at the hearing a pay roll containing the names of 11 matrons. Ac-
cording to a check made by the Trial Examiner, 4 of the cards originally presented by the
Union correspond with names appearing on the matrons ' pay roll , which cards together
with 2 additional cards submitted by the Union at the hearing comprise a total of 6
designations bearing the apparently genuine original signatures of persons whose names
appear on the said pay roll.
' FOOTE BROS . G'EAR AND MACHINE CORPORATION 863
tection department of the Company, excluding captains and sergeants,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.2
While the Company agrees to the Union's requests for a multiple plant
unit and to the proposed exclusion of captains as supervisory em-
ployees, the Company contends that the duties of its plant-protection
employees are such that they necessarily come into conflict with the
interests of the production and maintenance employees in the four
plants hereinabove referred to. Since the Union already represents
the production and maintenance employees,3 the Company also argues
that it is improper to permit militarized plant-protection employees
to be represented by the same labor organization, although in separate
bargaining units. In addition to this objection, the Company opposes
the Union's request that sergeants be excluded from the unit of guards.
The Company takes no position with respect to the Union's request
for the inclusion of matrons in a unit of armed militarized guards.
In support of its position that the Union is ineligible to represent
separate units of militarized guards and production and maintenance
employees, the Company contends that a regulation of the War De-
partment prevents militarized guards from bargaining collectively
through a labor organization which also represents the production
and maintenance employees.4 In conformity with this position, the
Company argues that, while the regulation admits the right of mili-
tarized guards to bargain collectively in a unit separate from that of
production and maintenance employees, and further provides that
"both bargaining units may be affiliated with the same labor organiza-
tion," the term "labor organization," as used in this section of the
regulation means a general labor organization as distinguished from
a local of such organization. Such contention is, however, inconsistent
with the decision of the Board in the recent case of E. I. Dupont de
Nemours and Company, wherein the Board considered an identical
The only apparent effect of the amendment is to include under the term "plant protec-
tion employees" certain women employees known as matrons in addition to the armed
guards. The fact that the amended petition of the Union now covers all plants of the
Company is of no practical significance since it appears that there are no plant -protection
employees at the Company 's fifth plant or the two warehouses , located in Chicago, Illinois.
° The Company and the Union entered into an exclusive collective bargaining agreement,
effective as of October 2, 1942, and covering the production and maintenance employees
in five Chicago plants of the Company , including the four plants herein referred to.
* The regulation known as Circular No. 15 contains the following provision No. 6 (h)
subheading ( 2), which states as follows :
Auxiliary military police are permitted to bargain collectively but, no such activity
will be tolerated which will interfere with their obligations as members of the
auxiliary military police. In view of the recent decisions of the National Labor
Relations Board ( re Lord Manufacturing Company and The United Rubber Workers
of America, 0. I. 0., Case R-4826, February 1943 ), the auxiliary military police
should be represented in collective bargaining with the management by a bargaining
unit other than that composed of the production and maintenance workers, although
both bargaining units may be affiliated with the same labor organization. Where
guards are not now included in the same bargaining unit, this is mandatory.
Where guards are included in such unit necessary consideration will be given to
effect a change to conform to the foregoing policies.
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
regulation of the War Department and decided that, there was no
occasion for denying the request of the petitioning local union "to
represent both the production employees and the guards of the Com-
pany in separate and distinct units if it is chosen to do so." 5' More-
over, the practice of the Board in permitting the representation of
armed militarized guards and production employees in separate units
by the same local, is not only supported by a long line of Board
decisions 6 but has recently been affirmed after full reconsideration of
the factors therein involved.' We find, accordingly, that- the Com-
pany's objection in this respect is without merit.
There remains for consideration the question of the inclusion or
exclusion of sergeants and matrons from the unit of armed militarized
guards.
Sergeants: While these employees are- paid at the same hourly rate
as the ordinary guards, they are usually assigned to desk posts where
they receive calls, make out reports and transmit orders. According
to the testimony which is undisputed, it appears not only that sergeants
give orders to the guards and reprimand them on occasion, but also
that the guards regard themselves as subordinate to the sergeants.
The latter are; moreover, expected to report to their respective captains
the failure of any guard to perform his work properly. On the cap-
tain's day off and in the absence of the captain generally, the sergeant
is in charge of his shift of guards. Under the circumstances, we find
that the sergeants in question have substantial supervisory duties in-
consistent with the interests of ordinary guards. We shall, therefore,
in accordance with our normal practice in this respect, exclude the
sergeants from the guard unit hereinafter found appropriate.8
Matrbns: These employees have, with respect to the female workers,
duties which in many respects parallel those of guards. On the other
'hand, matrons unlike guards are neither armed nor militarized.
The effect of militarization upon the employees of plant-protection
employees with respect to similar employees who have not been so
militarized, has been considered by the Board in a recent case wherein
the policy of the Board in regard to collective bargaining by mili-
tarized guards was fully reviewed and the conclusions therefrom
noted as follows: e
The militarization of plant-protection employees, while no
obstacle to unionization, is nevertheless significant. As civilian
6 See Matter of E. I. Dupont de Nemours and Company , 49 N. L. R. B. 1125.
See Matter of Maytag Company, 44 N. L. R. B 1265 ; Matter of Campbell Soup Com-
pany, 45 N. L. R. B. 6; Matter of E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company , 49 N. L. R. B.
1125; Matter of Firestone Tire & Rubber Company of California , 51 N. L. R. B. 83 =
Matter of Consolidated Steel Corporation, Ltd., 51 N. L. R. B. 333.
7 See Matter of Dravo Corporation, 52 N. L. R. B. 322.
8 See Matter of Consolidated Steel Corporation, 51 N. L. R. B. 333.
0 See Matter of Dravo Corporation , 52 N. L . R. B. 322.
FOOTE BROS. GEAR AND MACHINE CORPORATION 865
auxiliaries of a military force, the guards have greater duties and
obligations than have those plant-protection employees who are
not militarized. To the end that the guards may be better able to
function within the military sphere, and to permit the military
authorities to exercise greater control over the guards, we shall
establish a bargaining unit for all militarized plant-protection
employees separate and apart from those who are nonmilitarized.
We contemplate that the separation of the bargaining units in
their negotiations with the Company and their day to day activi-
ties will be one of fact, not merely of form.
In accordance with the rule set forth above, we shall not include
the matrons within the unit of militarized guards, but shall, never-
theless, accord them an opportunity to bargain collectively in a unit
separate and apart from that of the militarized guards.
We find that all guards of the Company who are enrolled members
of the auxiliary military police, excluding captains, sergeants, and all
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, 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 matrons employed by the
Company, excluding- supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute
a separate 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 elections by secret ballot among the employees
in the appropriate units who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elections herein,
subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
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 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 Foote Bros. Gear
and Machine Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, separate elections by
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Thirteenth 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 Regu-
lations, among the employees in the units 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 vaca-
tion or temporarily laid o1T, 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 dis-
charged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by Amalgamated Machine Tool & Die Local 1114-U. E.
R. M. W. A., C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
a