International Filter Co., 489 (1936)

In the Matter Of • INTERNATIONAL FILTER COMPANY, ;A CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , DISTRICT No. 8

Cases Nos. C-56 and R-21.-Decided April 8, 1936

Machinery Industry-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: community of interest ; craft ; eligibility for membership in only organization making bona fide effort at collective bargaining ; occupational differences-Representatives:

proof of choice : membership in union ; resolution-Certification of Representatives: after investigation but without election-Collective Bargaining: refusal to meet with representatives; employer's duty as affected by absence of grievances or problems on part of employees-Intel ference, Restraint or Coercion,: questioniing employees regarding union affiliation.

Mr. Harold A. Crane field for the Board.

Mr. Otto A. Jaburek, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

Mr. Fred. G. Krivonos, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION

STATEMENT OF CASE

The International Association of Machinists , District No. 8, hereinafter termed the union , having duly filed a charge with the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, the National Labor Relations Board, by its agent, the said -Regional Director, issued and duly served its complaint dated January 31, 1936, against the International Filter Company, a corporation, Chicago, Illinois, respondent herein, alleging that the respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions ( 1) and ( 5) and Section 2, subdivisions ( 6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935, hereinafter termed the Act.

In brief, the complaint alleges that therespondent, a Delaware corporation, licensed in Illinois, with its principal office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois, hereinafter termed the Chicago plant, is engaged in the manufacture , assembly, sale and distribution of water softeners and filtration plants and allied machinery in interstate commerce ; that the machinists , machinists' helpers, tool and die makers, punch and drill press operators , screw machine tenders, and other machine shop production workers employed by the respondent at the Chicago plant constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes 489 of collective bargaining ; that, before October 1, 1935, a majority of these employees designated the union to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining with the respondent; that by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the union has been and is the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining ; that on or about October 5, October 8, and October 11, the union, by its business agents, sought to bargain collectively with the respondent on behalf of such employees; and that on such dates and at all times thereafter the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the union as the e clusive representative of all such employees; thereby engaging in tl e unfair labor practices alleged.

The respondent's answer, in substance, alleges that the National Labor Relations Act is void in toto on the grounds that it is violative of Article I, Section 8, Article III, Sections 1 and 2 and the Fifth,

Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States; alleges that the respondent is without knowledge as to the appropriate bargaining unit or as to the designation of the union by a majority of its employees in the unit for the purposes of collective bargaining as alleged in the complaint; but denies that the determination of these questions is material. The answer also denies that the union requested the respondent to bargain collectively and denies that it refused to bargain collectively as alleged. The answer further denies that the respondent's operations constitute interstate commerce, or that the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint affect commerce. The answer concludes with allegations on information and belief that the union is engaged in an organization campaign to 'induce and compel' employees of the respondent to join the union and to compel the respondent to enter into closed shop agreements; that the complaint herein is in furtherance of such purpose; that disputes between the respondent and its employees have been amicably adjusted and that none of the respondent's employees has any justifiable grievances against it.

The union also filed a petition for an investigation and certification of representatives by the Board under the provisions of Section 9 (c) of the Act, alleging, inter alia, that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of the employees in the bargaining unit described (the same unit alleged in the complaint).

Pursuant to said Section 9 (c) and Article III, Section 3 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, the Board ordered the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region to conduct an investigation and to provide for an appropriate hearing in the matter.

Pursuant to notice thereof duly served on the respondent, Robert M. Gates, duly designated Trial Examiner, conducted a hearing commencing February 20, 1936 at the United States Court House, Chicago, Illinois, upon the complaint (Case No. C-56) in conjunction, under the provisions of Section 9 (c) of the Act, with the hearing on the question of representation set forth in the petition (Case No.

R-21). The respondent appeared by counsel and participated in the hearing. The Board was represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to cross-examine witnesses and to produce evidence was afforded to all parties.

At the hearing, the respondent's motion to intervene on the question of representation (Case No. R-21) was granted and its answer to the petition was received. Various other motions and objections made by the respondent in the course of the hearing and the Trial Examiner's rulings thereon are considered below.

Acting pursuant to Article II, Section 35 and Article III, Section 11 (c) of the said Rules and Regulations, the Board ordered the proceedings to be transferred and continued before it.

Upon the entire record in the proceedings, including the stenographic report of the hearing and all evidence, oral and documentary, offered and received at the hearing, the Board makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS I. The respondent, International Filter Company, is and has been since August 3, 1923, a corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware. The respondent is duly licensed to do business in the State of Illinois (Exhibit B-9), and has an office and its principal place of business in the City of Chicago, Illinois.

   2. (a) The respondent is engaged in the business of manufacturing, assembling, selling and distributing water softening and filtration plants and allied machinery.

   (b) The water softeners and filtration plants manufactured, sold and distributed by the respondent are for private, commercial and municipal use, and consist of two general types of machinery : pressure filters and softeners ; and larger and more complicated gravity filters. About 50 to 60 percent of the respondent's sales consist of the large gravity filters for use by municipalities (cities and towns).

   The respondent also manufactures the gravity filters for industrial use. These proportions may vary with conditions.

   (c) The pressure filters and softeners consist of a steel tank and piping, valves, control gauges, and, in the case of filters, an alum chamber for chemical. The tank is not made by the respondent, but is either shipped directly to the respondent's customer by the tank maker or is kept in stock in certain sizes and shipped to order. The other parts are manufactured by the respondent and are kept on hand, either in stock, or as an assembled machine, depending on the size.

   (d) The large gravity filter is, usually, part of a plant built of concrete. This equipment is very large in size and contains complicated control mechanism, such as rate-of-flow controllers, loss-ofhead gauges to determine pressure losses, rate-of-flow gauges, chemical feeding machines, agitating mechanism to mix chemicals with the water, meters for measuring the flow in and out of the plant, hydraulic switches, and the like, made and assembled at the Chicago plant.

   (e) The raw materials used by the respondent in making these machines includes castings, pipe, rod, bar stock, sheet, brass, rubber, bakelite, some aluminum 'and the thousand and one items that go into it'. The pipe is cut into various lengths at the Chicago plant as required, and drilled with holes, adapted for strainers; the castings are fully machined; the gauges and controllers are made at the Chicago plant by processing a number of raw materials and assembling the parts; other raw materials are processed and made into parts for the machinery produced by the respondent. These parts are manufactured and kept in stock.

   (f) Raw materials purchased by the respondent are generally kept on hand one to two months before being processed. Processed parts are generally kept in stock two to six months before being assembled for shipment. Some parts are processed in lots with a view to orders or contracts on hand. Much of the stock of parts kept on hand is for the large water softening and filtration plants manufactured by the respondent.

   (g) Most of the water softening and filtration plants made by the respondent are built to specifications provided by the purchaser.

   There is a great deal of variation of detail in construction of the plants ordered ; and the fittings and equipment for the construction of plants ordered vary as to the size and capacity of various parts.' Some of the equipment used in filling orders is of standard size, although special for each particular job; but portions and parts have to be made particularly for each job according to specifications.

   (h) A...