O'Hara Metal Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 236 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cated their desire to remain outside such existing unit. In either event,
the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of the results
of the election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS FANNING and JENKINS took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
San Francisco Metal Products Company, d/b/a O'Hara Metal
Products Co., Petitioner and International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge No.
68, and Tool and Die Craftsmen , National Federation of Inde-
pendent Unions. Case No. 00-RM-751. October 15,1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held on June 28, 1965, before
Hearing Officer Walter L. Kintz, Jr. The Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. The Employer and Tool and Die Craftsmen, National Fed-
eration of Independent Unions, herein called Tool and Die Union, have
filed briefs.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and
Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer -within the meaning of Sections 9 (c)
(1) (B) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Tool and Die Union contends that an existing collective-bargaining
agreement with California Metal Trades Association, herein called
CMTA, is a bar to this proceeding.
Arrow Tool and Die Works, herein called Arrow, was a partnership
consisting of two partners, Reno Bottano and Albert Hill, engaged in
tool-and-die work. It had two employees. Arrow was a member of
the CMTA and was represented for collective-bargaining purposes by
155 NLRB No. 27.
O'HARA METAL PRODUCTS Co. 237
that organization as part of a multiemployer unit. On May 31, 1965, a
2-year collective-bargaining contract between CMTA and Tool and
Die Union expired without a new contract having been agreed to. On
June 7, 1965, the two contracting parties reached a tentative under-
standing on terms for a new agreement. The terms were ratified by the
Union and various members of the CMTA a few days later, although
not by Arrow, and embodied in a written contract which CMTA mem-
bers approved on June 9, 1965. It is this contract which is asserted to
be a bar.
O'Hara Metal Products, the Employer, was incorporated by Charles
O'Hara in October 1964. O'Hara had no connection with Arrow or
with its partners. In October, O'Hara Metal Products took a 6-month
option to purchase the business of Arrow. In April 1965, O'Hara
Metal Products exercised its option and took over the Arrow business,
although no formal contract was signed until June, at which time
O'Hara paid 5 percent in cash and the remainder in the form of two
promissory notes payable in equal amounts to the partners. The prom-
issory note to partner Hill, but not to partner Bottano, is convertible
to stock of O'Hara Metal Products at the option of the noteholder.
However, the Hill note has not been converted, and neither of the
Arrow partners has any stock interest in O'Hara Metal Products.
Arrow had been engaged exclusively in tool-and-die work for outside
companies and employed two tool-and-die makers. On commencing
operation of the Arrow business, O'Hara Metal Products sold a sub-
stantial amount of the Arrow machinery, moved in springmaking
machinery, and began manufacturing coil springs as its principal prod-
uct. It also increased the work force from 2 employees to 10 employees,
including 2 temporary workers. Of the present work force, five
employees are tool-and-die craftsmen and the others, including the
temporary employees, are production workers. O'Hara Metal Prod-
ucts continues to service former Arrow customers, but the greatest part
of its present business is springmaking, which was not the business of
Arrow. Arrow partner Bottano is an hourly paid employee of O'Hara
Metal Products, and partner Hill is its chief engineer.
On June 3, 1965, International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge No. 68, herein called the IAM,
requested recognition as bargaining representative of the Employer's
production and maintenance employees. On June 9 the Employer
filed the present petition.
The Employer has never signed the 1965 collective-bargaining con-
tract between the CMTA and Tool and Die Union or authorized the
CMTA to act as its bargaining representative. Nevertheless, Tool and
Die Union contends that O'Hara Metal Products is the successor in
interest to Arrow and is therefore bound by the present collective-bar-
238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaining contract between CMTA and Tool and Die Union. Both the
Employer and the IAM deny this contention of the Tool and Die
Union.
We reject the argument that O'Hara Metal Products is the legal
successor to Arrow and thus bound by the latter's collective-bargaining
contracts. O'Hara Metal Products is a company completely separate
from and independent of Arrow. The latter's partners have no equity
interest in O'Hara and perform no supervisory functions for the latter;
they are now only its employees. O'Hara has enlarged and changed
the primary business of Arrow, using new machinery and manufactur-
ing new products. Accordingly, we find that O'Hara Metal Products
is not a legal successor to Arrow and that the collective-bargaining
contract between CMTA and the Tool and Die Union is therefore not
a bar to this proceeding.'
The IAM seeks to represent all the Employer's production and
maintenance employees. Alternatively, it is willing to represent a
residual unit. Tool and Die Union asserts the unit should be limited
to tool-and-die workers. The Employer contends for an overall unit.
The Employer has eight permanent employees, of whom five are
tool-and-die workers and three are production workers. Tool-and-die
makers do production as well as tool-and-die work. All employees
work closely together under the same supervision. Production work-
ers may look forward to joining the journeyman rank with acquired
abilities and experience. In view of the small size of the Employer's
entire operation and the integration of operations, we find that a pro-
duction and maintenance unit is appropriate.
At the time of the hearing, there were two temporary employees at
work. One was a college student hired for the summer vacation, the
other was hired for a particular short-term job. At the hearing in
June, an employer witness testified that both of these employees would
be discharged in July. As temporary employees, we shall exclude
them from the unit .2
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant
in San Francisco, California, including tool-and-die makers and ma-
chinists, but excluding temporary employees, office clerical and plant
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
1 Piasecki Aircraft Corporation , 123 NLRB 348 , 363-365
2 Belcher Towing Company, 122 NLRB 1019. Continental Baking Company , 122 NLRB
1074.