The Toledo Casket Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 26, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 821 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of THE TOLEDO CASKET COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS Or AMERICA, LOCAL 12, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 8-R-2274.Decided November 26, 1946
Mr. Joseph Robie, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Employer.
Mr. Lowell Goerlich, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
'Mr. E. J. Rieger, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Intervenor.
Mr. David C. Buchalter, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Toledo,
Ohio, on August 26, 1946, before Thomas E. Shroyer, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Toledo Casket Company, an Ohio corporation, is engaged at its
plant in Toledo, Ohio, in the manufacture of caskets and undertakers'
supplies. During the last calendar year the Employer received at this
plant raw materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which approxi-
mately one-half represented shipments from outside the State of Ohio.
During the same period the Employer's finished products were valued
in excess of $200,000, of which approximately 15 percent represented
shipments to points outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
71 N. L. R. B, No. 138.
821
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Millmen's Local 2005 , International Brotherhood of Carpenters and
homers of America , herein called Intervenor , is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor , clamming to
represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On June 10, 1946, the Petitioner notified the Employer that it
represented a majority of the Employer's employees and requested
recognition as their exclusive bargaining representative. The Em-
ployer refused, because of an existing contract with the Intervenor,
to grant such recognition in the absence of Board certification.
Whereupon the Petitioner filed its petition on June 26, 1946.
On October 11, 1945, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a
contract covering the employees involved herein. It provides for an
initial period of 1 year ending October 11, 1946, and for its automatic
renewal for an additional year unless either party serves notice of a
desire to modify the contract at least 60 days before its expiration date.
No notice of intention to modify the contract was given before the
operative date of the automatic renewal clause. However, inasmuch
as the Petitioner filed the notice of its rival claim and its petition in
support thereof, in advance of the operative date of the automatic
renewal clause, it is clear, under well-established principles of the
Board, that the contract cannot operate to bar a present determination
of representatives.'
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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer excluding sales personnel , office employees,
supervisors , the forelady ,2 metal foreman and lay-out man,' and as-
sistant foreman inspector ' Except for the exclusion of the three
last-mentioned employees , the requested unit is similar in all respects
to that covered by the October 11, 1945, contract between the In-
tervenor and the Employer . The Intervenor contends that the con-
tract unit is the appropriate one, but asserts that, in the event these
three employees are excluded from the unit by the Board, the paint
fc,reinan -5 should also be excluded . The Employer takes no position
with respect to the unit.
' Matter of General Electric Y-Ray Corporation, 67 N L It B 997 , Matte of Mill
R, Inc, 40 N. L R B 346
2 Eva Bunge
a George Hinderer
4 Hubert Kleis
5Frank Quinlan
THE TOLEDO CASKET COMPANY 823
The forelady, metal foreman and lay-out man, and paint foremnan.-
There are in all about 26 employees engaged in production at this
plant. Control of operations is generally lodged in the hands of the
Employer's principal stockholders VIZ, Mr. Milliere and Mrs. MTilliere,
who are also general superintendent and president, respectively, of
the corporation. Mr. and Mrs. Milhere spend full time in the, plant.
However, in order to handle work orders expeditiously in each of its
departments, they rely on one of the 4 or 5 employees in each depart-
ment to transmit special instructions to the others. Thus, forelady
Bunge designs, cuts and lays out materials used for interiors of caskets
and serves as a conduit for transmitting instructions from manage-
ment to the other girls in the department who do sewing and fitting
work; metal foreman and lay-out man Hinderer breaks and shapes
metal used in the manufacture of caskets and relays work instructions
from management to the assemblers and welders in the department;
and paint foreman Quinlan finishes or paints caskets and when
-necessary relays work orders from the general superintendent to the
sanders and cleaners in his department. None of these employees has
the authority to hire, discharge or promote, take disciplinary action
against others, grant wage increases or effectively to recommend such
action. There appears to be no material difference between the general
nature of their work and that performed by the other employees in
their respective groups. In view of the foregoing, we are of the
opinion that these individuals are merely experienced employees who
function as leaders in their respective departments and are not super-
visory employees within our customary definition of the term. We
shall therefore include the forelady, metal foreman and lay-out man,
and paint foreman in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
As.tistant foreman and inspector.-This employee assembles wooden
caskets and inspects the component parts of completed caskets,
whether wooden or metal. He is the only inspector employed by the
Employer, and where imperfections are detected he is authorized to
issue instructions to the particular department or departments in-
volved to correct the imperfections. He also relays orders from the
general superintendent to employees throughout the plant and sees
to it that these orders are executed. The record shows that he recom-
mended the.hire of two employees, one for the metal department and
one for the finishing department, and thereafter hired them on behalf
of the Employer, and that, on orders from the general superintendent,
he effected the discharge of one of the girls in the sewing department.
We are persuaded, on all the facts and the entire record, that the
chutes of this employee are supervisory within our usual definition
of that term and we shall therefore exclude him from the unit here-
inafter found appropriate.
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer at its plant in Toledo, Ohio, including the
forelady, metal foreman and lay-out man, and paint foreman but
excluding sales personnel, office employees, the assistant foreman
inspector, and all or any other supervisory employees with authority
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with The Toledo Casket Company,
Toledo, 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 Eighth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National
Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate 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
temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of
the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but
excluding 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 In-
ternational Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local 12, CIO, or by Millmen's Local
2005, International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.