Rockford Metal Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 11, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 538 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of ROOKFORD METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY and UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO Case No. 13-R-3235-Decided March 11, 1946. Mr. James Berry , of Rockford , Ill., for the Company. Messrs. Thomas E. Sullivan and Earl F . Stata, Jr., of Rockford, 111., for the Union. Margaret H. Patterson , of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by United Automobile, Aircraft & Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Rockford Metal Prod- ucts Company, Rockford Illinois, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before John R. Hill, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Rockford, Illinois, on October 23, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Exam- iner'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. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE COMPANY Rockford Metal Products Company is an Illinois corporation en- gaged in the manufacture of metal stamps and assemblies at its plant 66 N. L . R. B., No. 71. 538 ROCKFORD METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 539 in Rockford, Illinois. During the year 1944, the Company purchased raw materials valued in excess of $250,000.00, approximately 50 per- cent of which was shipped from points outside the State of Illinois. During the same period, the Company manufactured finished prod- ucts valued in excess of $500,000.00, of which approximately 50 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Illinois. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America is a labor organization, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees until the Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.' 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. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that all production and maintenance employees of the Company, including set-up men, working foremen and watchmen, but excluding office and clerical employees, the general manager, office manager, assistant manager, chief engineer, tool designer, superintendent, foremen, and all or any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro- 1 At the hearing, the Union submitted to the Trial Examiner 93 application cards, bearing the names of 35 employees , listed on the Company 's pay roll of September 20, 1945. There are approximately 75 employees in the appropriate unit. The Company objected to the receipt in evidence of the Trial Examiner 's state- ment concerning the application cards on the ground that the Company was not afforded an opportunity to examine the signatures and compare them with pay-roll signatures , and that the Trial Examiner had not made such a comparison . The Trial Examiner overruled this objection and his ruling is hereby upheld. The submission of cards is an administrative expedient adopted by the Board to determine whether the petitioner has a sufficient interest to justify further investigation by the Board. Matter of Buffalo Arms Corporation, 57 N. L R B. 1560. S40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mote, 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 meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Union requests that the Board depart from its usual practice concerning eligibility to vote in the election hereinafter directed, and declare eligible 15 specified persons who have not worked for the Company since August 16, 1945, or a subsequent date. The Company opposes this request. On August 7, 1945, a strike and work stoppage occurred at the Company's plant. As a result of the Japanese surrender on August 14, 1945, the Company received cancellations of its war contracts. On August 17, 1945, a regular pay day, the striking employees re- ported to the plant for their pay checks, were paid their earnings in full, and were advised orally by the Company that because of war contracts cancellations "we do not know where we are at this time, there will be no further work for you." The employees were not given releases inasmuch as United States Employment Service re- strictions had been removed. On August 20, 1945, the Company and a committee of employees began negotiations to settle the strike.2 On August 22, 1945, the Company and the committee reached an oral agreement providing that the Company should recall employees as needed in the order of their appearance on preferential hiring lists drawn up by departments in which the employees had been working prior to the work stoppage .3 The agreement provided further that if employees were needed, they were to be notified by telegram to their last known address and that if such employees did not return within 5 days thereafter, their names were to be dropped from the list. On October 10, 1945, the Company and the committee entered into a supplemental oral agreement which provided that upon the exhaus- tion of the names on a list in a particular department, any subsequent vacancies occurring in that department should be offered to suitably qualified employees carried on lists in other departments before the hiring of new employees. The agreement further provided that in the event one such offer was rejected by an employee, the Company was not required to make further offers. Both the Company and 0 An international representative of the Union attended these meetings but the Union agrees with the Company 's statement that at no time did the Company grant recogni- tion to the Union as the bargaining representative of the employees . The international representative was present merely in an advisory capacity. 9 The sequence of names on the various lists was based primarily on skill and ability, but also took into consideration length of service with the Company . The record in- dicates that the Company previously had followed no system of seniority as such. ROCKFORD METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY S41 the Union concede that the provisions of the supplemental agreement were not retroactive and therefore would not apply to employees who were recalled, prior to October 10, under the first agreement of August 22, which agreement restricted recalls to the department in which an employee had previously been employed. Fifteen persons, whose names appear on the lists of four depart- ments, are in dispute. The Company contends that these persons have either been recalled and later discharged, offered jobs which they refused, or that there is no reasonable expectancy of suitable work becoming available for them for some time to come and that therefore, such persons cannot be considered as temporarily laid off for the purpose of voting in the election. Two of the employees4 in question worked in the Polishing Depart- ment. Both were called back to their old jobs during the last week in August 1945, and were laid off on the completion of their work on September 11, 1945. Both are presently working at other manufac- turing concerns. The Union does not press its claim with respect to these employees and leaves the question of their eligibility to the Board. It appears that the Company has fulfilled its commitments under the August 22 agreement by recalling these employees to their former jobs. The Union does not dispute the Company's contention that it does not anticipate the occurrence of vacancies that could be filled by these employees. We find that the employment of these persons terminated prior to the hearing. They will, therefore, be ineligible to vote in the election unless they have been rehired prior to the issuance of our Direction herein. Olan Aden was a member of the employee committee and as such it was understood that he would be accorded special consideration directed at continuing his employment with the Company as long as possible. He had been an employee in the Assembly Department, was recalled to his former job on August 24, 1945, and was laid off when the work was completed.5 Subsequently, the Company offered this employee two jobs in other departments which he refused. The Union contends that Aden should be declared temporarily laid off, and therefore eligible to vote, because he was unable to perform one job offered on account of lameness, and the other because he lacked experience as a punch-press man. The Company offered to prove by its records that Aden had had experience at the punch press. In view of these facts, it appears that the Company diligently attempted to find a suitable job for Aden when his own job ceased to exist, and properly dropped his name from the list in accordance with the ' Douglas Barris and Lee Burns. The Assembly Department was a new department set up as a result of war con- tracts. The peacetime operations of the Company do not require an assembly de- partment , nor does the Company anticipate that it will have any use in the future for such a department. 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD terms of the August 22 agreement. We, therefore, find that Aden's employment was terminated. Two other employees6 in the Assembly Department were recalled to their old jobs on August 27 and on September 9 were laid off for the reason that there was no more work for them to do in that depart- ment. The Company testified that its personnel office had communi- cated with one of these employees on the morning of the hearing and offered her a job for which she was qualified, but that the employee refused the job. The Union stated that it did not believe the em- ployee had refused the job but offered no evidence in support of this belief. In view of the fact that both these employees were recalled to their old jobs, pursuant to the August 22 agreement and were dis- charged prior to the October 10 supplementary agreement which, it is admitted, was not retroactive, it appears that these employees must be considered permanently discharged and we so find. Seven other employees' in the Assembly Department had not been offered employment under either agreement as of the time of the hearing, 5 months ago. The Company asserted that it did not then anticipate enough business in the next 30 to 100 days to warrant the expectation that jobs would be available for the 7 in question. The Union contends that these 7 persons should be considered eligible since they are still carried on the Assembly Department list and are there- fore entitled to offers of employment in other departments and that, in fact, new employees have been called for jobs in other departments which these Assembly employees might have performed. The Union offers no proof in support of this last contention which the Company vigorously denies. Under these circumstances, we conclude that these individuals do not now enjoy any substantial expectancy of reemploy- ment solely by virtue of the fact that their names still appear on the lists." We hold that they are ineligible to vote unless they qualify under our usual rule concerning eligibility. The Company employed two set-up men9 in the Press Department. Because of curtailed operations in that department, no vacancies existed for these two set-up men, who accordingly were offered jobs as press operators. Both men refused such employment and there is evidence that they are now employed elsewhere. The Union con- tends that these men should be declared eligible because of their seniority status and because of the fact that the jobs offered them were 6 Louise Johnson and Eleanor Bibbins +Mary Flannery , Rose Spates , Genevieve Hyde, Elizabeth Dent, Marie Jefferson, Margaret Hill, and Elizabeth Trapp. s The mere presence of their names on a seniority list, absent a reasonable ex- pectancy of future employment , does not render such persons eligible. Archer-Daniels Midland Co ., 27 N. L. R. B. 1310. 9 Robert Kirby and Joseph Chrzonowski. ROCKFORD METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 543 at a lower base rate of pay. The Company states that the jobs offered carried piece-rate opportunities and that it had no expectation of suitable vacancies identical in grade with the jobs these men had originally held. In view of the fact that other jobs were offered these set-up men and that no reasonable expectancy exists as to other suitable openings, the men cannot be considered temporarily laid off and we find them ineligible to vote in the election. The last employee in dispute10 was an inspector in the Press De- partment who had formerly worked in the Assembly Department. On September 17, he was offered a job as a press operator which he refused, saying that he was employed elsewhere. The Union takes no real stand with respect to this employee and leaves the question of eligibility to the Board. In view of the fact that the Assembly Department is completely shut down and that the (Company's state- ment is not disputed that it has no position for an inspector in the Press Department, we find this employee permanently discharged and ineligible to vote in the election. The Company requests that, in view of the termination of the war, 29 of its employees in the armed forces be allowed the opportunity to cast ballots by mail in any election ordered by the Board. The Union agrees that these employees should be permitted to vote but only if they present themselves at the polls. Since the facts in the instant' case are substantially the same as those in Southwest Pennsylvania Pipe Lines,11 we will order the mail balloting of the Company's em- ployees in the armed forces who fall within the appropriate unit subject to the limitations hereinafter mentioned. 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. The Regional Director shall mail ballots to employees within the appropriate unit on military leave, provided one or more of the par- ties hereto, within seven (7) days after the receipt of the Direction of Election, files with the Regional Director a list containing the names, most recent addresses, and work classification of such employ- ees. The Regional Director shall open and count such ballots cast by mail by employees on military leave, provided such ballots are re- turned to and received by the Regional Director within (30) thirty 10 Maurice Gorman 1164 N. L R B. 1384. It appears from the record of the instant proceedings that the number of service men formerly in the Company's employ constitute approximately 30 percent of its normal peacetime complement. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD days from the date they were mailed to such employees from the Regional Director.12 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 Rockford Metal Products Company, Rockford, Illinois, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than forty-five (45) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, act- ing in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regu- lations, 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 during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein- stated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Automobile, Aircraft & Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. 12 A free interchange between the interested parties of information on the addresses and work categories of the employees to be voted by mail will be necessary in order to avoid challenges and post-election objections . Accordingly, the Board will make available to all interested parties any information of this nature furnished it by any other party. In the event that the parties should send the absentee voters informa- tion or literature bearing directly or indirectly on the pending election , copies of all such documents should be simultaneously filed with the Regional Office for inspection by or transmittal to the other parties . However, acceptance or transmittal of such literature by the Board' s offices is not to be construed as conferring immunity on the filing party in the event that objections are later interposed concerning its contents. The usual principles will apply.