Teesdale Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 5, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 932 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of TEESDALE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EDIPLOIER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED Auro IOBILE, AIRCRAFT, AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETI-
TIONER
Case No. 7-fl-2415.-Decided December 5, 1946
Mr. Stephen F. Dunn, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for the Employer.
Messrs. Kenneth Robinson and David R. Sherwood,, of Grand
Rapids, Mich., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jack J. Mantel, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board,
on S°ptember 13, 1946, conducted a prehearing election pursuant to
Section 203.49 of the Board's Rules and Regulations among the em-
ployees in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether or not
they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally reveals that there were approximately 62 eligible
voters, that 55 valid ballots were cast, of which 36 were for the Peti-
tioner and 19 against, and that 6 ballots were challenged.
Thereafter, an appropriate hearing was held at Grand Rapids,
Michigan, on October 16, 1946, before Woodrow J. Sandler, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer
moved to dismiss the petition and set aside the election on various
grounds. The hearing officer referred the motion to the Board,
which is hereby denied, for reasons stated hereinafter . All parties
were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
The Employer contends that the existing issues regarding the com-
position of the proposed unit should have been resolved at a hearing,
and a finding made by the Board establishing an appropriate unit;
before the election was conducted. We find no merit in this contention.
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Board has
the administrative authority to schedule a hearing at any point in the
71 N. L. R. B., No. 151
932
e
TEESDALE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 933
investigation and that the holding of an election prior to a hearing is
not contrary to the provisions of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act The propriety of the Board's procedure herein is
sustained by virtue of the fact that no final decision or certification
is issued until the parties have had the opportunity to be heard, thereby
obviating any possibility of prejudice.2
The Employer also objected to the holding of the election because
it had no opportunity prior thereto to request that the name of the
local union of the Petitioner, rather than the International union, be
placed on the ballot. We reject this objection, inasmuch as we perceive
no prejudice to the Employer or any misleading of the employees by
the manner in which the Petitioner was designated on the ballot.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Teesdale Manufacturing Company is a Michigan corporation hav-
ing its principal place of business in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where
it is engaged in the manufacture of oil pumps and draft regulators.
For the year ending Jiily 1, 1946, the Employer purchased raw mate-
rials, consisting of iron castings, steel, motors, brass, and copper prod-
ucts, valued at $99,940, of which approximately 50 percent was shipped
to its plant from points outside the State of Michigan. During the
same period, the Employer's finished products were valued at $276,221,
of which more than 90 percent was shipped to points outside the State.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the,
Employer.
HI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
'Inland Empire District Council Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union v. Millis, et al,
32S U S. 697.
2 See Matter of E. R. Squibb & Sons, 67 N. L. R. B. 557.
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties are in agreement that all production and maintenance
employees, excluding engineers, clerical employees, foremen,3 and the
superintendent, constitute an appropriate unit. They are in dispute,
however, with respect to group leaders 4 and one part-time welder,
whom the Petitioner would include and the Employer would exclude
from the unit.
The group leaders train new employees and are responsible for the
work performed by the crew of men under their respective supervision.
Some of them report directly to the superintendent , the other reporting
to one of the two foremen. The record shows that each of the group'
leaders has the authority to interview new employees for his group and
can either employ them outright or recommend their hiring, which
recommendation is seldom rejected by the Employer . They also have
the authority effectively to recommend pay increases and the discharge
of employees under their supervision. We find that the group leaders
are supervisory employees within the Board's customary definition
thereof and we shall therefore exclude them from the unit.
The Employer would exclude Herman Ohm because he is a part-
time employee. Ohm is a skilled welder who is employed on a full-
time basis with another company. He has no regular hours, works
under no actual supervision , and reports to the Employer 's plant only
at sporadic intervals . Under these circumstances , we find that Ohm
is a casual employee , as distinguished from a regular part-time
employee,5 whose interest in the conditions of employment is not suffi-
ciently substantial to warrant his inclusion in the unit. ' Accordingly,
we shall exclude him. -
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer , excluding engineers , clerical employees , the superintendent,
foremen, group leaders, and all 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 meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Employer argues that no election should have been held because
the Petitioner had filed charges alleging that the Employer had com-
3 Earle Mulliken and Martin Striegel.
" Glen Wenzel, Robert Parke, Fred Vandewater, Nicholas Kruzel, and James Morrissey.
5 The Board geneially includes regular part-time employees in appropriate bargaining
units See Matter of Wilson and Co, Inc. (Chicano 117holesaleMatket), 68 N L R B 592.
See Matter of A Schottland, Inc, 65 N L It B S51 , and Matter of John Oster Manu-
facturing Co., 60 N. L R. B. 805.
TEESDALE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 935
mitted certain unfair labor practices, which were pending at thQ time
of the election. Inasmuch as the Petitioner has filed a waiver of any
right to urge any of the matters contained in these charges as the basis
for objections to any election, or to the results thereof, we find no merit
in this contention. '
We also reject the Employer's contention that the election should
be set aside for the reason that "there is evidence that the employees
have changed their desire of affiliation since the time of the election
and that the Union might not be designated as bargaining agent if
another election were held." The Employer presented no evidence in
support of this contention and, moreover, we have refused to consider
evidence of this nature as sufficient to disregard the results of an elec-
tion surrounded by all the safeguards customarily provided to insure
a complete freedom of choice. No circumstances are here presented
to warrant a departure from our normal policy of giving conclusive
effect to the results of an election for a reasonable period so that the
statutory scheme for the ascertainment of representatives and for the
effectuation of collective bargaining may become operative.'
The results of the election held previous to the hearing disclose that
the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast and that
the challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the result of
the election. Under these circumstances, we shall not direct that the
challenged ballots be opened and counted, but instead we shall certify
the Petitioner as the collective bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the unit hereinbefore found appropriate.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW-CIO) has been designated and selected by a majority of all
production and maintenance employees of Teesdale Manufacturing
Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, excluding engineers, clerical
employees, the superintendent, foremen, group leaders, and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis-
cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, as their iepresentative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a)
of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all
such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
a Matter of Johnson City Foundry and Machine Works, lac, 71 N. L R. B. 825, and
cases cited therein.