Ingram-Richardson Mfg. Co. of Indiana, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 14, 1938

9 N.L.R.B. 200 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of INGRAM -RICHARDSON MFG. CO. OF INDIANA , INC. and AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF IRON, STEEL & TIN WORKERS, LOCAL 1774 In the Matter Of INGRAM-RICHARDSON MFG. CO . OF INDIANA, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FOUNDRY EMPLOYEES , LOCAL No. 64, AFFILIATED WITH THE A. F. OF L. Cases Nos. R-991 and R-992, respectively.Decided October 14, 1938 Porcelain and Enamel Products Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives : controversy concerning representation of employees* rival organizations ; employer 's refusal to grant either union exclusive recognition until one is designated by Board-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: production and maintenance employees , exclusive of truck drivers , clerical employees , and supervisory employees ; agreement as to : controversy as to inclusion of 13 employees within unit-Representatives : proof of choice: com- parison of membership cards of unions with pay roll-Certification of Repre- sentatives : upon proof of majority representation Mr. Lester M. Levin, for the Board. Mr. Thomas M. Ryan, of Frankfort, Ind., for the Company. Mr. Frank S. Pryor, and Mr. Hollis G. Davison, of Frankfort, Ind., for the International. A1.19. James Robb, Indianapolis, Ind., for the Amalgamated. Mr. Allan Lind, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES STATEMENT OF THE CASE On June 29, 1938, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers, Local No. 1774, herein called the Amalgamated, and on July 19, 1938, International Brotherhood of Foundry Employees, Local No. 64, herein called the International, filed with the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis, Indiana) separate petitions each alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Ingram-Richardson Manufacturing Company of Indiana , Inc., Frankfort, Indiana, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and cer- 9 N. L. R . B., No. 31. 200 DECISIONS AND ORDERS 201 tification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On July 30, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. The Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regulations, further ordered that the cases be consolidated for purposes of hearing. On August 5, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear- ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon the Amalgamated, and upon the International. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on August 15, 1938, at Frankfort, Indiana, be- fore Thomas H. Kennedy, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, the Amalgamated, and the International were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was af- forded all parties. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Ingram-Richardson Manufacturing Company of Indiana, Inc., is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business located in the city of Frankfort, Indiana. The Company is engaged in the manufacture,' sale, and distribution of porcelain table tops, enameled stove and refrigerator parts, and frit. The raw materials used by the Company in its manufacturing operations consist of flat steel, enameling stock, acids, sands, glass, mine products, oxides, light chemicals, packing supplies, and gasoline. During the year 1937, the cost of said raw materials amounted to $765,000, of which 85 per cent were shipped to the Company from points outside the State of Indiana. During the same year, the Company produced 448,000, pieces of metal; 270,000 porcelain table tops; 5,330,000 square feet of enameled steel stove parts; 3,500,000 pounds of enameled cast- iron stove parts; and 10,700,000 pounds of frit. The estimated value of such finished products amounted to approximately $900,000. Ap- proximately 75 per cent of the finished products were shipped to points outside the State of Indiana. -202 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers, Local No. 1774, is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting to its membership production and maintenance employees of the Company, exclusive of truck drivers, clerical employees, and supervisory employees. International Brotherhood of Foundry Employees, Local No. 64, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and admits to its membership production and maintenance ,employees of the Company, exclusive of truck drivers, clerical em- ployees, and supervisory employees. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Early in 1937, both the Amalgamated and the International con- ducted organization campaigns among the employees of the Com- pany. Later in the same year, the Company entered into contracts with these unions, whereby the Company recognized each as the col- lective bargaining representative for its members. On May 24, 1938, the Amalgamated requested the Company to renew the 1937 agree- ment with it and to recognize it as the exclusive representative of all the production employees. The Company refused to grant such recognition but extended the 1937 agreement, which would have ex- pired in June 1938, to September 1, 1938, pending the determination of whether the Amalgamated was entitled to exclusive recognition. In July 1938, the International likewise requested exclusive bargain- ing rights for the same employees when its contract with the Com- pany should expire in October 1938. The Company similarly refused to grant such exclusive bargaining rights to the International. We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT All parties agreed at the hearing that the appropriate unit should consist of "production department employees" of the Company, exclu- sive of truck drivers, clerical employees, and supervisory employees. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 203 From the record it is apparent that by the term "production depart- ment employees" the parties intended to include production and main- tenance employees. Both unions admit to membership the employees in the unit they claim to be appropriate and we see no reason for departing from such unit. We find that all the production and main- tenance employees of the Company, exclusive of truck drivers, cleri- cal employees, and supervisory employees constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. The Company introduced into evidence its pay roll as of August t2, 1938, which purported to show that there were 236 employees within the appropriate unit. The Amalgamated claimed, however, that 13 of such individuals should be excluded from the unit. The Inter- national did not take any position with respect to the status of these 13 employees. These employees, who are discussed below, were all excluded from terms of the 1937 contracts between the unions and the Company as being foremen, assistant foremen, firemen, watchmen, fixed salaried employees, clerical employees, and supervisors. The question for our determination is whether these 13 employees are within the unit which was agreed upon and which we have found to be appropriate. llildreth Mavity supervises the quality of enamel production in the laboratory department. He was excluded from the 1937 contracts as a supervisory employee, and the record shows that his duties have not been changed. We shall exclude him from the unit. Roy McClure is engaged as a fireman, firing boilers at the Com- pany's plant. The record does not clearly indicate whether firemen are considered production or maintenance employees within the de- scription of the unit we have found to be appropriate. The contracts made by the Company in 1937 with the Amalgamated and the Inter- national excluded firemen from their terms. No reason was advanced, however, to show that firemen are not maintenance employees within the unit we have found above to be appropriate, and it is apparent that such employees are maintenance employees. We shall therefore include Roy McClure within the unit. Leo Cecil Toney and Charles C. Pittman were both assistant fore- men in 1937 and as such were excluded from the terms of the 1937 contracts. At the time of the hearing, due to a reduction in the plant force, both had been demoted to the position of "fuser, box furnace" which is classified as a production position. There is a possibility that if production increases they will be returned to their former posi- tions as assistant foremen. In view of their present status as produc- tion employees, however, we shall include them within the unit. 204 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Oliver -Coin was excluded in the 1937 agreements between the Amal- gamated and the Company as a salaried employee in the "control laboratory." His status had not been changed at the time of the hearing and there was no clear showing that he is a production or maintenance employee within the definition of the appropriate unit. We shall therefore exclude him from the unit. Paul Hauser, Fred Parnell, and Richard Smith were excluded from the terms of the 1937 agreements as salaried employees. Since then they have been placed on an hourly basis. They are classified as "production chasers." It is their duty to see that certain items -ordered by customers for a particular time go through the production process at the plant according to the order. They are not themselves -engaged,in production work and it would appear that their duties are supervisory in character. We shall therefore exclude them from the unit. Clayton Johnson and Forrest M. Melling were classified as super- visors in the 1937 agreements. There has been no change in their work. It is their duty to check the "packers," who pack the finished -products for shipment, and see that the orders are correctly filled by the packers. We find that Johnson and Melling are supervisory -employees and we shall exclude them from the unit. George I. Dukes was a watchman and janitor at the time of the hearing. Although janitors are included within the unit as mainte- nance employees, watchmen, not being so classified, are excluded. The --record does not indicate in which capacity Dukes spends most of his -time. Since we cannot determine whether he is to be considered as a production or maintenance employee and since neither union claims he is within the appropriate unit, we shall exclude him from the unit. • Irwin C. Gosewehr is an assistant millwright or maintenance fore- man. We find that Gosewehr is a supervisory employee, and we shall exclude him from the unit. Abraham Hamilton was a watchman at the Company's plant at the time of the hearing. We find that Hamilton is not a production or maintenance employee and we shall exclude him from the unit. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Company's pay roll as of August 12, 1938, the last pay-roll date preceding the hearing, showed that there are 226 employees within the appropriate unit.' The Amalgamated and the Interna- tional submitted their membership cards and application cards in support of their respective claims to represent a majority of the em- ployees involved. It was agreed by all parties at the hearing that 1 This figure was arrived at by excluding those employees whom the Company designated as being supervisory employees and truck drivers and those whom we have found not to ,be within the appropriate unit. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 205 132 signatures on the Amalgamated 's cards were genuine and were those of employees on the Company's pay roll as of August 12, 1938. The same agreement was made regarding 69 of the cards submitted by the International. We have examined the signatures on the cards of the two unions and find that 16 employees have signed cards of both unions. As- suming that those 16 employees intended to join the International, it would appear that the Amalgamated still represents 116 of the 226 ,employees in the appropriate unit and therefore a majority of them. Under the circumstances , it is not necessary to determine the status ,of the 16 employees who have apparently joined both unions. We find that the Amalgamated has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their repre- sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining . It is, therefore, the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining , and we will so certify. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Ingram -Richardson Manufacturing Com- pany of Indiana , Inc., Frankfort , Indiana, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The production and maintenance employees of the Company, exclusive of truck drivers , clerical employees, and supervisory em- ployees , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel , and Tin Workers, Local No. 1774 , is the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 ( a) of the Nadonal Labor Relations Act. CERTIFICATION OF iiEPRESENTATIVES By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel , and Tin Workers, Local No. 1774, has been designated and selected by a majority of the production and maintenance employees of Ingram -Richardson Manufacturing Company of Indiana, Inc., 206 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Frankfort , Indiana, exclusive of truck drivers , clerical employees, and supervisory employees , as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to the provisions of Sec- tion 9 ( a) of the Act, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers, Local No. 1774, is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.