Hershey Machine and Foundry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1308 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of HERSHEY MACHINE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, EM- •
PLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETI-
TIONER
Case No. 4-R-2055.Decided August 8, 19.46
Mr. Paul A. Mueller , of Lancaster , Pa., and Mr. A. H . Young, of
Manheim, Pa., for the Employer.
Mr. Stanley M. Lentz, of Philadelphia , Pa., and Mr. Carl Burtner,
of York, Pa., for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
0
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Lan-
caster, Pennsylvania , on June 14 , 1946, before John H. Garver, Trial
Examiner . The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Hershey Machine and Foundry Company, a Pennsylvania corpora-
tion, has its sole plant and offices at Manheim , Pennsylvania, where
it is engaged in the manufacture of various machine products and grey
iron castings . In the operation of its Manheim plant , the Employer
uses annually raw materials valued in excess of $500,000 , of which 50
percent is obtained from points outside the Commonwealth of Penn-
sylvania. Of the finished products annually manufactured by the
Employer and valued in excess of $500,000 , approximately 85 percent
is sold and shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania.
The Employer admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
69 N. L. R. B., No. 163.
1308
HERSHEY MACHINE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY 1309
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 1
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and'(7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner contends that all machinists, machine mechanics,
helpers and employees of the Employer's machine shop, including
working foremen, but excluding supervisory employees, foremen, night
watchmen, guards, office employees, installation employees, and em-
ployees of the foundry and pattern shop, constitute an appropriate
unit. The Employer takes the position that, due to various circum-
stances, particularly the integration of its operations, only a unit in-
cluding both machine shop and foundry pattern shop employees is
appropriate. The Employer is, however, otherwise in agreement with
the Petitioner in respect to the inclusions and exclusions requested.
The Employer has no history of collective bargaining? As regards
the Employer's contention that the integration of operations requires
that both machine shop and the foundry pattern shop employees be
included within the unit, the record discloses that, although the Ina-
chine shop and the founds' y including the pattern shop have certain
functional interrelations and are subject to over-all management poli-
cies, each is a separate department under the supervision of a superin-
tendent with substantial independent authority .3 The several depart-
ments operate upon an entirely different shift and time basis, and each
department produces a. substantially different and distince product.
.Notwithstanding. a limited amount of temporary interchange of em-
ployees between the two departments, the great majority of the em-
ployees of each department normally remain in the department to
which they are regularly assigned. Moreover, the Petitioner, although
' International Molders and Foundry Union of North America, A. F . of L., herein called
the Molders , was also served with notice but did not appear or participate in the hearing.
2 The Employer ' s contention that a prior consent election on the basis of a plant-wide
unit is bargaining history which establishes conclusively the validity of its position, is
without merit , inasmuch as the election did not result in the selection of a bargaining
representative . See Matter of Louis Malina , et at., 66 N. L. R. B. 592.
$ The evidence reveals that , notwithstanding the initial interviewing of applicants for
employment by the personnel manager, the final decision as regards employment rests with
The department superintendents.
1310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collaborating with the Molders in a recent unsuccessful attempt by the
latter to organize foundry employees,' has, in recognition of the
Molders' craft jurisdiction, limited its own organization to machine
shop employees. In view of the foregoing facts, including the organi-
zational separation of the two departments, the absence of any substan-
tial amount of interchange of employees between them, and the limited
extent of organization, we are of the opinion that the employees of the
machine shop alone may now constitute a unit suitable for the purposes
of collective bargaining .5
We find that all machinists, machine mechanics, helpers and em-
ployees of the machine shop, including working foremen, but exclud-
ing guards, night watchmen, office employees, installation employees,
employees of the foundry and pattern shop, foremen, and all or any
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Hershey Machine and Foundry
Company, Manheim, Pennsylvania, 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 Fourth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 3, as amended, among the 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 in-
cluding 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 re-
hired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
4 During the month of March 1946, the Petitioner and the Molders collaborated in a
joint campaign to organize the Employer 's machine shop and foundry employees under an
agreement recognizing the separate jurisdiction of each labor organization over the em-
ployees herein concerned. Subsequent thereto, the Molders withdrew from the campaign
as the result of lack of interest among the foundry employees with respect to the selection
of a bargaining representative.
5 See Matter of Gaylord Bros., Inc., 64 N. L. R. B. 1350, and cases cited therein.