Grunwald Plating Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 6, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 239 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of GRUNWALD PLATING COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER and
ELLSWORTH DABNER, AN INDIVIDUAL and AMALGAMATED LOCAL 453,
UNITED AUTO WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, UNION
Case No. 13-RDD0. Decided April 6, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, a hearing was held
before Morris Slavney, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and
Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in the general business of metal plat-
ing in Chicago, Illinois. Its work is done mainly for manufacturing
companies located in the State of Illinois but which are directly en-
gaged in interstate commerce. Among the Employer's customers 1
are : Dieterich Products Corporation, Chicago Machinery Laboratory,
Harrington & King Perforating Company, Stiger Precision Prod-
ucts, Inc. Estimates from the above companies indicate that in 1949
from 42 percent to 90 percent of the work performed by the Employer
for these companies was performed on products shipped outside the
State of Illinois. During the past fiscal year the services performed
by the Employer were valued at $375,000.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.'
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union is no longer the representative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of
the amended Act, of the employees designated in the petition.
' The Board has taken jurisdiction of at least two customers of the Employer , namely
Blackstone Manufacturing Company and Duro Metal Products.
2 See All Metal Pickling Corporation, 85 NLRB 857 . Cf. The Efficient Tool & Die Co.,
79 NLRB 170.
89 NLRB No. 34.
239
240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. On May 13, 1948, a collective bargaining contract between the
Employer and the Union was executed, operative until May 13, 1949,
subject to automatic renewal from year to year unless 60 days' written
notice of change or termination was given. The Union moves to dis-
miss the petition herein, contending that the contract is a bar to this
proceeding. The Employer contends that the contract expired on
May 13, 1949, after proper 60-day notice to change the contract had
been given.
The Employer's witnesses testified that a letter, dated March 9,
1949, was sent by ordinary mail to the Union in which the Employer
stated that pursuant to the 60-day notice provision of the contract,
changes in the existing contract were desired. An official of the
Union could not recall seeing this letter. On April 26, 1949, the Em-
ployer sent a letter to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
advising that, pursuant to law, the Employer was giving the Service
30 days' notice concerning termination of the contract between the
Employer and the Union.
A number of meetings were held between representatives of the
Employer and the Union prior to and after May 13, 1949. The con-
tract of May 13, 1948, contained a clause permitting either party at
any time to open the contract as to wage changes only, but other mat-
ters were discussed at these meetings besides the issue of wages. At
the May 11, 1949, meeting, the Union submitted certain proposals as
follows :
1. Wage negotiations to be held at a later date.
2. Piecework system to be eliminated. Company and Union to
negotiate setup on standards and guarantee rates.
3. Present contract provisions to remain unchanged.
4. Certain Union suggestions to be stated during negotiations to
be tried out by the Company.
Apparently the last meeting was held on June 11, 1949, though a meet-'
ing may have been held in July 1949.
Prior to May 13, 1949, pursuant to the contract, grievances had been
submitted in writing. The Employer testified that it received no
grievances either orally or in writing after May 13, 1949. The Inter-
venor contended that grievances were presented after that date, though
no evidence was introduced to support the contention. Prior to May
13, 1949, the Employer had been checking off dues and making deduc-
tions for credit union participation for some of the employees in the
Union. Since a short time after May 13, 1949, the Employer has
neither checked off any dues nor received any authorizations for same
nor has the Employer made deductions for credit union participation.
GRUNWALD PLATING COMPANY, INC. 241
The Employer stated at the hearing that it continued to recognize the
Union until it received notice of the filing of the instant petition.
The testimony in the record, particularly as to the negotiations be-
tween the Employer and the Union in 1949, indicates that the parties
opened the contract of May 13, 1948, and sought to negotiate a new
agreement.6 The fact that the checkoff and credit union provisions
of the contract of May 13, 1948, were not continued in effect also sup=
ports the view that the contract was not automatically renewed. Fur-
thermore, neither the pending negotiations nor any understanding
between the parties-here asserted by the Union but denied by the
Employer-to continue the contract in effect until a new agreement was
reached, could operate as a bar to a rival union's recognition claim
or petition filed after the contract's expiration date .4 Though this
proceeding involves a decertification petition, the same 5 rules apply
as do in certification proceedings. The motion to dismiss is denied.
Upon the facts above and from the complete record, we find that no
contract is in force which might serve as a bar to the instant decertifi-
cation proceeding.
Accordingly, a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees constitute an appropriate unit for pur-
poses of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Chicago, Illinois, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region' in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
3 See Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 76 NLRB 136; Marlin Manufacturing Company,
80 NLRB 309.
4 Pevely Dairy Company , 80 NLRB 1683 . Cf. Stewartstown Furniture Co., 75 NLRB
344, where it was held that an agreement to continue the contract in force after timely
notice to modify had been given rendered the contract, at best, one of indefinite duration.
' Iliden Warehouse and Forwarding Company, 80 NLRB 1587 ; All-American Metal
Products Company, Inc ., 82 NLRB 563 ; A. & M. Woodcraft, Inc., 85 NLRB 322.
242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on
strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or
not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining,
by Amalgamated Local 453, United Auto Workers of America, CIO.