Waterbury Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1938

5 N.L.R.B. 288 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of WATFRBURY MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , LOCAL 1335
Case No. R-328.-Decided February 14, 1938
Metal Products Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives:
controversy concerning representation of employees : rival organizations; con-
troversy concerning appropriate unit; refusal by employer to bargain with pe-
titioning union until question of appropriate unit is determined -Unit Appropri-
ate for Collective Bargaining : craft ; skilled ; desires of men ; occupational
differences-Representatives : proof of choice : signed authorizations ; comparison
of pay roll with union list-Certification of Representatives : upon proof of
majority representation.
Mr. Charles A. Graham, for the Board.
Mr. C. E. Hart, of Waterbury, Conn., for the Company.
Mr. J. H. DeCantillon, of Meriden, Conn., for the I. A. M.
Mr. J. J. Driscoll, of Waterbury, Conn., for the Brass Workers
Union.
Mr. Lewis M. Gill, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 21, 1937, International Association of Machinists, Local
1335, herein called the I. A. M., filed with the Regional Director for
the Second Region (New York City) a petition alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of Waterbury Manufacturing Company, Waterbury, Con-
necticut, herein called the Company,' and requesting an investigation
and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On
September 20, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, and Article
III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized
'The evidence shows that Waterbury Manufacturing Company is not a separate cor-
porate entity , but merely one division of Chase Brass and Copper Company, Inc.
Counsel for the Company made no objection at the hearing to the designation of the
Company as Waterbury Manufacturing Company. We will accordingly continue it in
this decision.
288
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 289
the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice.
On September 23 and 24, 1937, the Regional Director issued a
notice of hearing and amended notice of hearing, copies of which
were duly served upon the Company and upon the I. A. M. Pur-
suant to the notice, a hearing was held on September 30, 1937, at
Waterbury, Connecticut , before II. R. Korey , the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Trial Examiner granted a mo-
tion that the Waterbury Brass Workers Union, herein called the
Brass Workers Union, a labor organization purporting to represent
employees directly affected by the investigation , be allowed to inter-
vene. The Board and the Company were represented by counsel, and
the I. A . M. and the Brass Workers Union were represented by
officers of their respective organizations . All participated in the
hearing. Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and to cross-
examine . witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded all parties.
On November 2, 1937, the Regional Director issued a notice of a
further hearing for the purpose of securing additional evidence upoli.
.the issues . Copies of the notice were duly served upon the Company,
upon the I. A. M., and upon the Brass Workers Union . Pursuant to
the notice , a further hearing was held on November 8, 1937, at Water-
bury, Connecticut , before H. R. Korey , the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board for the further hearing. All parties were
represented as at the first hearing , all participated , and all were
afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and to cross-
examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company is a division of the Chase Brass and Copper Com-
pany, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Connecticut
in 1909. Its plant and principal offices are located in Waterbury,
Connecticut.
The Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of plumbing
goods, electric light fixtures, cosmetic containers, screw machine
products, brass forgings and castings, copper water tube fittings, and
miscellaneous other products. The principal raw materials used by
the Company are copper and brass sheet, rod, wire, and tubing
acquired from the Chase Metal Works Division of Chase Brass and
Copper Company, Inc.2 Of the other raw materials used by the
s The principal raw materials used by the Chase Brass and Copper Company, Inc., are
copper and zinc, which materials are all obtained from outside the State of Connecticut.
This fact appears in another case recently decided by the Board. Matter of Chase
Brass and Copper Company, Inc, and Waterbury Brass Workers Union, 4 N. L It. B. 47.
290 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company, about 20 per cent are purchased outside the State of Con-
necticut. About 90 per cent of the finished products of the Com-
pany are sold outside the State of Connecticut. The Company's
products are advertised in newspapers, magazines, trade publications,
and by direct mail.
IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, Local 1335, is a labor or-
ganization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It
admits to membership employees of the Company engaged in
machinist work or closely related branches of the machinist craft,
including automatic screw-machine tool setters and operators.
Waterbury Brass Workers Union is a labor organization which is
a local of the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Work-
ers, an affiliate of the Committee for Industrial Organization. It
admits to membership all production employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Neither the I. A. M. nor the Brass Workers Union desires at this
time a determination of the bargaining agency for the entire plant.'
However, the I. A. M. seeks certification as the exclusive representa-
tive of a certain group of skilled workers, and the Brass Workers
Union contests the appropriateness of the unit proposed by the I. A.
M. The Company desires a determination of the appropriate unit
before it grants the recognition sought by the I. A. M.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The I . A. M contends for a bargaining unit including machinists,
tool and die makers, tool grinders , metal-pattern makers, model
makers, automatic screw-machine tool setters and operators, and
helpers on these various classifications of work. It also seeks to
include in the unit a few unskilled workers located in the depart-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 291
ments where the above groups of skilled employees are concentrated.
Organization in the Company's plant began in the latter part of
1933, when the I. A. M. succeeded in organizing a substantial number
of the skilled workers. Opposition to union activity soon appeared
among certain minor officials of the Company, however, and member-
ship dwindled. It took an upward surge in the spring of 1937, how-
ever, and the I. A. M. again established a substantial membership
among the highly skilled groups in the plant. The actual member-
ship has recently been supplemented by a number of signed authori-
zations designating the I. A. M. as the bargaining agency for the
signatories, many of whom have not as yet become members.
The I. A. M. has engaged in some collective bargaining on behalf
of these employees, particularly in regard to a group in the automatic
screw machine department, where, it was testified, written agreements
have been obtained from time to time. However, several recent at=
tempts to bargain for the tool and die makers, tool grinders, and
metal-pattern makers met with less success due to the Company's
uncertainty as to the appropriate unit. Authorizations from the
model makers and machinists have been obtained only in the fall of
1937.
The Brass Workers Union instituted an organizing drive in Water-
bury in July 1936. It met with some success in the Company's plant,
and in various departments obtained a large membership. It has
bargained with the Company on a departmental basis whenever it-
has secured a majority in a particular department. It makes no
claim, however, to have a majority in the entire plant, and it has not
made any appreciable inroad among the skilled groups claimed by
the I. A. M. It has done no bargaining for such groups, and, at best,
claims only "some membership" therein. At the hearing it made no
serious attempt to disprove the I. A. M.'s claimed majority in those
classifications.
In accordance with the doctrine set forth in Matter of the Globe
Machine and Stamping Co. at al.,3 and subsequent cases, if the em-,
ployees in the machinist craft wish to be included in a separate bar-
gaining unit, we will find that unit appropriate. There remains the,
problem of determining the proper bounds of the unit.
There appears to be little difficulty in regard to the inclusion of the
maintenance machinists, tool and die makers, tool grinders, model
makers, and metal-pattern makers. All these men are highly skilled,
according to testimony adduced at the hearing, and plainly belong
within the machinist class. Maintenance machinists and tool and
die makers are well recognized craftsmen. The tool grinders work
in the same department with some of the tool makers; they are en-
3 N L R. B. 294.
292 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaged in the process of perfecting the tools, and, according to the
testimony, are regarded by the Company as highly skilled workers.
The model makers construct models of proposed products by hand.
This work naturally requires unusual skill. The metal pattern
makers, who construct patterns to be used in making molds for cast-
ings, are regarded by the Company as skilled mechanics. They are
located in the tool-gauge department along with part of the tool
makers.
It may also be noted that all seven of the tool grinders, all six
of the model makers, and all four of the metal-pattern makers
have, by signed authorizations, designated the I. A. M. as their bar-
gaining agency.
The automatic screw machine tool setters and operators are lo-
cated together in one department. They produce, from, rods or
tubing, brass articles which are either sold separately or used in
conjunction with other parts in making up finished products of the
Company. Twenty-three men in this department set and adjust the
tools in their own machines and then operate the machines. Nine
men operate machines without setting their own tools; this is done
for them by two of the most highly skilled men, whose duties con-
sist principally of toolsetting. It was testified that the automatic
screw machines are very intricate, that the men in this department
have skill comparable to that of machinists and tool makers and
receive comparable pay, and that an apprenticeship of several years
is required for this work. These men have, as indicated above, bar-
gained with the Company through the I. A. M. for some time.
While the Company appeared to be somewhat troubled at the pro-
posed inclusion of these men in the bargaining unit, due to the fact
that they are production and not maintenance workers, the Com-
pany's factory manager did testify that the automatic screw ma-
chine men are much more highly skilled than the other production
workers in the plant. In view of all the circumstances, we con-
clude that the tool setters and operators in the automatic screw
machine department should be included in the unit with the other
highly skilled workers.
Scattered throughout the plant, in various departments, are about
fifty men engaged in setting and adjusting tools on various types
of machines. They are, for the most part, former operators of
such machines who, because of their experience with the machines,
have been assigned to the toolsetting work. When not so engaged,
they customarily assist in operating the machines. According to
the testimony at the hearing, they are not as skilled as those we
have heretofore designated as properly belonging in the unit. The
I. A. M. does not claim them. The Company's factory manager
DECISIONS AND ORDERS ' 293,
testified that it would be impracticable to include them in the pro-
posed bargaining unit. We will exclude them.
The sole remaining question concerns the proposed inclusion in
the unit of various unskilled workers, such as cleaners and truckers,
who are located in the various departments where the highly skilled
men are concentrated. We find no merit in the I. A. M.'s claim that,
they should be included in the unit of skilled workers, and we will
exclude them.
We find that the maintenance machinists, tool and die makers, tool
grinders, model makers, metal-pattern makers, automatic screw ma-
chine tool setters and operators, and apprentices in the foregoing
classifications of work, employed by' the Company, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes'of collective bargaining and that such
unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of
their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining, and will
otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Company submitted a pay-roll list of its employees, other
than salaried workers, as of October 30, 1937. There were about 1700
so listed, and the Company wrote in beside each name the type of
work in which the employee is engaged. This cooperation has facili-
tated greatly the Board's determination of the issues in the case. It
appears from this pay-roll list that there were on that date 184
employees in the unit which we have determined to be appropriate.
The I. A. M. submitted signed authorizations designating the I. A. M.
as the collective bargaining representative for the signatories. No
evidence was introduced tending to discredit the signatures. We
have checked the names signed against the pay-roll list and find that
148 of the 184 employees have so designated the I. A. M. While the
Brass Workers Union claimed a few members in the affected classi-
fications, it did not seriously dispute the existence of the I. A. M.
majority therein. Under the circumstances, no election by secret
ballot'is necessary.
We find that the I. A. M. has been designated and selected by a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their represent-
ative for the purposes of collective bargaining. It is, therefore, the
exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining, and' we will so certify.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONcLusIONs OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of Waterbury Manufacturing Company,
294 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Waterbury, Connecticut, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The maintenance 'machinists, tool and die makers, tool grinders,
model makers, metal-pattern makers, automatic screw machine tool
setters and operators, and apprentices in the foregoing classifications
of work, employed by the Company, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. International Association of Machinists, Local 1335, is the ex-,
elusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9
(a) of the National Labor Relations Act.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
' 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 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Association of Machinists,
Local 1335, has been designated and selected by,a majority of the
maintenance machinists, tool and die makers, tool grinders, model
makers, metal-pattern makers, automatic screw machine tool setters
and. operators, and apprentices in the foregoing classifications of
work employed by Waterbury Manufacturing Company, Waterbury,
Connecticut, as their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining and that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of
the Act, International Association of Machinists, Local 1335, is the
exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of'
collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, CONCURRING :
The Board is not here faced with a claim for representation -by a
craft group which is opposed by an industrial organization asserting
that the majority of the employees in the unit it desires to represent
are ready to approve it as a bargaining agency. To say that a group
of skilled workers in this plant should be denied an opportunity to
bargain collectively because the industrial union may be in a situation
later where it can claim for purposes of representation a unit in-
clusive of the group now claimed by the I. A. M., would merely have
the result of'delaying collective bargaining to an important group
of plant employees. In here concurring with the majority that the
craft group represented by the I. A. M. is an appropriate bargaining
unit, I do so in full recognition of the fact that no industrial union
now lays claim to the right to bargain on a plant-wide basis.