Superior Sleeprite Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 21, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 228 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
drafting room, 15 but excluding all other salaried clerical
employees, chemists in the main laboratory, salaried truck-
drivers, employees listed on the Employer' s exempt list and
their successors, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.)
15As already stated, the unit placement of these employees is subject to redetermination
in case of challenges to their ballots.
SUPERIOR SLEEPRITE CORPORATION and DIE & TOOL
MAKERS LODGE NO. 113, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-3364. July
21, 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 Richard B.
Simon, 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 labor organizations involved claim to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. 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.
The Employer and the Intervenor, Mattress, Spring & Bedding
Workers Union, Local No. 185, AFL, contend, without merit,
that no question concerning representation was raised by the
Petitioner because it did not effectively demand recognition of
the Employer before filing its petition. The filing of the petition
itself constitutes a sufficient demand.1 Moreover, the Employer
stipulated that it would decline the Petitioner's demand if it
were made at the hearing.
The Employer further contends that the contract is a bar
"when tied up with other facts in this case ." The contract in
question was made effective for a period of about 1 year, until
May 31, 1953, and for yearly periods thereafter, unless either
party gave notice 60 days before expiration of a desire to
amend, change, or terminate the contract. By letter dated
'See American Fruit Growers, Inc , 101 NLRB 740.
106 NLRB No 57.
SUPERIOR SLEEPRITE CORPORATION 229
May 11, 1953, the Petitioner requested recognition of the
Employer, and on May 12, 1953, filed the petition herein.
Neither the Employer nor the Intervenor contends that the
contract is a bar by virtue of the automatic renewal of the
contract and the untimely filing of the petition . Although no
evidence was introduced t the hearing that notice under the
contract was given by either of the contracting parties which
would operate to prevent automatic renewal of the contract,
it appears in the record that these parties had been negotiating
a new contract in the period preceding May 31, 1953 , and that
the new contract had not been executed before the filing of the
petition . As no issue was raised or litigated that the contract
was automatically renewed , we find in these circumstances
that the contract does not constitute a bar to a present deter-
mination of representatives.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing produc-
tion and maintenance unit separate units of employees at the
Employer's Chicago, Illinois, plant : ( 1) All to6lroom em-
ployees and experimental employees , and (2 ) all machine
repairmen in the maintenance department . The Employer and
the Intervenor oppose the units sought on the ground that they
are inappropriate.
In the Employer's toolroom there are five employees, who
are separately located and supervised. These employees work
on tools, jigs , and fixtures for the Employer , and all operate,
or are qualified to operate , the machine precision tools in the
toolroom , e.g., lathes , grinders , and milling machine . They are
paid a straight hourly rate , as distinguished from the production
employees who are paid on a piece - rate basis . The wage rates
for the classification of toolmaker, as provided in the Inter-
venor's contract , are the highest in the plant . There is no
apprenticeship training program conducted by the Employer.
However, the record shows that fully experienced and skilled
employees for the toolroom are hired by the Employer directly
from outside the plant , or employees are trained on the job.
There was general testimony on the part of the Employer that
the Employer "uses minimum requirements of a toolroom,"
and does not call for "high precision work."
There are two experimental employees sought by the Peti-
tioner to be included with the toolroom employees . They func-
tion , under the engineering department , in designing and
developing new and improved parts for manufacture by the
Employer , and dissemble and reconstruct parts already pro-
duced for testing and comparison purposes . Their duties also
involve the construction of models for new parts . The experi-
mental employees work with machinist hand tools and operate,
when necessary , the machine precision tools in the toolroom.
It is apparent from the record that these employees were
selected by the Employer for their mechanical versatility and
have long experience in modelmaking and machinist work.
There are five machine repairmen , under the maintenance
department , whom the Petitioner seeks to represent separately.
The other employees in the maintenance departments are
230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
janitors , elevator operators , and boilerroom employees. The
machine repairmen spend most of their time around the plant
installing , repairing , and maintaining the Employer's ma-
chines and equipment . As indicated in the record, these em-
ployees have had long experience in their trade, with the
exception of 1 "learner ," who has been employed in this
capacity for 2z years.
In our opinion , the record sufficiently establishes that all the
employees in the three categories sought by the Petitioner are
highly skilled craftsmen performing related machinist func-
tions . That a single unit of these employees would be appro-
priate for severance purposes is amply demonstrated in the
numerous Board cases in which craft units have been established
of toolmakers grouped with machinists or machine repairmen,
including modelmakers or experimental employees, of the same
general type as are herein involved .2 However, as noted, the
Petitioner has requested two units of these employees. In the
circumstances of this case , we do not believe there is a suffi-
cient distinction in craft and skill between the toolroom and
experimental employees on the one hand, and the machine
repairmen on the other , to warrant their severance as separate
appropriate units . We find rather that the two groups comprise
a single craft in the Employer's operations , and that their
establishment as separate units would therefore operate to
split the craft into two untenable segments, in derogation of
Board policy.'
Consistent with the foregoing, we shall direct that an election
be held among the employees in a single voting group, as set
forth below. These employees, we find, may constitute an
appropriate unit for collective -bargaining purposes , depending
upon the results of the election . However, as our unit determina-
tion is at variance with the request of the Petitioner, we shall
permit the withdrawal of the petition upon timely request to the
Regional Director. The voting group shall consist of:
All toolroom employees , experimental employees , and ma-
chine repairmen at the Employer ' s Chicago , Illinois , plant,
excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner they shall be taken to
have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate
unit , and the Regional Director conducting the election directed
herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives
to the Petitioner for the unit described above, which the Board,
under such circumstances , finds to be appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining . In the event a majority vote for the
Intervenor, the Board finds that they remain appropriately a
2 See, e g., Toledo Scale Company, 101 NLRB 851; General Electric Company, 101 NLRB
1341; The Standard Register Co., 100 NLRB 981; Wagner Electric Corporation , 99 NLRB
815; Bell Telephone Laboratories , Inc, 94 NLRB 1559; American Seating Company, 85
NLRB 269.
3See Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., 101 NLRB 515; International Harvester Company,
McCormick Works, 92 NLRB 1504; cf., Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 101 NLRB 441.
LOCAL NO. 63 231
part of the existing unit, and the Regional Director will issue
a certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.].
LOCAL NO. 63, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, AND KENNETH PEARL
and ELVIN G. JACOB AND DELVYN SMITH and J. L. WROAN,
SR. AND J. L. WROAN, JR., d/b/a J. L. WROAN & SON, a
partnership , et al ., Parties to a Contract . Cases Nos. 13-
CB-187 and 13 -CB-191. July 21, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 8, 1953, Trial Examiner Robert L. Piper issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
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, the
briefs , and the entire record in these cases ,' and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the following modifications.
1. In accord with the Trial Examiner, we find that the Re-
spondents violated Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
However , our finding is based solely upon the renewal, en-
forcement, and continued existence of a collective-bargaining
contract between the Respondent Union and the Contractors of
Bloomington-Normal, which contains a provision requiring
the Contractors of Bloomington-Normal to employ only mem-
bers of, or applicants for membership in, the Respondent Union
who secure working cards from it.'
2. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents
violated Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act by refusing to grant work-
ing cards to Smith and Jacob, thereby attempting to cause and
causing contractor J. L. Wroan, Sr. and J. L. Wroan, Jr.,
d/b/a J. L. Wroan & Son, a partnership, et al., hereinafter
called Wroan, discriminatorily to refuse to hire them. We
disagree.
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Members
Houston, Murdock, and Peterson].
2 The Respondents' request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and the briefs,
in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
3 Philadelphia Iron Works, 103 NLRB 596.
106 NLRB No. 46.