John Deere Harvester Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 1078 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of Jon N DEERE HARVESTER WORKS and UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS,
AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O.
Case No. 13-R-3250.-Decided March. 22, 1946
Mr. S. M. Lyman, of Moline, Ill., for the Company.
Mr. G. B. Hughes, of East Moline, Ill. ; Mr. Morris Field, of Moline,
Ill., for the C. I. O.
Mr. G. H. Foley, of Moline, Ill. ; Mr. E. J. Reid, of Chicago, Ill..
for the IAM.
Mr. C. G. Kessler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Automobile, Aircraft and
Agricultural. Implement Workers, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein
called the C. I. 0., alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of John Deere
Harvesting Works, East Moline, Illinois, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before Gustaf B. Erickson, Trial Examiner.
The hearing was held at Moline, Illinois, on November 29, 1945. The
Company, the C. I. 0., and International Association of Machinists,
District Lodge No. 102, herein called the IAM, appeared and partici-
pated.' All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing 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 opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
I United Farm Equipment workers of America, C. 1 0, was served with notice of
hearing but did not appear
66 N. L . R. B., No. 133.
1078
JOHN DEERE HARVESTER WORKS 1079
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Deere and Company, an Illinois corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of farm equipment. It operates
eight plants in the State of Illinois, including the John Deere Har-
vester Works, at East Moline, with which this proceeding is solely
concerned. During the year 1944, the Company purchased raw mate-
rials, including iron, steel, and lumber, valued in excess of $1,000,000,
of which at least 70 percent was shipped from points outside the State
of Illinois. During the same period, the total sales of farm equip-
ment manufactured by the Company were in excess of $1,000,000, of
which about 70 percent represented shipments to points outside the
State.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 102,
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the C. I. O. as
the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees
until the C. I. O. has been certified by the Board in an appropriate
unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the C. I. O. represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2
We find that a question affecting commerce has 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.
2 The Field Examiner reported that the C. I. O. submitted 51 membership application
cards and that 50 of these cards bore names listed on the Company's October 13, 1945,
pay roll. He reported also that the IAM submitted 28 membership application cards, all
of which bore names of employees listed on the same pay roll. There are approximately
88 employees in the appropriate unit,
1080 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The C. I. 0. petitioned for a unit consisting of the experimental
workers of the Company. At the hearing, the C. I. 0. took the alter-
native position that the experimental employees could be made part
of the production and maintenance unit,3 which it currently repre-
sents4 All parties agree with the C. I. O.'s primary position. The
Company, however, opposes the alternative request of the C. I. 0.,1
while the IAM takes no position.
The Company is divided into two departments, the production and
maintenance department and the experimental department. The two
departments occupy separate buildings and are under separate super-
vision. The experimental department creates and develops new farm
equipment and makes corrections and improvements on equipment
in production. The production and maintenance department pro-
duces equipment that has been perfected by the experimental depart-
ment. There is no interchange of employees; transfers from the
production and maintenance department to the experimental depart-
ment are considered a promotion even though no wage increase results.
The employees of the two departments punch different clocks and
are paid on a different wage basis. They do, however, have the same
vacation privileges, insurance privileges, and work the same hours.
In the prior proceeding involving the Company, we determined
after careful consideration of the lack of interchange and the differ-
ence in skills, wages, supervision, and place of work between the
production and maintenance employees on the one hand, and the
experimental workers on the other hand, that the experimental work-
ers should be excluded from the production and maintenance unit.
There has been no change in the circumstances at these operations
since our prior decision. Moreover, we have heretofore held, in
Matter of John Deere Spreader Works of Deere ct Company,° involv-
ing a somewhat analogous situation at the Spreader Workers of the
Company, that a separate unit of experimental workers is appropriate.
Acc9rdingly, we shall establish a separate unit for these employees.
However, as in the above-cited case, we hold that it will not be in-
6 The C. I. O. stated , in this connection , that "it does not make any difference whether
it is a separate unit or part of the same unit, " as in either event "it would be the same
organization."
4 See Matter of John Deere Harvester Works of Deere & Company , 44 N. L . R. B. 335;
as a result of the Board -directed election , the C. I. 0 was certified October 26 , 1942, as
the bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees at the
Harvester Works, excluding , among others , the employees of the experimental depart-
ment.
4 With respect to the C. I. O.'s alternative position , the Company states, "that is some-
thing if handled at all by the Company would have to be handled by agreement If and
when the [C . I. 0.1 is found to represent these people" ; and "we can hardly agree in
view of the intervenor that the [C . I 0.1 shall represent anyone In the experimental
department."
6 5T N. L. R. B, 411.
JOHN DEERE HARVESTER WORKS 1081
appropriate for the parties to consolidate the two groups in the event
that the C. I. O. is selected by a majority of the experimental depart-
ment employees.
We find, therefore, in accordance with the primary position of the
C. I. O. and the agreement of the Company and the IAM therewith,
that all the employees in the experimental department of the Com-
pany's Harvester Works, excluding janitors,' designers, draftsmen,
blueprint room help, stenographers, clerks, assistant engineers, assist-
ant foremen, chief draftsmen, the planning department head, chief
engineer, foremen, superintendent of the experimental department,
and all or any 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 mean-
ing 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 an election by secret ballot among employees
in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein,
subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
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 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with John Deere Har-
vester Works, East Moline, Illinois, 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 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 Regulations,
among 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 dur-
ing said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the
7 The janitors are included in the production and maintenance unit.
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LALOR RELATIONS BOARD
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but ex-
cluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the
election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers, affiliated
with the C. 1. 0., or by International Association of Machinists, Dis-
trict Lodge No. 102, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.