Wells-Gardner & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 3, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 176 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of WELLS-GARDNER & CO., EMPLOYER and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DIE AND TOOL MAKERS LODGE
No. 113, PETITIONER
Case No. 13-R-3738.Decided October 3,1946
Mr. Joseph L. Pemberton, of Chicago, Ill.,, for the Employer.
Mr. P. L. Siemiller, of Chicago, Ill., for the Petitioner.
Messrs. M. F. Darling and Ray J. Zacharski, of Chicago, Ill., for the
Intervenor.
Mr. Benj. E. Cook, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition filed, hearing in this case was held at Chicago,
Illinois, on August 9, 1946, before Sidney Grossman, hearing officer.
At the hearing, the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the
ground that the unit sought is inappropriate. For the reasons stated
in Section III, infra, the motion to dismiss is hereby denied. The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
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
Wells-Gardner & Co., an Illinois corporation, has its principal office
and plant in Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the manufacture
of radios. During the past 12 months, the Employer purchased raw
materials valued in the amount of $61,928.90, 100 percent of which was
shipped to its plant from points outside the State of Illinois. During
the same period, the Employer's sales were valued in the sum of
$6,646,075.16, approximately 90 percent of which was transported to
points outside the State of Illinois.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
71 N L. R B, No. 22.
176
WELLS-GARDNER & CO.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
177
The Petitioner is a nonaffiliated labor organization claiming to
represent employees of the Employer.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-1031
herein called Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has
been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
Since 1937, the Intervenor has represented the Employer's produc-
tion and maintenance employees under successive collective bargain-
ing agreements. Under its current contract, all employees of the
laboratory or engineering department, which department includes
the model shop employees sought herein, are specifically exchcded,
and the Intervenor admits that it has never represented the model
shop employees for collective bargaining purposes. It argues, how-
ever, that should the Board determine that model shop employees are
toolmakers, these employees would then come within the unit it cur-
rently represents and its contract would therefore be a bar to the
instant proceeding. Although the model makers have formerly
worked as toolmakers, these employees are presently engaged as model
makers and are so classified by the Employer. Inasmuch as the model
makers, as employees of the laboratory or engineering department,
are excluded from the Intervenor's current contract, we find that the
contract is not a bar to this proceeding.
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 comprising all employees in the Em-
ployer's model shop excluding office, clerical, and supervisory em-
ployees. The Employer and the Intervenor oppose the establishment
of a unit confined to the model shop on the ground that it is an in-
tegral part of the engineering department; they further contend that
if the Board finds any unit appropriate, it should include all em-
ployees in the engineering department.
The Engineering Department is divided into four subdivisions,
viz, electrical engineering and design, mechanical engineering and
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
design, drafting room, and model room. Each subdivision is under
the immediate direction of its own supervisor, and each is responsible
directly to the chief engineer. The electrical engineers design the cir-
cuits and component radio parts in such manner that the mechanical
engineers may design the, models and the model makers construct
models in accordance with instructions from the mechanical engineer-
ing division. The models are then transmitted to the drafting division
where blueprints and specifications are made. The model makers
work in a room physically separated from the other divisions of the
engineering department, all of their work is performed in the model
shop, and there is no interchange of personnel between the model
shop and other divisions of the department. Although model makers
are not required to have a technical education, they do possess a high
degree of skill as machinists and have had extensive training as model
makers.
It is apparent that the model makers have interests in common with
the employees in the other divisions of the engineering or laboratory
department and therefore might properly be included in a unit com-
prising all employees of the entire department. However, the model
makers constitute a homogeneous, identifiable group, having a separate
supervision and skills and interests which differ substantially from
the other employees in the engineering department. Moreover, organ-
ization of the engineering employees has not extended beyond the model
shop. In view of the physical and organizational separation of the
model shop, the absence of interchange of employees between it and
the other divisions of the engineering department, and the limited ex-
tent of organization, we are of the opinion that the employees of the
model shop alone at this time may constitute a separate appropriate
unit.
We find that all employees of the model shop of the Employer's en-
gineering department, excluding office employees and all supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec-
ommend such action, constitute 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 Gardner-Wells & Co., Chicago,
Illinois, 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 Thirteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the Na-
WELLS-GARDNER & CO. 179
tional 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
International Association of Machinists, Die and Tool Makers Lodge
No. 113, or by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
B-1031, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.