Sherold Crystals, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 1072 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
enjoy identical employee benefits, including insurance, vaca-
tion, and pension plans.
We are of the opinion, under all the circumstances, that
the truckdrivers, whom no union seeks separately, have
interests closely related to those of the other employees in
the unit and, accordingly, we shall include them in the unit.'
We find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining pur-
poses within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Mulberry, Florida plant, including truckdrivers and the hourly
paid mechanic, but excluding technical, professional, man-
agerial, and office and clerical employees, salesmen, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act."
(Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication]
9Brighton Mills , Inc.. 97 NLRB 774.
10 The Employer 's organizational structure calls for a "master mechanic," a salaried man
with allegedly supervisory authority , whom the Petitioner would include and the Employer
exclude. This classification is presently unfilled and has been unfilled for the past 2 or 3
years. Instead, the Employer has employed a temporary hourly paid mechanic , who the
parties agree should be included. Therefore, we shall not at this time determine the unit
placement of the master mechanic . Central Optical Company , et al. , 88 NLRB 417.
SHEROLD CRYSTALS, INC.' and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIZATIONS, Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-1550. May
20, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Cyrus A.
Slater, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three -member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Styles ].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The Employer contends that the CIO is not a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act, for the reason
that the CIO will not itself bargain directly for the employees
herein involved, but will assign them to one of its inter-
national unions or to an industrial local chartered directly
by the CIO. The Employer insists that because of the possi-
m As amended at hearing.
2International Brotherhood of Electrical Engineers . Local 53, AFL, was permitted to
intervene on the basis of its contractual interest.
SHEROLD CRYSTALS, INC. 1073
bilities as set forth above, the employees do not now know the
identity of the bargaining representative they are asked to
vote for and cannot select a representative of their choice.'
The Petitioner admits the possibilities, as stated by the
Employer, with respect to the identity of the ultimate bar-
gaining representative , but denies that the employees are
thereby prevented from selecting a bargaining representative
of their choice. We find no merit in the Employer's conten-
tion. The Board has held in prior decisions' that the CIO is
a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, and that
it may file a petition on behalf of an after-formed organiza-
tion.4 Furthermore the Petitioner stated that it stands ready
to represent these employees itself if the employees do not
choose to be members of an industrial local chartered
directly by the CIO, or to join an international union af-
filiated with the CIO. We find that the Petitioner is a labor
organization which exists for the purpose of dealing with
employers concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of work,
and that it claims to represent certain employees of the
Employer.
3. The question concerning representation:
The Employer requests the Board to make a determination
as to whether its existing contract with the Intervenor con-
stitutes a bar to a present determination of representatives.
The contract in question was initially negotiated between
Local 1657, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL, and Sherold Crystal Corporation, predecessor to the
Employer. When the Sherold Crystal Corporation moved
from Lawrence, Kansas, to Kansas City, Kansas, the In-
tervenor (Local 53) took over the contract. About 60 percent
of the Lawrence employees moved to Kansas City and the
Sherold Crystal Corporation recognized the Intervenor as
successor to Local 1657. As a condition precedent to the
sale of Sherold Crystal Corporation to the Employer, Sherold
Crystal Corporation prevailed upon the Intervenor * to sign a
novation agreement recognizing the Employer as the suc-
cessor of Sherold Crystal Corporation under the collective-
bargaining agreement. Thereafter, both the Intervenor and
the Employer abided by the terms of the agreement. The
original term of the agreement was from January 15, 1951,
to January 14, 1952, and from year to year thereafter unless
either party notified the other 60 days prior to January 14
of any year in writing of a desire to amend or terminate the
agreement. By letter dated November 13, 1952, the Intervenor
notified the Employer of its desire to amend the agreement,
stating that "we are hereby giving you the required 60-days
notice to open the agreement." The Employer referred
this letter to its attorney. No reply was made thereto, no
negotiation meetings were held, and no new agreement was
signed by the Intervenor and Employer. The petition was
9 Bewley Mills , 77 NLRB 774.
4 Aluminum Company of America , 80 NLRB 1342.
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
filed on February 25, 1953. The Intervenor stated on the
record that it disclaimed any interest as the representative
of any of the employees herein involved, and that it believed
the contract was no longer in effect and in no way obligated
the Employer to deal with the Intervenor. Upon the foregoing
we find that the Intervenor's notice stayed the operation of
the contract's automatic renewal clause and therefore the
contract does not constitute a bar to a present determination
of representatives. We further find that a question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of employees
of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner seeks to represent all production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's Kansas City, Kansas,
plant. The parties are in dispute as to the unit placement of
certain categories of employees whom the Petitioner would
include and the Employer would exclude.
Electronics engineering employees: This department con-
sists of three employees and a supervisor. The employees
build, maintain, and correlate electrical equipment such as
X-ray machines. They require special training and must
have a knowledge of electrical circuits. All of them have
supplemented their previous shop experience with courses
of study. They work in a laboratory which is separated
from the production and maintenance employees. They re-
ceive approximately 60 percent higher wages than do the
other employees. We find these employees to be technical
employees5 and since their status is in dispute, in accordance
with established Board 'policy, we shall exclude them from the
production and maintenance unit hereinafter found appro-
priate.6
Production control clerks: These employees distribute
crystal blanks to the employees in the "lapping department"
in accordance with a schedule drawn up on the basis of
orders received and accepted. They keep records on the
progress of the crystals through the production process,
sort, count, and inspect crystal blanks, and report to the
plant superintendent on the status of the work in the "lap-
ping department" at the end of each day. They work in a
separate room but frequently come in contact with the pro-
duction employees when distributing the crystal blanks. We
find these employees are plant clericals and because of their
community of interest with the production employees we shall
include them in the unit.?
Machinists: The Employer would exclude and the Petitioner
include two machinists. They work in a separate room under
separate supervision. The parties stipulated that they do the
kind of work that is usually done by journeyman machinists.
SHeintz Manufacturing Company, 100 NLRB 1521.
6Ibid ., Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 100 NLRB No. 147.
7Heintz Manufacturing Company, supra; Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Electronic
Tube Division, 102 NLRB 275.
SHEROLD CRYSTALS. INC. 1075
One of them qualifies as a tool and die maker. They build
and repair equipment that is used in the plant of the Employer.
They receive 50 percent higher wages than do the production
and maintenance employees but work the same schedule of
hours. In view of the fact that no union seeks to represent
these employees in a separate unit we will include them in
the production and maintenance unit."
Stockroom employees: Two employees work in the stockroom.
One is referred to "as being in charge of the stockroom"; his
duties are primarily clerical in nature. The Employer con-
tends he is a supervisor. The record contains insufficient
evidence to make a finding in this regard. In the absence of
evidence showing that he possesses supervisory authority,
we shall include him but his vote will be subject to challenge.
The other employee inspects and stocks incoming raw materi-
als. The stockroom is screened off from the rest of the
plant. In the absence of any cogent reasons for excluding
him, we shall include the stockroom employee in the unit.9
Packing and shipping department: Only one employee is
presently working in this department. He packs all crystals
which are shipped from the Employer's plant and keeps
records and shipping documents. Shipments are not made
every day and these duties take up approximately 60 percent
of his time. In addition to his duties in the shipping room
he expedites the receipt of materials from local suppliers.
This work is performed outside of the plant and the em-
ployee uses a company car while so engaged. His pay is
approximately the same as that received by department
heads who the parties have agreed are supervisors. The
Employer contends that this employee is a supervisor also.
It alleges that if and when production warrants the hiring
of additional shipping room employees this employee will
have the right to discipline these employees, including dis-
charging them. The Employer admits, however, that the
employee has never been informed of his authority in this
regard, and that he has in fact never exercised such author-
ity. We find therefore that he is not a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act.10 We find further that the shipping
room employee has interests closely allied with these of
the production and maintenance employees" which are not
substantially destroyed by his outside duties. We shall in-
clude him in the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees
at the Employer's Kansas City, Missouri, plant, including
production control clerks, machinists, the stockroom em-
ployees, and the packing and shipping room employees, but
excluding office clerical employees, electronic engineering
" Heintz Manufacturing Company, supra ; Century American Corporation, 79 NLRB 43.
9 Standard Coil Co., 98 NLRB 1296.
10 Standard Brands, Inc., 101 NLRB 1349.
"Standard Coil Company, supra; Biggs Antique Company, 85 NLRB 554.
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees, quality control employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election12 omitted f r o m publication.]
12 The intervenor stated on the record that it did not wish to appear on the ballot.
ADAM D. GOETTL and GUST GOETTL, d/b/a INTERNA-
TIONAL METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO and SHEET METAL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UNION
359, AFL, Party to the Contract. Case No. 21-CA-1433.
May 21, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 13, 1953, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices as alleged in the complaint, and recom-
mended that these particular allegations in. the complaint be
dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the charging
Union, hereinafter called the Steelworkers, and Sheet Metal
Workers International Association, Local Union 359, AFL,
hereinafter referred to as the Sheet Metal Workers, each
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the General
Counsel filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
the brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the exceptions, modifications, and
additions noted below.
1. We concur in the Trial Examiner's finding that the
Respondent, by granting exclusive recognition to the Sheet
Metal Workers early in March 1952, and by entering into a
bargaining contract with that union on April 1, 1952, violated