International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 17, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 390 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, MELROSE PARK
PLANT, EMPLOYER and UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRI-.
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA ( UAW-CIO),
PETITIONER
Case No. 13-1-t-5662.-Decided October 17, 1946
Mr. D. B. Oldaker, of Chicago, Ill., for the Employer.
Mr. Max Raskin, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the Petitioner.
Mr. TV. O. Sonnzemann, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the United.
Mr. Daniel D. Carmell, by Messrs. Lester Asher and Joseph E.
Gubbins, of Chicago, Ill., for the A. F. of L.
Messrs. John B.aggot and K. M. Hindley, of Maywood, Ill., for the
Teamsters.
Mr. James M. Kennedy, of Chicago, Ill., for the Firemen and Oilers.
Messrs. J. J. Denny, P. L. Siemiller, R. Paquet, and B. H. Skid-
more, of Chicago, Ill., for the IAM.
Messrs. John Gavin and Charles F. Albrecht, of Chicago, Ill., for
the Operating Engineers.
Mr. A. Swrnner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Chicago,
Illinois, on July 22 and 26, 1946, before Leon A. Rosell, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The A. F. of L.'s
in(otion to dismiss is hereby denied for reasons hereinafter stated.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
International Harvester Company, a New Jersey corporation, has
its principal offices in Chicago, Illinois, and is engaged in the manu-
facture of various types of power and farm equipment at various
plants located in widely separated areas of the United States. The
only plant involved in this proceeding is the Melrose Park plant
71 N. L R. B., No. 56
390
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 391
situated at Melrose Park, Illinois, which plant has not been operated
by the Employer prior to the year 1946. The Employer estimated
that during the current year its sales of finished products from its
Melrose Park plant would exceed $1,000,000 in value, of which approxi-
mately 50 percent would be shipped to points outside the State of
Illinois.
The Employer does not deny, and we find that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. TIIE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, herein
called the United, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
The American Federation of Labor, herein called the A. F. of L., is
a labor organization, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
Local 782, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Teamsters,
is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. °
Local 7, International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Mainte-
nance Laborers and Helpers, herein called the Firemen and Oilers,
is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
Die and Tool Makers Lodge 113, International Association of Ma-
chinists, herein called the IAM, is a labor organization affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees
of the Employer.
Local 399, International Union of Operating Engineers, herein
called the Operating Engineers, is a labor organization affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees
of the Employer.
III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. -
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.
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT ; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
-The Petitioner seeks a plant-wide unit consisting of all production
and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its Melrose
Park plant, excluding outside truck drivers, clerical and supervisory
employees. The United supports the Petitioner's request that the
appropriate unit be plant-wide in character. The craft labor organi-
zations consisting of the Firemen and Oilers, the IAM, the Team-
sters, and the Operating Engineers, seek separate craft units confined
to employees within their respective craft jurisdictions. The A. F.
of L., although questioning the propriety of directing an election at
this time, agrees with its affiliated craft labor organizations in their
contention that separate unfits be recognized as appropriate for the
various groups which they claim to represent in the present proceed-
ing. The Employer's position is that it desires that the Board deter-
mine the scope of the appropriate unit.'
The Employer's operations as conducted at its Melrose Park plant
are of the usual integrated type common to large industrial enter-
prises. In the present instance, however, the'Employer has no his-
tory of collective bargaining with respect to its Melrose Park plant
which, although operated by another concern as a war plant until
V-J Day of last year, was not acquired by the Employer until Janu-
a}y of 1946, and has been in operation by the latter only since March
19,1946. So far as the groups of employees claimed by the craft organ-
izations are concerned, while it appears that both the Petitioner and
the United have organized upon a plant-wide basis, it is evident that
the units sought by the A. F. of L. unions are basically craft main-
tenance in character within the traditional craft jurisdiction of such
labor organizations. Moreover, the propriety of separate craft units
at the Melrose Park plant has, in an earlier proceeding involving the
Employer's predecessor in interest at this plant, been recognized by
the Board with respect to several of the craft groups claimed as sepa-
rate'units in the present proceeding.' Accordingly, notwithstanding
the highly integrated nature of the Employer's operations and the
plant-wide organization on the part of two of the labor organizations
herein concerned, we are of the opinion, in view of the prior existence
of separate craft units during the earlier operation of the Melrose
Park plant by the Employer's predecessor and in the absence of any
history of collective bargaining by the Employer at this plant, that
' The Employer at one time during the hearing stated that it was opposed to the exclu-
sion of outside truck drivers from the plant-wide unit sought by the Petitioner. The position
thus taken by the Employer will be considered herein in connection with the discussion as
to the appropriateness of a unit of outside truck drivers claimed by the Teamsters in the
present instance.
' See Matter of Buick Division, General Motors Corporation , 40 N. L It. B . 225 ; 41
N. L. It. B 988.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 393
the craft employees sought by the Firemen and Oilers, the IAM, and
the Operating Engineers, respectively, may properly constitute sepa-
rate bargaining units or may be merged in a single unit of produc-
tion and maintenance employees.3 In this situation, we shall permit
the scope of the bargaining unit or units to be determined, in part, by
the results of separate elections among the several groups, represented
by the three unions aforesaid and comprising substantially the same
classifications considered by the Board in its earlier Decision regard-
ing the Melrose Park plant.
With respect to the appropriateness of a unit consisting of outside
drivers, claimed by the Teamsters as constituting a separate craft, it
appears that none of the unions involved other than the Teamsters de-
sire to represent outside truck drivers as distinguished from other truck
drivers whose duties are mainly confined to the operation of 'trucks
within the grounds surrounding the plant herein concerned. So far
as the Employer is concerned, its original position taken at the hearing
was in opposition to a separate unit for outside truck drivers upon the
ground that a unit thus established would be too small for all practical
purposes of collective bargaining. Although the record discloses that
there are only two employees who may be considered as within the
category of outside truck drivers, we are of the opinion, under the
circumstances, that the purposes of the Act will be best effectuated by
the recognition of a separate unit for outside truck drivers in accord-
ance with our usual policy in regard to employees of this type .4
We find that all outside truck drivers employed by the Employer
at its Melrose Park plant, excluding all other employees in the trucking
department, and all 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 mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
There remains for consideration the question as to whether any
election should be directed at this time because the number of pro-
duction and maintenance employees employed at the date of the hear-
ing at the Melrose Park plant was only 1045 or approximately one-
fourth of the anticipated full employment in the production and main-
tenance group expected to result from the Employer's present plans for
expansion. The A. F. of L. contends that, in view of the expanding
character of the Employer's operations, no election should be directed
for any employees other than those sought to be represented by the
craft labor organization herein concerned, and that the petition for
8 See Matter of Kaiser Industries, 61 N L . R B 682 ; Matter of Doughnut Corporation
of America, 66 N. L R B. 1231.
4 See Matter of Gulf Refining Company, 66 N. L. R. B. 142 ; Matter of John Morrell &
Company , 69 N. L R. B 1446
394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
investigation and certification of representative's should in all other
respects be dismissed. The Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that
the present force of production and maintenance employees at the
Melrose Park plant constitutes a substantial and representative group
and that the Board should therefore direct an election upon the basis of
past practice under such circumstances.
The record discloses that the Employer's plans call for an ultimate
expansion to approximately 4200 production and maintenance em-
ployees. However, although the Employer gave a definite estimate of
June 1947 as the date upon which it expected that its expansion would
be completed, it appears that, clue to difficulties in obtaining new ma-
chinery and equipment, there is considerable uncertainty as to when
the Employer's physical arrangements for its expansion, including the
addition of 8 new departments, may be ready and available for use in
furtherance of its planned expansion. In view of the uncertainty as
to when its contemplated expansion will occur and in consideration of
the fact that its current personnel constitutes a substantial and repre-
sentative group, we shall adhere to our usual policy in such cases of
directing immediate elections.'
We shall, however, entertain a new petition for an investigation and
certification of representatives affecting the employees involved
herein within less than a year, but not before the expiration of 6 months
from the date of any certification we may issue in the instant proceed-
ing upon presentation of the requisite proof prescribed in the _