The Crosley Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 349 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of THE CROSLEY CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
Case No. 9-R-1845.-Decided March 7, 1946
Mr. Paul W. Deubery, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Company.
Mr. D. J. Omer, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the I. A. M.
Mr. James E. Reilly, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the I. B. E. W.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Association of Machin-
ists, herein called the I. A. If., alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of The
Crosley Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before Louis S. Penfield, Trial Examiner.
The hearing was held at Cincinnati, Ohio, on July 20 and November
16, 1945. The Company, the I. A. M., and Local B-1061, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., herein called the
1. B. E. W., 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 :
•
FINDINOs OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Crosley Corporation, an Ohio corporation, has its principal
offices in Cincinnati, Ohio, where it is now engaged in the manufac-
66 N. L. R. B., No. 43.
349
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ture of civilian radio equipment.' During the year 1944, the Company
purchased for use in its manufacturing operations, raw materials
valued in excess of $10,000,000, of which more than 75 percent was
obtained from points outside the State of Ohio. During the same
period, the Company's finished products exceeded $50,000,000 in
value, of which more than 90 percent was shipped to points outside
the State of Ohio.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
,II. ,TIIE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is a labor organ-
ization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the I. A. M. as
the exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of the
Company until the I. A. M. has been certified by the Board in an
appropriate unit.2
A statement of, a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the I. A. M. and the I. B. E. W. each repre-
sents a substantial number of,employees in the unit hereinafter found
appropriate 3
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the. representation of, employees of the Company, within the mean-
ing of Section,9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1 Prior to the termination of hostilities , the Company manufactured radio and radar
equipment for the armed services and also at another plant not presently in operation,
manufactured certain secret electrical equipment for the U. S. Navy.
2 The Company gave as the reason for i ts refusal to recognize the I. A. M. as bar-
gaining representative the existence, of a union -shop agreement with the I . B. E. W.
covering , among others , the employees herein concerned . This contract has since ex-
pired and has been replaced by a new contract negotiated and signed during the pendency
of the present proceedings . : There Is no contention that either contract constitutes
a bar to the present proceedings.
s The Field Examiner reported that the I. A. M. and the I. B. E W . had submitted
membership records indicating that the I. A. M. had 79 members and that the I. B. E. W.
had,85 members among-the employees on the Company 's pay roll of May 23, 1945, within
the unit claimed appropriate by the I A. Al. There are approximately 148 employees
in the claimed appropiiate unit. I
THE CROSLEY CORPORATION 351
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The I. A. M. seeks a craft unit of machine toolroom and model
shop employees employed in the Company's Plant No. 2, which is the
only plant of the Company now operating in the Cincinnati area .4
The I. B. E. W. contends that only a plant-wide unit is appropriate
in view of the history of collective bargaining between the I. B. E. W.
and the Company. The latter takes no position with respect to the
appropriate unit.
The record reveals that although the I. B. E. W. has bargained
with the Company upon a plant-wide basis since 1937 and has obtained
through a series of contracts substantial benefits for all employees,
including the craft employees herein concerned, the latter were or-
ganized as a group prior to the advent of the I. B. E. W. among the
Company's employees; that the I. B. E. W. has in effect recognized
the appropriateness of a separate craft unit for the machinists'
group :5 (1) by an oral agreement extending from 1937 to 1944 which
exempts the machinists' group from the requirement of maintaining
membership in the I. B. E. W. under the provisions of the latter's
union-shop agreement; and (2) by a stipulation with respect to the
settlement of a work stoppage called by the machinists' group in
March of 1945, which stipulation provides, inter aria, that the "I. A.
M. will have jurisdiction of all employees in the toolroom and model
shop of plant 2, under the agreement between International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers and Crosley Corporation in plants 2 and
9." In addition thereto, it appears that the machinists' committee
has, with the consent of the I. B. E. W., bargained separately for
the machinists' group with respect to wage rate classifications and
has alone handled all grievances for the machinists' group from 1927
to 1938 and from 1941 to the latter part of 1944. Members of the
machinists' group in Plant No. 2 have not been members of the I. B.
E. W. from 1927 to 1938, and although serving in an advisory capac-
ity, they have not been members of the I. B. E. W. bargaining com-
mittee which has negotiated with the Company upon a plant-wide
basis. Employees in the machinists' group have resisted through the
work stoppage above mentioned, any attempt on the part of the
I. B. E. W. to make them join the latter organization, and following
a settlement of such work stoppage, the machinists similarly resisted
4 Until the termination of hostilities the Company operated in this area a second
plant known as Plant No . 9 in which there were employed tool and machine employees
similar to those in the plant now under consideration.
6
The Board has considered , among other factors warranting the severance of a craft
group, the fact that the contracting union has recognized that the craft employees
constituted a group separate and apart from other employees . See Matter of Symsngton
Gould corporation, 53 N. L. It. B 552, at 555; Matter of Standard Oil Company of
j1'ew Jersey, Louisiana Division, 61 N, L. R B 1344,
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an attempt by the Company to secure volunteers from among the
toolroom employees for transfer to another plant where they would
be required to become members of the I. B. E. W.
While we have held in certain instances that, where members of a
craft merge their interests with those of other production and main-
tenance employees and acquiesce in being represented as part of a
plant-wide bargaining unit, they will not thereafter be awarded the
right of separate representation,6 we have also recognized the right
to self-determination on the part of craft employees who have main-
tained their group identity, and have protested inclusion in the larger
unit, particularly where membership in the craft group has existed
prior to the establishment of the plant-wide unit and no consideration
was given to the merits of a separate craft unit upon the occasion of
the establishment of such plant-wide unit .7
Under the circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion
that the bargaining history of the Company is not determinative of
the present issue and that the toolroom and model shop employees
herein concerned have not, by their actions during the period covered
by the bargaining history aforesaid, conducted themselves as to induce
the Board to deny them separate representation by their own craft
organization for the purposes of collective bargaining." Accordingly,
we find that the craft employees among the toolroom and model shop
employees may constitute a separate bargaining unit,9 or be included
in the existing more comprehensive unit. Before making a final
determination with respect to the appropriate unit, however, we shall
first ascertain the desires of the employees themselves as reflected in
an election. Upon the results of this election will depend, in part, our
determination with respect to the appropriate unit.
We shall direct that an election by secret ballot be conducted among,
all the Company's toolroom and model shop employees at the Com-
pany's Cincinnati, Ohio, Plant No. 2, excluding tool crib attendantsi
laborers employed in the toolroom, stock chasers, stock checkers, tool-
room attendants, foremen, and all supervisory employees with author-
ity to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, who
E See Matter of York Corporation , 61 N. L. R. B. 462 ; Matter of International Minerals
and Chemical Corporation , 62 N. L. R. B. 655 ; Matter of Sinclair Refining Company,
64 N. L . R. B. 611.
7 See Matter of Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Louisiana Division, 61 N. L. R. B.
1344 ; Matter of Columbus Bolt Works Company , 62 N. L . R. B. 978.
e See Matter of General Electric Company (Lynn River Works and Everett Plant),
58 N. L. R. B. 57 ; Matter of Phelps Dodge Corporation, 60 N. L. R. B. 1431.
• See footnote 7, supra . The record in the present instance discloses that there has
never been an election among the employees concerned and that the plant -wide unit
was apparently established by recognition on the part of the Company without con-
sideration given to the merits of a separate craft unit for members of the machinists'
group.
THE CROSLEY CORPORATION 353
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of the Direction of Election, subject to the limitations and addi-
tions set forth therein, to determine whether they desire to be rep-
resented by the I. A. M. or the I. B. E. W. If a majority in this
voting group select the I. A. Al. as their bargaining representative,
they will have thereby indicated their desire to constitute a separate
appropriate unit. If, however, a majority of these employees choose
the I. B. E. W., then they will have thereby indicated their desire to
remain part of the established plant-wide unit.
The I. B. E. W. contends that employees laid off on or after August
14, 1945, as the result of the cancellation of war contracts should be
found eligible to vote. Although, as a general rule, employees laid
off subject to recall under seniority provisions of a collective bargain-
ing agreement have been found eligible to vote as employees tem-
porarily laid off,10 the record discloses in the present instance that
the Company's peacetime group of toolroom and model shop em-
ployees has apparently become stabilized with little likelihood that
any substantial number of laid-off employees in this group will be
recalled within the foreseeable future. Accordingly, we find that, in
the absence of any reasonable expectancy of reemployment in the near
future, employees laid off as the result of the cancellation of war
contracts are ineligible to vote."
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 Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions 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 The Crosley
Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among
employees in the voting group set forth 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 temporar-
ily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding
10 See Matter of Noblitt Sparks Industries, Inc., 64 N. L. R. B. 1501.
ss See Matter of Lincoln Casket Company , 65 N. L. It. B. 182.
686572-46=24
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election,
to determine whether they desire to be represented by International
Association of Machinists, or by International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers , A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining,
or by neither.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.