Metal Process Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1941

29 N.L.R.B. 356 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter Of METAL PROCESS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH
THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. R-2254.-Decided January 31, 1941
Jurisdiction : metal plating industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to accord recognition to union until it had been certified by the Board;
election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all production and hourly rate em-
ployees of the Company, excluding supervisory officials, office employees, and
watchmen, agreement as to.
McMahon, Abbott cC Roberts, by Mr. David E. Roberts, of Detroit,
Mich., for the Company.
Mr. Maurice Sugar, by Mr. Jack M. Tucker, of Detroit-, Mich., for
the Union.
• Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On" October 16, 1940, International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director
for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan) a petition alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of Metal Process Corporation, Detroit, Michigan,
herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and cer-
tification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On
November 26, 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 Regu-
lations-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and author-
ized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice.
29 N. L . R. B., No. 68.
356
METAL PROCESS CORPORATION 357
On January 6, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and. the
Union. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on January 13, 1941,
at Detroit, Michigan, before Earl R. Cross, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Company and the Union were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all 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
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Metal Process Corporation operates a plant at Detroit, Michigan,
where it is engaged in the business of plating metals. The Com-
pany stated at the hearing that sufficient of the products plated by
it pass in the course of interstate commerce to subject the Company
to the jurisdiction of the Board and stated that for the purpose of
this hearing it conceded that it was engaged in interstate commerce.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, is
a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
relation, to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
rate employees of the Company, excluding supervisory officials,
office employees, and watchmen.
III. IHE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On October 15, 1940, the Union, claiming to represent a majority
of the employees of the Company, requested the Company to bar-
gain with it as exclusive representative of the employees. The Com-
pany refused to' bargain with the Union until it had been certified
by the Board. A statement of the Regional Director introduced in
evidence shows that the Union represents a• substantial number of
the employees in the unit alleged by it to be appropriate.' .
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Company.
i The Regional Director 's statement shows that 16 employees whose names appear on the
Company pay roll of October 25, 1940, have signed application cards in the Union. There
are approximately 25 employees in the alleged appropriate unit.
DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tends to lead labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union and the Company agreed at the hearing that the appro-
priate unit should consist of all production and hourly rate employ-
ees of the Company, excluding supervisory officials, office employees,
and watchmen. We see no reason for departing from such unit.
We find that all production and hourly rate employees of the
Company, excluding supervisory officials, office employees, and watch-
men, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, and that said unit will insure tc employees of the Com-
pany 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
The Union seeks to be certified on the basis of the record. The
evidence at the hearing shows that the Company employs approxi-
mately 25 employees in the appropriate unit. In support of its claim of
majority representation, a representative of the Union testified that
18 employees had signed application cards in the Union. The Com-
pany stated that it would leave the question of certification up to
the Board. Neither the application cards of the Union nor the
pay roll of the Company were introduced in evidence at the hearing.
Under these circumstances, we believe that the question concerning
representation can best be resolved by means of an election by secret
ballot. - a
The Union and the Company agreed at the hearing that, in the
event the Board directs,an election, eligibility to vote should be ex-
tended to the employees whose names appear on the Company's pay
roll immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein and who have been in the employ of the Company thirty (30)
days at that time. We find that the employees of the Company
eligible to vote in'the election shall be those in the appropriate unit
who were employed, during the pay-roll period immediately preced-
ing the date of the Direction of Election herein and who were in
the employ of the Company thirty (30) days at that time, including
METAL PROCESS CORPORATION 359
employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because
they were ill or on vacation and employees who were then or have
since been temporarily laid off, excluding ,those who have since -quit
or been discharged for cause.
Upon the basis of the above 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 Metal Process Corporation, Detroit, Michi-
gan, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All production and hourly rate employees of the Company,
excluding supervisory officials, office employees, and watchmen, con-'
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations
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
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing with Metal Process Corporation, Detroit, 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 Re-
lations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules
and Regulations, among all production and hourly rate employees
of the Company who were employed during the pay-roll, period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction and were in the
employ of the,Company thirty (30) days at that time, including
employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because
they were ill or on vacation and employees who were then or have
since been temporarily laid off, but excluding supervisory officials,
office employees, watchmen, and employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire
to be represented by International Union, United Automobile Work-
ers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, for the purposes of collective bargaining.