Die Tool Engineering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 799 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of DIE Tool. ENGINEERING COMPANY EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW -CIO) , PETI-
TIONER
Case Yo. 7-R-237'5.-Decided May 2, 1947
iJI r. L. P. Wickson, of Alpena, Mich., for the Employer.
Messrs. Maurice Sugar and Jack M. Tucker, of Detroit, Mich., for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Stanley Den linger, of Akron, Ohio, for Local #386.
Mr. Warren M. Leland, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Alpena,
Michigan, on October 8, 1946, before Harry W. Casselman, hearing
officer. 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
Die Tool Engineering Company, a Michigan corporation, is engaged
in the manufacture of rough grade iron castings and general machine
work in Alpena, Michigan. During the period from January 1, 1946,
to June 30, 1946, the Employer purchased raw materials valued at
approximately $35,000, all of which were received from points outside
the State of Michigan. During the same period, the Employer shipped
finished products, valued at approximately $10,000, 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.
U. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations , claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
73 N. L. It. B, No. 150.
799
73992G-47-vol. 73-52
800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local #386, United Construction Workers, United Mine Workers
of America, herein called Local #386, is a labor organization affil-
iated with the American Federal of Labor, claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In June 1945, the Employer and Local #386 executed a collective
bargaining agreement with a provision for annual renewal unless 30
days before the anniversary date, July 1, of each successive year, either
party notifies the other that it desires to terminate the agreement.
The contract further provided, inter alia, that "the Union shall be
represented by a bargaining committee of four (4) members including
the president of the local union."
At a meeting held on February 20, 1946, the membership of Local
#386 voted to transfer their affiliation from the Contruction Workers
to the Petitioner. The Construction Workers thereupon appointed an
administrator for Local #386 and, so far as the record shows, Local
#386 continued in existence and operated under the contract pursuant
to the administrator's direction. On May 31, 1946, the administrator
notified the Employer that Local #386 desired to negotiate changes in
the 1945 contract. Thereafter, in connection with its contract de-
mands, Local #386 called a strike; and on June 11, 1946, the Em-
-ployer notified Local #386 that it considered their contract termi-
nated as of June 30, 1946.1
On June 23, 1946, Local #386 voted to accept an offer of a wage.
increase proposed by the Employer and it authorized its bargaining
committee to negotiate the settlement of the strike on that basis. No
action was taken by the membership at this meeting concerning the
renewal of the contract.
The following day, June 24, 1946, the administrator, the Construc-
tion Workers' regional director, and the afore-mentioned bargaining
committee met with the Employer to negotiate a strike settlement.
At this meeting, the administrator submitted an "Agreement," extend-
ing all terms of the 1945-1946 contract until July 1, 1947. The bar-
gaining committee refused to sign this agreement because, as they
informed the Employer, the agreement had not been presented to the
membership for ratification, and because in any event, the member-
ship had voted to affiliate with the Petitioner. The committee also
announced at this time that they were taking this action under direc-
tions from the Petitioner. That same day, June 24, the Employer
and Local #386 executed the "Agreement," which the administrator
and the Construction Workers' regional director signed on behalf of
Local #386. Three days later, on June 27, 1946, the present petition
was filed.
' The contract contained a no-strike provision.
DIE TOOL ENGINEERING COMPANY 801
The Construction Workers pleads its contract of June 24, 1946, as
a bar to this proceeding. Apart from all other considerations, we
find that this agreement does not preclude a current determination of
representatives, inasmuch as its automatic renewal or Mill-B date is
less than 1 month, and its anniversary date less than 2 months, distant.2
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
We find, in accordance with an agreement of the parties, that the
Employer's production and maintenance employees, excluding office
employees and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Die Tool Engineering Company,
Alpena, Michigan, 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 Seventh 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 Regula-
tions-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate
in Section 1V, 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 Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), or
by Local #386, United Construction Workers, United Mine Workers
of America, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither.
2 See Aratter of Round California Chain Corporation , Ltd, 64 N. L R . B 242, 245.