Macomb Coach and Trailer Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 17, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 540 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of HERMAN WARD AND ROMAN J. THEUISCH, CO-PARTNERS,
D/B/A MACOMB COACH AND TRAILER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and IN-
TERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 7-R-2585.=Decided July 17,1947
Mann and Ash,, by Mr. Arthur M. Mann, of Port Huron, Mich., for
the Employer.
Cllr. Fred Andrews . of Port Huron, Mich. , for the Petitioner.
Mr. TV. J. Sim, of Port Huron , Mich ., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Martin Sacks, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon an amended petition duly filed, a prehearing election was con-
ducted on April 18, 1947, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Seventh Region, among the employees of
the Employer in the alleged appropriate bargaining unit, to deter-
mine whether they desired to be represented, for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, by the Petitioner or by Peaceful Council of
Macomb Trailer Coach Workers, or by neither.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that of the approximately 40 eligible voters 1
all cast ballots, of which 31 were for the Petitioner, 7 were for Peaceful
Council of Macomb Trailer Coach Workers, and 2 were against repre-
sentation by either union.
Thereafter, a hearing was held on May 15, 1947, at Port Huron,
Michigan, before Harry N. Casselman, hearing officer. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing the Employer moved to dis-
miss the petition on various grounds discussed below. The hearing
3 At the hearing , the Employer questioned for the first time the eligibility of three
temporary employees who had voted , on the ground that they were then no longer employed
at the Employer 's plant. However , we find it unnecessary to pass on the question of their
eligibility to vote because , apart from other considerations , their votes could not have
affected the election results.
74 N L R B., No. 101.
540
MACOMB COACH AND TRAILER COMPANY 541
officer referred the motion to the Board for ruling thereon. For rea-
sons appearing hereinafter, the motion is hereby denied. The Em-
ployer's request for oral argument is denied inasmuch as the record,
in our opinion, adequately presents the issues and positions of the
parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Herman and Roman J. Theuisch, co-partners, doing business as
Macomb Coach and Trailer Company, are engaged in the manufacture
of trailer coaches at their plant in Port Huron, Michigan. From May
to December, 1946, the Employer purchased, for use at its plant, raw
materials valued at approximately $125,000, of which approximately
27 percent represented purchases made outside the State of Michigan.
Of the $169,000 worth of finished products manufactured during the
same period, approximately 46 percent was sold to the Employer's
"outlets" within the State, and were thereafter resold and shipped by
them to points outside the State.
We find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that the Employer
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
Peaceful Council of Macomb Trailer Coach Workers, herein called
the Intervenor, is an unaffiliated labor organization, claiming to rep-
resent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer has refused to recognize the Petitioner as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of its employees on the ground that
another union has also requested such recognition.2
2In this connection , the Employer and the Intervenor both contend that the Petitioner
did not represent a majority of the plant ' s employees at the time the Petitioner 's demand
for recognition was made . In support of this ^ontention the Intervenor points to an
election in January , 1947 , which the employees , themselves , conducted, and which, it is
asserted, resulted in a majority of the employees voting for the Intervenor . We find no
merit in this contention . It is clear that a Petitioner need not establish its majority
status in advance of a Board election . At the petition stage of the proceeding , all that is
necessary is that the Petitioner place the Employer on notice of its claim to majority
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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.
1V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties agree, and we find, that all employees of the Employer.,
excluding office and clerical employees, watchmen, foremen, and all
other supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
As noted above,-the Regional Director held an election in this pro-
ceeding on April 18, 1947, which the Petitioner won. On April 23,
1947, the Employer filed Objections to the Election all of which were
asserted at the hearing as the bases for its motion to dismiss the in-
stant petition. We have previously discussed and overruled the ob-
jections relating to lack of jurisdiction and adequacy of Petitioner's
showing. The remaining objections allege, in effect, the following
procedural defects in the instant case: (1) that the petition failed to
conform to the Board's Rules and Regulations, (2) that an inadequate
investigation was made, (3) that proper arrangements were not made
or the election, (4) that a secret ballot was not used, (5) that the bal-
lot used did not contain "the limitation of authority of the bargain-
ing agent," (6) that the election did not result in a free choice of rep-
resentatives, and (7) that the holding of a prehearing election was
improper.'
As to the first of these objections, we are satisfied that the instant
petition conforms, in all respects, to our Rules and Regulations. Nor
is there any record basis for the Employer's position in the second
and third objections that "no adequate investigation was made" and
that "proper arrangements for the election were not made as per Field
Examiner's representations."
As to the fourth and fifth objections, it is clear that the election was
conducted by secret ballot, and that the ballot was the customary type
utilized in cases where only one union is involved, and meets the-re-
quirements of the Act.
repiesentation , and we have held that the filing of a petition , in itself , meets that require-
ment Matter of Chicago Bridge and Irpn Co , 68 N L R : B 470 The further contention,
in effect, that Petitioner lacked a sufficient showing of representation , is likewise lacking
in merit The Board has frequently held that the matter of showing is purely admin-
istrative in character , and is not subject to objection at the hearing Moreover , we are-
administrativel y satisfied as to the adequacy of Petitioner 's showing.
3 At the hearing the Employer adduced evidence only in regard to the second and thirdl
objections stated above.
MACOMB COACH AND TRAILER COMPANY 543
With respect to the sixth objection, the Employer does not specify
in what manner the freedom of the employees to choose their repre-
sentative was interfered with and, on the basis of the entire record, we
find no inerit in this objection of the Employer.
And as to the final objection that the holding of a prehearing elec-
tion was improper, we note that the Employer does not specify the,
extent, if any, to which it has been prejudiced by the holding of the
election in advance of the hearing, nor does it contend that it was
thereby deprived of a full opportunity for a hearing.4 In any event,
we have. previously considered similar objections to the holding of
prehearing elections in analogous cases, and, as in those cases,5 find the
Employer's contention to be without merit.
In view of the foregoing, and under all the circumstances of the
case, we find that the election held herein was a free and uncoerced
election within the Board requirements, and we shall override the Em-
ployer's objections thereto. Inasmuch as the Petitioner has received
a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the
collective bargaining representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, has
been designated and selected by a majority of all employees of the
Employer, excluding office and clerical employees, watchmen, foremen,
and supervisory employees as their representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act,
the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such em-
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employinent, and other conditions of employ-
ment.
4 The Employer does contend , however , that the Regional Director , by preparing the
order transferring the instant case to the Boaid before the hearing , was prejudging the
issues Neither the record in the instant case nor the order in question was transmitted
to the Board until the hearing had been concluded , which practice conforms to Section
203 53 of the Board ' s Rules and Regulations . Moreover , inasmuch as the action of the
Regional Director served merely to transfer the case to the Board in order to secure a
determination by us of the issues , it is clear that none of the Employer 's objections herein
were prejudged by him
sMatter of Bassick Sack Division of Bassick Company, Inc , 71 N. L. R. B. 1056, and
cases cited therein.
755420-48-vol 74-36