Motor Valve and Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 17, 1944

58 N.L.R.B. 1057 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of MOTOR VALVE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY anJ
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEi1IENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO)
Case No. 7-C-1292.-Decided October 17, 1944
Mr. Harold A. Crane field, for the Board.
Messrs, Cook, Smith, Jacobs ct Beake, by Mr. Glen R. Miller, of
Detroit, Mich., for the respondent.
Messrs. Maurice Sugar and N. L. Smokler, of Detroit, Mich., for the
Union.
Mr. Mervin N. Bachman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW-CIO), herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations,
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan) issued its complaint, dated July
17, 1944, against Motor Valve and Manufacturing Company, Marine
City, Michigan, herein called the respondent, alleging that the re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices,
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. Copies of the Complaint, accompanied by
Notice of Hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the
Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged, in
substance: (1) that at all times since on or about January 24, 1944, the
respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit con-
cerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment; and (2) that the respondent, by the foregoing
58 N. L R B, No. 199.
609591-45-col. 58-68 1057
f058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
acts, has interfered with,, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On August 9, 1944, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint,
admitting the allegations respecting its business, the status of the
Union as a labor' organization, and the appropriateness of the unit
for the purpose of collective bargaining, that it had refused to bargain
with the Union, but setting up certain affirmative matter in defense
of such refusal and denying that it had engaged in or was engaging
in unfair labor practices. On August 24, 1944, the respondent, the
Union, and counsel for the Board entered into a stipulation agreeing
upon a statement of facts to serve as the basis of the Board's Decision
and Order and expressly waived further hearing, the issuance of an
Intermediate Report, or Proposed Findings of Fact, or other pro-
cedure before the Board. The stipulation provides as follows:
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Motor Valve and
Manufacturing Company, hereinafter referred to as respondent,
by Cook, Smith, Jacobs and Beake, its attorneys, International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft ' and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, (UAW-CIO), hereinafter referred to
as the union, by Maurice Sugar and Ned L. Smokier, its attorneys,
and Harold A. Cranefield, Regional Attorney for the National
Labor Relations Board, that the following statement of facts
and exhibits attached hereto shall have the same force and effect
as though witnesses had testified thereto and the said exhibits had
been offered and received in evidence at such hearing.
I
1. Upon a charge duly filed by the union with the Regional
Director for the Seventh Region of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, hereinafter referred to respectively as the Regional
Director and the Board, the Board, by the said Regional Director,
issued its Complaint dated July 17, 1944, against respondent al-
leging inter alia that respondent had engaged and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of subsection's (1) and (5) of Section 8 and subsections (6) and
(7) of Section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, hereinafter called the Act. A copy of the said Complaint
together with a copy of the charge and of Notice of Hearing were
duly served upon respondent and the union. Hearing upon the
said Complaint, originally ordered to be held on August 1, 1944,
was postponed from time to tine by orders of the Regional Direc-
tor. On August 11, 1944, respondent filed its Answer to the said
Complaint wherein it denied that it has engaged or is engaging
in any unfair labor practices whatsoever. The union and Harold
MOTOR VALVE- AND MANUFACBURING COMPANY 1059
A. Cranefield, as attorney for the Board, expressly waive any
objection that might lie by reason of respondent having filed its
Answer more than ten days after service of the Complaint. -
2. Each party hereto reserves the right to urge by way of argu-
ment to the Board and to any court which may acquire jurisdic-
tion of the proceeding (and it is agreed that the Board may itself
argue to any such court) that any fact herein stipulated is ir-
relevant or immaterial to a proper decision of the issues herein
presented.
II
1. The pgrties hereto waive hearing upon the Complaint, waive
intermediate report, proposed findings of fact and all other further
procedures before and of the Board preliminary to decision, pro-
vided that respondent and the union 'may, within fifteen days
after the date of this Stipulation file briefs with the Board (in
accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board as to the
number of copies and service of such briefs) and may apply to the
Board for leave to argue this matter orally before the Board.
(The Board is not committed hereby to allow such application or
to hear such oral argument.) This Stipulation, the charge, Com-
plaint and Notice of Hearing and respondent's Answer shall be
filed with the Chief Trial Examiner of the Board in Washington,
D. C., and together with the entii=e record of the Board in the
matter of Motor Valve and Manufacturing Company, and Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), Case No. R-5648
(including, without limitation thereto, the petition, Notice of
Hearing, transcript of proceedings before the Trial Examiner,
exhibits received by the Trial Examiner, the Board's Decision and
Direction of Election and the Board's Certification of Representa-
tives), shall constitute the entire record in this proceeding. Upon
the record as above constituted the Board may make findings of
fact and conclusions of law and may enter its decision and appro-
priate order thereon, all of which, together with such other papers
as may be properly filed after the date hereof, shall constitute the
entire record in any proceedings instituted for the review or en-
forcement of the Board's decision and order in any United States
court.
1. Respondent is and was at all times mentioned herein a Michi-
gan corporation engaged at a plant in Marine City, Michigan, in
the manufacture of poppet valves for internal combustion engines,
using as raw materials principally stainless steel and alloy steel
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all of which is purchased outside the state of Michigan and ship-
ping approximately 95% of its product outside the state of Michi-
gan. In the usual and ordinary course of its business in recent
times respondent's purchases of raw materials and supplies exceed
$100,000 in value annually and its manufactured products are of a
value exceeding $200,000 annually. Respondent is engaged in
interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
IV
1. The union, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of sub-
section (5) of Section 2 of the Act and admits employees of
respondent to membership therein.
V
1. In its Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. R-5648
the Board held and the parties hereto stipulate that all production
and maintenance employees of respondent, excluding clerical
employees, watchmen and all supervisory employees with author-
ity to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of subsections (2) and (b) of
Sectiofi 9 of the Act.
2. On September 10, 1943, a majority of the employees in the
bargaining unit as described above designated the union as their
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respondent in an election by secret ballot held on said date pur-
suant to the Board's aforesaid Direction of Election in Case No.
R-5648. Sixty-one employees were eligible to vote in the said
election, of whom 58 voted. Of the 58 ballots cast, two were
void, 31 were for representation by the union and 25 against.
Thereafter, and on October 6, 1943, the Board issued and served
upon respondent its Certification of Representatives, certifying
the union as the representative for collective bargaining of all the
employees in the aforesaid unit.
VI
1. Following the election of September 10, 1943, and before
issuance of the Board's Certification of Representatives, respond-
ent agreed, upon the union's request, to meet with the union at
respondent's offices on October 12, 1943, at two o'clock in the after-
noon of that day for the purposes of collective bargaining with
MOTOR VALVE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1061
the union as representative of respondent's employees in the above
described bargaining unit. Respondent's representatives, duly
authorized to represent respondent and act for it in collective bar-
gaining with the union, were present at the agreed place of meet-
ing at the agreed time. No representative of the union appeared
there. No previous notice had been given respondent by the union
of an intention not to appear.
2. On October 13, 1943, Cook, Smith, Jacobs and Beake, being
duly authorized thereto by respondent, wrote Bernard J. Young,
a representative of the union duly authorized to act for the union
in the matter of collective bargaining with respondent and the
union's representative throughout the Board's proceedings in Case
No. R-5648. The said letter was received by Bernard J. Young
in ordinary course. A copy of the said letter is attached hereto
marked "Exhibit A" and made a part hereof by reference.
3. The said Bernard J. Young made no specific reply to the
letter which is Exhibit A nor did respondent or its representatives
receive any specific response to said letter from any other repre-
sentative of the union. The first further communication between
respondent and the union after respondent's transmission of the
letter which is Exhibit A was a conversation between Glen R. Mil-
ler of Cook, Smith, Jacobs and Beake, and the said Bernard J.
Young upon the occasion of their meeting in the offices of the
Department of Labor in Detroit, Michigan, late in October, 1943,
in connection with another matter not involving respondent. On
this occasion the said Glen R. Miller reasserted respondent's
willingness to meet with the union for the purposes of collective
bargaining and the said Bernard J. Young undertook to commu-
nicate with the said Miller within a few days thereafter and to
propose a time and place for a meeting for the purpose of such
bargaining.
4. The only further communications between respondent and
the union prior to issuance of Complaint in this matter were by
letter. Copies of all letters exchanged between respondent and
the-union together with copies of enclosures transmitted with
such letters (except that Exhibit A, a copy of which was enclosed
with Exhibit C is not duplicated as an additional exhibit and
except that Exhibits D and E, copies of which were attached to
Exhibit G, are not duplicated as additional exhibits) are attached
hereto, marked respectively as Exhibits B, C, D; E, F and G. Each
of the said letters (with the enclosures mentioned) was received
in ordinary course by the addressee.
5. On January 24, 1944, there were in respondent's employ 53
of the 61 employees employed in the bargaining unit at the time
of the election of September 10, 1943, and 26 employees within the
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit who had been employed after the said election. At the date
of this stipulation 39 of the original 61 employees in the unit are
in respondent's employ and 36 employees hired since September
10, 1943.
6. Respondent has- refused at all, tiiiles since J tnuary 24, 1944
and now refuses to bargain collectively with the representative of
respondent's employees in the unit above described.'
On September 9, 1941, the respondent filed a brief, which the Board
has considered. No request for argument before the Board was made.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Motor Valve and Manufacturing Company, a Michigan corporation,
is engaged at its Marine City, Michigan, plant, in the manufacture of
poppet valves for internal combustion engines, using as raw materials
principally stainless steel and alloy steel , all of which is purchased
outside the State of Michigan , and shipping approximately 95 percent
of its finished product to points outside the State of Michigan. Its
total annual purchases of raw materials and supplies exceed $100,000,
and its products annually exceed $200 ,000 in value.
The respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The, refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The parties stipulated, and we find, that all production and mainte-
nance employees of the respondent, excluding clerical employees,
watchmen and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
I The exhibits referred to in the text of the stipulation are copies of correspondence be-
tween the parties which indicate their 'respective posiiona `Ivor the Purposes of our
decision herein, we find it unnecessary to attach any of the exhibits referred to in the
stipulation.
0
MOTOR VALVE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1063
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
The parties stipulated, and we find, that on September 10, 1943,
pursuant to direction of the Board 2 an election was held in which a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit selected the Union
as exclusive bargaining representative. The Tally of Ballots indi-
cated that 61 employees were eligible to vote and that 58 voted, of
whom 31 cast ballots for, and 25 against the Union. Two ballots were
void. Thereafter, on October 6, 1943, the Board issued its certification
of the Union as exclusive representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit. We further find that since September 10, 1943, the Union
has been the exclusive representative of all the employees in the, said
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment
3. The refusal to bargain
The respondent contends that its refusal to bargain with the Union
is justified for two reasons : the neglect of the Union to request initia-
tion of negotiations until January 24, 1944, and the turnover among
employees in the appropriate unit, which causes it to doubt that the
Union is at present the representative of a majority of such employees.
Failure of a certified union to request immediate bargaining does
not relieve an employer of his statutory obligation. We perceive noth-
ing in the facts before us which would warrant a contrary position.
As we have frequently found, a certification of representatives is oper-
ative for a reasonable period, normally 1 year, in the absence of un-
usual circumstances.3 As to the second ground urged by the respond-
ent, we are not persuaded that the certification, which was slightly
more than 3 months old when the Union requested the respondent to
bargain and the respondent refused, should now be held, when it is
barely more than a year old, to be defeasible upon the showing made
the respondent.'
2 Case No. R-5648 ; 51 N. L . R. B. 1240
a See N L. R B . v Appalachian Electric Power Co, 140 F. (2d) 217 (C. C A 4), enf'g as
mod 47 N. L R . B. 821 , N L R B . v The Century Oxford Mfq. Corp , 140 F ( 2d) 541,
enf'g 47 N L R B 835, N L R. B. v Botany Worsted Mills , 133 F. ( 2d) 876 ( C. C. A.
3) ; N. L R B . v Valley Mould it Iron Corp ., 116 F ( 2d) 760, enf'g 20 N. L . R B. 211;
N L R B v Grieder Machine Tool it Die Co, 142 F (2d) 163 ( C. C. A. 6 ), enf'g 49
N L. It. B 1325 , Matter of Aluminum Company of America , Newark Works , 57 N. L R. B.
913; Matter of Bohn Aluminum and Brass Corp ( Plants 13 and Magnesium Fabricators),
57 N L. R B 1684 , Matter of Kentucky Utilities Company , 58 N L R . B. 335.
' The stipulation shows that , as of its date , August 24, .1944, there were 39 of the
original 61 employees in the unit and that 36 employees had been hired in the unit since
September 10; 1943, ' the date-of *.the eleetion . At',theydate of the"U nion's -request- to com-,
mence bargaining negotiations, January 24, 1944 , there were in the Unit 53 of the original
61 employees and 26 new employees hired after the election.
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that on January 24, 1944, and at all times since- that date,
the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid appropri-
ate unit, thereby interfering with, restraining , and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the respondent described
in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, we shall order it to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action, which we find
will effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent has refused to bargain collec-
tively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees
in the aforesaid appropriate unit. We shall order that the respondent
bargain collectively with the Union upon request.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire rec-
ord in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the respondent,
excluding clerical employees, watchmen and all supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, was on September 10, 1943,
and at all times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all
the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
MOTOR VALVE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1065
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW-CIO), affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the
Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are, unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Motor Valve and Manufacturing Company, Marine City,
Michigan, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW-CIO), affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, as the exclusive representative of all its production
and maintenance workers excluding clerical employees, watchmen,
and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees or effectively recommend such action;
(b) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct, interfering
with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right
to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
• International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in-concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW-CIO), affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ganizations, as the exclusive representative of all its production and
maintenance employees, excluding clerical employees, watchmen, and
all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or
effectively recommend such action in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant at
Marine City, Michigan, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees
stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of
this Order; and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action
set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision-and Order.