The Sheffield Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 349 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

THE SHEFFIELD CORPORATION 349
deauthorization election at this time .' Accordingly , we shall
dismiss the petition without prejudice to the right of the Peti-
tioner to refile at any time that a deauthorization election may
be appropriate.2
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
'Member Murdock agrees that no useful purpose would be served by directing a union-
deauthorization election now, but desires to make clear that in his view the sole reason is
that if a rival union wins the representation election directed today in 4-RC-2197, the issue
in the instant case would be moot. Should the incumbent Intervenor win the RC election,
however, then the issue herein would not be moot and it would be the appropriate time to
hold the UD election (toward the end of the present contract which expires May 15) under
the views expressed in Member Murdock's dissenting opinion in Great Atlantic and Pacific
Tea Company, 100 NLRB 1494. If the instant UD petition were held to await the outcome of
the RC election, it would make it unnecessary for another UD petition to be filed then in the
event of the Intervenor 's victory.
2In view of our disposition of the case, we find it unnecessary to discuss the various
contentions and motions of the Union.
THE SHEFFIELD CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL AS-
SOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No.
9-RC-2163. April 21, 1954
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 Orville E.
Andrews, hearing officer. The hearing officer's ruling made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.'
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 cer-
tain employees of the Employer.3
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 for the
following reasons:
The Employer strenuously contends that the investigation
provisions under Section 9 (c) (1) of the Act4 and Rule 101.17 of
1For reasons hereinafter noted, the Employer's motion to terminate the proceeding made
at the beginning of the hearing was correctly denied by the hearing officer.
2 As the record and the Employer's brief adequately present the issues and positions of
the parties , the Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied,
3The United Steelworkers of America, CIO, was permitted to intervene at the hearing.
4 Insofar as it is pertinent to this proceeding, Section 9 (c) (1) of the Act provides:
Whenever a petition shall have been filed, in accordance with such regulations as may
be prescribed by the Board- (A) by an employee or group of employees or any individual
108 NLRB No, 72.
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Board ' s Rules and Regulationss have not been properly
complied with in this proceeding , in that a thorough investiga-
tion of the Petitioner ' s showing of interest prior to the issuance
of the notice of hearing ,6 as required by these provisions, had
not been conducted . In support thereof, it argues that at the
time the Regional Director issued the notice of hearing, he had
received no payroll data or statistical information from the
Employer ,7 and thus, the Regional office had , ( 1) no accurate
information as to the number of employees involved in the
claimed bargaining unit; ( 2) no way of accurately determining
whether the Board ' s 30 percent showing-of-interest rule had
been complied with; ( 3) no means of knowing whether the names
on any signed cards or petition submitted by the Petitioner were
on the payroll list; and ( 4) no means of determining whether the
signatures appearing on the Petitioner ' s showing of interest
were genuine.
The primary purpose in causing an investigation to be made
of the Petitioner ' s showing of interest preliminary to - the hear-
ing is to screen out those cases in which there is so little
prospect of the Petitioner winning an election , if directed, as
not to warrant the Board incurring the expense of further
proceedings on the petition .' Such investigation has no bearing
on the issue of whether a representation question exists.
Nothing in the Act or in the Board's Rules and Regulations
requires that the investigation of the showing of interest be
completed prior to the issuance of the notice of hearing.'
or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a substantial number of employ-
ees (i) which to be represented for collective bargaining and that their employer declines
to recognize their representative as the representative defined in section 9 ( a) .. the
Board shall investigate such petition and if it has reasonable cause to believe that a
question of representation affecting commerce exists shall provide for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice...
5 Insofar as it is pertinent to this proceeding , Section 101.17 of the Board's Rules And
Regulations states:
Investigation of petition. -(a) Upon receipt of the petition in the regional office, it is
docketed and assigned to a member of the staff, usually a field examiner, for investi-
gation. He conducts an investigation to ascertain ... (4) whether, if the petitioner is
a labor organization seeking recognition, there is a sufficient probability, based on the
evidence of representation of the petitioner, that the employees have selected it to
represent them. The evidence of representation submitted . . . is ordinarily checked to
determine the number or proportion of employees who have designated the petitioner,
it being the Board's administrative experience that in the absence of special factors the
conduct of an election serves no purpose under the statute unless the petitioner has
been designated by at least 30 percent of the employees.
6 The Employer urges that a thorough investigation requires, not merely a card check by
the field examiner , but a complete check of employee signatures appearing on the Petitioner's
authorization cards against the Employer's payroll list.
7 The petition herein was filed on January 25, the notice of hearing issued on January 29,
and the payroll, requested by the Regional Director, mailed by the Employer on February 3,
1954. Subsequently, on February 17 and 18, 1954, the hearing was held.
8See J. I. Case Company, 95 NLRB 1493, at 1496-1498.
9The Board has held that a Petitioner's showing of interest presented at the hearing may
satisfy the requirements of the Board. Fish Industry Committee, 98 NLRB 696, footnote 3.
THE SHEFFIELD CORPORATION 351
For the above - noted reasons, and because it has long been
established that all phases of the question concerning a peti-
tioner's showing of interest is an administrative matter not
subject to collateral attack,10 we find no merit to the Employer's
contention; accordingly, we hereby deny the Employer's mo-
tions to vacate the notice of hearing and to terminate the pro-
ceeding.
4. The appropriate unit:
The parties are in general agreement that all production and
maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its Dayton,
Ohio, operations, constitute an appropriate unit. However, the
Employer would include approximately 75 designers, detailers,
and draftsmen , whereas the Petitioner and Intervenor seek to
exclude these employees.
The Employer, who is primarily engaged in the manufacture
of machine tools and gauges , precision measuring instruments,
and accessories such as dies, jigs , fixtures , and cutting tools,
handles both standard items and custom orders, with the greater
emphasis placed upon the latter. In the filling of such orders,
the designers prepare designs for standard and custom products,
make the necessary calculations , and indicate the specifications
to be used in their manufacture. They consult with the customers
and with representatives of the Employer ' s sales, engineering,
and manufacturing departments, concerning the preparation of
particular designs. The detailers take individual portions of
the designs and draw them in proper dimensions for use by
toolmakers and other production employees in the manufacture
of the Employer's products. They also calculate dimensions,
indicate specifications, and show materials to be used. The
electrical draftsmen perform comparable work.
Substantially all the employees in question are assigned to
divisions of the engineering department , work in areas apart
from those of the productiom and maintenance employees, and
serve under separate immediate supervision . While the design-
ers, detailers, and draftsmen located at the plant regularly con-
tact production employees, they report to work at different
times and are not interchanged with the production employees.
Moreover, although the training of the disputed employees is
related to that of toolmakers, they perform no manual produc-
tion duties but work exclusively at designing, detailing drafting.
Under all the circumstances, we find that the detailers, design-
ers, and electrical draftsmen are skilled technical employees
whose work and interests differ from those of the production
and maintenance employees . In view of the issue raised, we
shall, therefore, exclude them from the unit."
ii See The Borden Company, 103 NLRB No. 143; Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB
536 at 537; International Trade Mart, 87 NLRB 616 at 617. There is nothing in the amended
Act which requires a change in the Board's practice in this respect. See J. I Case Company,
supra, at 1497.
nSee The Sheffield Corporation, 94 NLRB 1781 at 1782-1783 (and cases cited there-
in), involving the instant Employer, where the same issue pertaining to the inclusion of de-
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the following employees at the Employer's
Dayton, Ohio, operations, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, including machine
operators, electrical technicians, and janitors, but excluding
designers , detailers , electrical draftsmen , office clerical em-
ployees , professional employees , guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
5. The determination of representatives:
All new employees of the Employer are required and agree to
serve the equivalent of a 3-month probationary period, during
which time their future employment status is determined. These
employees, whom the Petitioner and Intervenor would include
among those eligible to vote and the Employer would exclude,
are not generally accorded certain benefits , such as paid
holidays, vacations , and leaves of absence , or participation in
the group insurance , profit sharing , and pension plans . However,
like the regular employees, they are paid on an hourly basis,
are carried on the same payroll, are subject to the same shop
rules, and serve with the regular employees . Because their
general conditions of work and their employment interests are
similar to those of regular employees , we find, in accordance
with our policy in this regard, that probationary employees
are entitled to vote.12
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication,]
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
signers and detailers was raised. Although the Employer's operations today place greater
emphasis on custom orders, thereby necessitating more collaboration between the designers
and detailers and the toolmakers and production employees, the record is clear that the duties
and functions of the designers and detailers have not changed since the Board's earlier
decision.
12 David S. Pearl and Ephraim Werner d/b/a National Torch Tip Company, 107 NLRB
1271 at 2 and 3.
F. HILGEMEIER & BRO., INC. and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
35-RC-993. April 21, 1954
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 W. Bruce
Gillis, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
108 NLRB No. 74.