Eicor, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 12, 1943

46 N.L.R.B. 1035 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of EICOR , INC. and DISTRICT No. 8,' INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , A. F. or L.
Case No. B-4672.-Decided January 12, 1943
Jurisdiction : electric motors manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : refusal
to accord recognition : oral agreement held not to reflect true stability of labor
relations and not to constitute a bar ; election. necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all production, tool, die, mainte-
nance, and shop clerical employees at one plant of Company, including
working supervisors who do not have the authority to- We or discharge; but
excluding technical, office clerical, and sales employees,- foremen ,• and watchmen;
stipulation as to.
Lewis ''c Carson, by Mr. Fletcher Lewis and Mr. Harvey J. Carson;
of Chicago, Ill., for the Company. '
Mr. Daniel D. Carrnell, of Chicago, Ill., for the I. A. M.
:Mr. David B. Rothstein, of Chicago, Ill., for' the United.
'Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND '
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by District No. 8; International Associa-
tion of Machinists, A. F. of L.;, herein called the ' I. A. M., alleging
that a question affecting commerce,liad, arisen concerning the repre^
sentation ',of employees of Eicor, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before tester Asher, Trial Ex-
aminer. Said hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on December
161,1042. , At the commencement of the hearing,. the Trial Examiner
granted,a,motion' of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
of America, Local 1150, C. I. •O., herein called 'the United, to inter-
vene. The Company, the I. A. M., and the United appeared and
participated in the hearing and all parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine 'witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the close of the hearing
46 N. L. R. B., No. 116. '
a
1035
1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
counsel for the United moved to dismiss the petition. The Trial Ex-
aminer reserved ruling. The motion is hereby denied. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
At the close of the hearing all parties expressly waived their right
to file briefs. Nevertheless, thereafter the United filed a brief on
December 24, 1942. In view of the waiver contained in the record,
the Board has not considered the brief.'
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Eicor, Inc., is an Illinois corporation with its principal office at Chi-
cago, Illinois. We are here concerned with its plant at Chicago, Illi-
nois, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
,electric motors, generators, and dynamotors. During the 12-month
period ending June 30, 1942, the Company purchased raw materials
-valued at about $900,000, approximately 50 percent of which was
:shipped to it from points outside Illinois. During the same period, the
Company sold finished products valued at about $2,000,000, approxi-
mately 95 percent of which was shipped to points outside Illinois. The
Company admits, for the purpose of this proceeding, that it is engaged
3n commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
District No. 8, International Association of Machinists, is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admit-
ting to membership employees of the Company.
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local
1150, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On December 11, 1941, the Company and the United entered into a
closed-shop contract. The contract provided that it should continue
in effect until December 11, 1942, and from year to year thereafter un-
less thirty (30) days' notice was given by either party thereto prior to
any expiration date. On October 29, 1942, the United notified the
Company of its desire for changes in the contract. Conferences be-
' Although Board Member Reilly has considered the brief , he finds that the contentions
made therein are without merit.
EICOR9 'INC. 1037'
tween the Company and the United took place on November 4, 9, and,
12, 1942, and on the latter date the parties reached an accord on all!
matters. On November 19, 1942, the United and, the Company met for
the purpose of signing the contract agreed to on November 12, but
because of. typographical errors and the necessity of inserting a clause
making the agreed wages subject to approval of the National' War
Labor'Board, the contract was not signed at that time. It had not been
signed at the time of the hearing.
On December 1, 1942, the I. A. M:, claiming to represent a majority
of the employees, requested the Company to recognize it as the exclu-
sive representative of the Company's employees. On December 2,1942,
the I. A., M. filed its petition herein. A statement of the Regional-
Director, introduced into evidence at the hearing, shows that the I. A-
M. presented 227 authorization or application cards bearing appar-
ently genuine signatures of persons whose names appear, onthe.Com-
pany's pay roll of November 27, 1942. There are 522 employees on
that pay roll who are in the unit hereinafter found to,be appropriate.
The United contends that the agreement reached between it and
the Company on November 12, 1942, constitutes a valid contract which
should operate as a bar to a determination of representatives at this
time. • But the agreement of November 12,, 1942, was, not reduced to
writing and signed by the parties. This Board often refuses to con-
duct representation investigations where there are in existence valid
contracts which evidence that stability of labor relations has been
attained. But experience has indicated that true stability of labor
relations is not attained until collective agreements have, been reduced
to writing and signed. The crucial importance of the, signing of
agreements in the history of the collective, bargaining process was
recognized by the Supreme Court in the,Heinz case .2 In, the,light of
this history, the signing of collective agreements cannot be regarded
as a mere formality. We are therefore of the opinion that a col-
lective bargaining agreement which has not been reduced to writing
and signed does not, constitute a' bar to a determination of repre-
sentatives. Since the contract of December 11, 1941, was precluded
from being automatically renewed by the United's request for nego-
tiations on October 29, 1942, and since the I. A. M. asserted its claim
to recognition before final consummation of the agreement reached
between the Company and the United on November 12,'1942, this
agreement is no bar to, a present determination of representatives.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation'of employes of the Company, within the meaninm
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
a H J. Heinz v: N. L R. B, 311 U . S 514 , holding that an employer 's refusal to sign an
agreement reached through the process of collective baigaming constituted a violation of
Section 8 (5).
-1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL ..,LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
, We find, in accordance with a stipulation of the parties, that all
production, tool, die, maintenance, and shop clerical employees at
the Chicago plant of the Company, including working supervisors
who do not have the authority to hire or discharge, but excluding,
technical, office clerical, and sales employees, foremen, and watch-
men, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-.
gaining, within the meaning of Section 9' (b) of the Act.B
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRIISENTATIVES
We find that ' the question concerning representat'i'on can best be_
resolved by means of an election by secret ballot. The I. A. M:
contends that the pay roll of December, 1, 1942, should be used to
determine eligibility to vote. The United and the Company contend
that a current pay roll should be used for that purpose. Inasmuch
as no persuasive reasons appear why we should depart from our usual
practice, we shall direct that the employees eligible to vote shall be
those within the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
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 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and, Regulations-Series 2, as :emended, it
is hereby '
Dn cTm that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-,
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Eicor, Inc., Chi-
cagò , 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 Di-
rector for the Thirteenth Region, 'acting in this matter as agent for
the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sec-
tion 10, of said Rules and Regulations, 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 any such employees who did' not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tempo-
8 This is the same unit that Is provided for in the contract between the- United and the
Company alluded to above.
EICOR, INC. 1039
racily, laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but
excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to
determine whether they desire to be represented by District No. 8,
Interntional Association of Machinists, .affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, or by United Electrical, Radio' and Machine
Workers of America, Local 1150, affiliated with_the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither.