Hardy Manufacturing Corp

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 3, 1941

30 N.L.R.B. 37 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of HARDY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
No. 747 , AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O.
Case No. R-2261.-Decided March, 3, 1941
Jurisdiction : automotive equipment manufacturing industry. ,
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to accord union recognition; election necessary.
Purported bargaining agreement between the company and the union,
by which consideration of recognition was deferred six months held no
bar to investigation and certification of representatives, since under the
Act the Company had no right to refuse recognition to the duly selected
representative of the majority of its employees, and the bargaining com-
mittee of the union could not waive the statutory right of the employees
to choose representatives.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all hourly rated employees, includ-
ing production and maintenance employees and employees in the engineering
department,, hut excluding supervisory, clerical, salaried, and sales employees,
watchmen, and tmiekeepers; stipulation as to. , `
Mr. Kurt F. Fantoer, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the Company.
Rhoads & Jacobs, by Mr. Mark W. Rhoads, of Indianapolis, Ind.,
for the Union. _
Miss Grace McEldowney, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 10; 1940, International Union United Automobile
Workers of America, Local No. 747, affiliated with the C: I. 0.1 herein
called the Union, filed with the Regional Director of the Eleventh
Region (Indianapolis, Indiana) a petition alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Hardy Manufacturing Corporation ,2 Pendleton,, Indiana,
1 The petition ii as filed,by International Union United Automobile Workers of America,
affiliated with the C. I O. At the hearing a motion was granted to amend the pleadings
by inserting "Local No 747
2Incorrectly designated in the petition and notice of hearing as Hardy Manufacturing
Company
30 N. L. R B , No. 5.
3 (
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certi-
fication of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On December
21, 1940, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section
3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the Company and the Union,
a hearing was held on January 20, 1941, at Anderson, Indiana, before
Robert I. Malarney, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Board. The Company and the Union were represented by counsel
and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded the parties. During the course
of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the, following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Hardy Manufacturing Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of
the Sheller Corporation, has its principal office and place of business
at Pendleton, Indiana, where it is engaged in the manufacture of
automotive equipment. The raw materials purchased by the Com-
pany from July 1, 1940, to February 14, 1941, included steel, screw-
machine parts, and manufactured thermostats. Approximately 75
per cent of such materials, to a value of not less than $56,000, were
obtained from sources outside the State of Indiana. The value of the
output of the plant during the same period was in excess of $100,000,
approximately 75 per cent of it being shipped to points outside the
State of Indiana. At the time of the hearing the Company employed
approximately 100 employees.
The Company stipulated that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local
No. 747, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership employees of
the Company.
HARDY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 39
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Union began its organizational activities in the Company's
plant in the latter part of 1940. A meeting of employees was held
on October 1 at which membership application cards were signed;
plans for forming a local union were considered; and a tentative
bargaining committee of five men was selected. At the request of
the committee, on October 4 the general manager, Thomas Bradley,
agreed to call a- meeting within a few days to discuss rates of pay.
Nothing was said at this time about the Union. On the evening
of October 7 a second meeting of employees was held at which the
organization of the local was completed; officers were elected; and
a new bargaining committee of five men was selected to take the
place of the committee chosen at the October 1 meeting.
Within a day or two thereafter, Bradley sent for the first com-
mittee to go to his office. When one of the men explained that
a new committee had been selected, it was suggested that both com-
mittees attend the meeting. In addition to these 10 men, one of
whom was no longer a member of the Union or of the committee
to which he had been elected, there was present during the meeting
the secretary-treasurer of the Union, who was not a member of
either committee. At Bradley's suggestion the 11 men, during his
absence from the room, drew up a schedule of pfoposed rates of
pay which they presented to him on his return. In addition to such
rates, the memorandum contained a provision respecting seniority
rights and the following notation : "The Union is to be recognized
U. A. W. A.-C. I. O." According to Bradley, this was the first
time that he had heard of the existence of the Union, and he had
then no information about its membership or majority status. He
did not doubt, however, that the 11 men who were present represented
a majority of the employees of the Company. After reading the
memorandum, Bradley agreed to the rates of pay and the provision
regarding seniority, but said that the Company did not feel that
it was the time to grant recognition to any group. Thereupon a
member of the first committee suggested that consideration of the
matter be deferred for 6 months. Bradley agreed to this suggestion,
and as no one spoke in opposition to the arrangement, he telephoned
to higher officials of the Company and secured their approval 'of
the proposed rates of pay. On the same day he had notices posted
,n the plant containing the language of the memorandum except for
the provision relating to recognition of the Union. No contract
was signed by the parties, nor was the agreement submitted to the
membership of the Union for approval, as required by its
constitution.
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On October 8 a representative of the, International Union tele-
phoned to Bradley, and later confirmed the call by letter, asking for
a conference to discuss bargaining procedure and the official recog-
nition of the Union. 'As the request was not granted, the Union
filed the petition in the present proceeding.
The Company contends' that its agreement, made with individuals
whom it considered the representatives of a majority of its employees,
is a binding collective bargaining agreement and a bar to any
investigation of representatives by the Board at the present time.
It is obvious, however, that the purported agreement cannot be
considered an exclusive bargaining contract, since it expressly defers
consideration of recognition of the Union for a period of six months.
Under the Act the Company had no right to refuse recognition
to the duly selected representative of the majority of its -employees,
nor could the bargaining committee of the Union waive the statutory
right of the employees to choose representatives. We find that the
above-described agreement is no bar to the present investigation of
representatives by the Board. A statement of the Regional Director
introduced at the hearing shows that the Union represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in the proposed unit.3
We find that a question, has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section 1 above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties stipulated that the appropriate unit should consist of
all hourly rated employees, including production and maintenance
employees and employees in the engineering department, but exclud-
ing supervisory, clerical,' salaried, and sales employees, watchmen,
and timekeepers. We see no reason for departing from such unit.
We find that all hourly rated employees of the Company, includ-
ing production and maintenance employees and employees in the
.The Regional Director ' s statement shows That the Union submitted in support of its
claim 12 authorization cards and 40 application cards, dated between November 1940 and
January 1941 The unit hereinafter found appropriate comprises approximately 100
persons
HARDY 17A1UFACTURI-NG CORPORATION 41
engineering department , but excluding supervisory , clerical , salaried,
and sales employees , watchmen , and timekeepers , constitute a unit
appropriate -for the purposes of collective bargaining , and that such
unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of
their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and
otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question which has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Company can best be resolved by an
election by secret ballot.
The Union wishes to have the pay roll nearest- the date of the
petition used to determine eligibility on the ground that it has been
prejudiced by the subsequent delay. The Company believes that
the pay roll nearest the election should be used because of the rapid
expansion of the plant. Approximately twice as many employees
were employed at the time of the hearing as at the time of the
filing of the petition. In accordance with our usual practice we
shall direct that the employees eligible to vote shall be those within
the appropriate unit during the pay-roll period immediately preced-
ing the Direction of Election , subject to such limitations and con-
ditions as are set forth in the Direction.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in_the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Hardy Manufacturing Corporation, Pen-
dleton, Indiana, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All hourly rated employees of the Company, including pro-
duction and maintenance employees and employees in the engineering
department , but excluding supervisory , clerical, salaried , and sales
employees , watchmen, and timekeepers , constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
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, 49 Stat . 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8,
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
2, as amended, it is hereby
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized' by the
Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining with Hardy Manufacturing Corporation , Pendleton, Indi-
ana, 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 of Election , under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director of the Eleventh Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations , among all hourly
rated employees of the Company , including production and mainte-
nance employees and employees in the engineering department, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
1 he date of this Direction of Election , and including employees who
did not work during such pay-roll period because they were tem-
porarily laid off, but excluding supervisory , clerical , salaried, and
sales employees, watchmen , and timekeepers , and excluding also
employees who shall have since quit or been discharged for cause,
to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Inter-
national Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local No.
747, affiliated with the C . I. 0., for the purposes of collective
bargaining.