Superior Coach Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 19, 1942

39 N.L.R.B. 926 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of SUPERIOR COACH CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
UNION , U. A. W.-C. 1. 0., AND LOCAL 711 THEREOF
Case No. R-3472.-Decided March 19, 1942
Jurisdiction : automobile body manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : con-
flicting claims of rival representatives; yearly contract in effect for 6 months,
but extended beyond prior expiration date after notice of rival claim, and but
for extension would shortly have expired, held no bar; dismissal of prematurely
filed rival petition, no bar to ; failure of rival union to show designation by
majority, no bar to existence of question ; eligibility determined in accordance
with desires of the parties; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all production and maintenance
employees of the Company, including watchmen, but excluding supervisory
employees, foremen, subforemen, working foremen or strawbosses, draftsmen,
engineers, and office and clerical help ; agreement as to.
Mr. George II. O'Brien, for the Board.
Wheeler, Bentley, Neville, and Cory, by Mr. C. H. Neville and Mr.
\C. H. Cory, of Lima, Ohio, for the Company.
Mr. Edward Lamb, Mr. Robert Lorton, and Mr. Louis Diddisse, of
Toledo, Ohio; for the U. A. W.
Mr. Fred M. Kerr, of Dayton, Ohio, Mr. W. H. Wilson, of Akron,
Ohio; Mr. Harry G. Jones, of Rushville, Ind., and Mr. George Edger-
ton, and Mr. Morris C. Taylor, for the Brotherhoods.
Mr. Cecil F. Poole, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 3, 1941, International Union, U. A. W.-C. I. 0., and
Local 711 thereof, affiliated with' the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, herein collectively called the U. A. W., filed with the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio) a petition alleg-
ing that a question affecting commerce had - arisen concerning the
representation of employees of Superior Coach Corporation, Lima,
Ohio, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On
39 N. L. R. B., No. 182.
926
SUPERIOR COACH CORPORATION 927
January 5, 1942, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III,
Section 3, of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
• tions-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized
the Regional Director to conduct it and td provide for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice.
On January 7, 1942, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing and on January 12, 1942, a notice of adjournment of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the U. A. W.
and upon International Association of Machinists;1 and upon Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Local No. B-32
thereof; International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers
and Helpers, and Local No. 602 thereof ; Upholsterers' International
Union of North America, and Local No. 237 thereof, and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers, and
Local No. 908 thereof, all affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, and herein collectively called the Brotherhoods, labor organi-
zations claiming to represent employees directly affected by the inves-
tigation. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on January 20 and
21, 1942, at Lima, Ohio, before Henry J. Kent, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Company, the
U. A. W. and the Brotherhoods were represented by counsel and par-
ticipated in the hearing. The Machinists did not appear. Full op-
portunity 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 upon motions and upon objections to the admission of evi-
dence. The Board has reviewed such rulings and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Trial Examiner also reserved for the consideration and decision of the
Board a motion made at the close of the hearing on behalf of the
Brotherhoods for dismissal of the petition. On February 5, 1942, the
Brotherhoods submitted a brief in support of said motion which the
Board has considered, but for the reasons set forth in Section III
below, the motion is hereby denied. -
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Superior Coach Corporation is an Ohio corporation , maintaining
its principal office and a single plant at Lima, Ohio. It is engaged in
.
The Machinists were not served with the first notice of hearing, but were notified of
the adjourned hearing by book telegram.
448105-42-vol. 39-60
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
manufacturing automobile bodies of all types, particularly school
buses, ambulances, hearses, passenger bodies, and special bodies for
United States Army service. The principal raw materials used by
the Company are sheet metal, glass tubing, and upholstery materials.
The value of such materials purchased by the Company in *1940 was
approximately $1,866,000, of- which 30 percent came from outside the
State of Ohio. During the same year, the Company sold finished prod-
ucts valued at approximately $3,200,000, of which 90 percent was
shipped to points outside the State.
IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, U. A. W.-C. I. 0., and Local 711 thereof, are
labor organizations affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Local
No. B-32 thereof; International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop
Forgers and Helpers, and Local No. 602 thereof; International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers, and Local
No. 908 thereof; and Upholsterers' International Union of North
America, and Local No. 237 thereof, are labor organizations affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor. All the above labor organi-
zations admit to their respective memberships production and main-
tenance employees of the Company
M. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In the spring of 1940, the American Federation of Labor, having
had three'previous yearly bargaining contracts with the Company,2
began organizing its employees along craft lines into the Brother-
hoods named above. Shortly thereafter, the U. A. W. began to
organize. Following a consent election held on April 1, 1940, won by
the Brotherhoods, the latter were recognized as the bargaining agent
and executed with the Company a joint contract covering a plant-wide
unit. In April 1941, the parties executed a new contract, expiring
April 11, 1942, but providing that it was to "continue. in effect from
year to year" unless either party gave 30 days' written notice to the
contrary, and that it could be "changed at any time by mutual
consent."
The U. A. W. continued to organize but made no claim of majority
prior to June 25, 1941, when several employees orally requested the
Company to join in a petition for election, which request was refused.
On July 1, 1941, U. A. W. filed a petition to the Board claiming that it
represented a majority and requesting an investigation and election,3
which petition was dismissed by the Board by order dated October 13,
2 Through Federal Labor Union, No. 200628.
^. ,$Regional Case No. VIII-R-532.
SUPERIOR COACH CORPORATION 1 929
1941, entered nunc pro tune as of August 27, 1941. On July 28, 1941,
U. A. W. notified the'Company in writing of its claim to a,majority,
requested bargaining rights, and enclosed a proposed contract. Upon
the Company's refusal, U. A. W. called strikes in July 4 and August,
and the Brotherhoods secured an injunction in the State court.
During the first 3 weeks of September 1941, the Brotherhoods circu-
lated and presented to the Company petitions bearing 480 signatures,
asking that the current contract be modified to include a closed-shop .5
Negotiations began on September 23, and •on October 15, 1941,6 2 days
after the order dismissing U. A. W.'s petition, the Company and the
Brotherhoods executed a supplementary agreement providing for, the
closed-shop., The expiration date of the contract as modified was
therein extended from April 11, 1942, to October 15, 1942; otherwise it
incorporated by reference the provisions of the earlier agreement.
On November 3, 1941, U. A. W. filed the present petition and sub-
mitted to-the Regional-Director in connection therewith evidence that
it represented a substantial number of employees in the unit herein-
after found to be appropriate, consisting of signed application for
membership cards.8 U. A. W. also submitted at the•hearing a number
of signed `petitions, containing 501 names which in effect repudiated
representation by the Brotherhoods and asked for a change of bargain-
ing agent.' These petitions were undated but it is admitted that none
was signed later than August 1941; 9 that all the cards and most of the
petitions were the same evidence of representation which U. A. W. had'
submitted in connection with the July 1, 1941, petition; and that they
were never brought to the Company's attention.lo
The Brotherhoods contend that the contract is a bar to the present
proceeding. This contention is without merit. While the July 1, 1941,
petition was premature in view of the existence of a valid contract, that
+ As part of a compromise of the July strike, the Company wrote the Board'that it would
not contest an election unless compelled to do so by virtue of its contract with the
Brotherhoods.
8 Of the 480 signatures, 476 purported to be those of persons on the Company's pay roll
of September 12, 1941, which pay roll contained 864 names ; and 426 purported to be sig-
natures of persons on the pay roll of September 19, 1941, which contained 691 names.
°As of this date, 279 of the signers of the Brotherhoods' petition ',ere on the pay roll,
£ which then contained 415 names. -
I The agreement also provided for the check-off and required all employees to join the
Brotherhoods on or before December 1, 1941. 1,
8 The Regional Director reported that' these cards :were 463 in number, of which 459
bore apparently genuine, original signatures, and 185 of which bore names of persons on the
Company's pay roll of November 27, 1941, which pay roll contained 411 names: All the
cards were dated between January and August, 1941.
° There is no evidence of the authenticity of the signatures nor as to how many of the
signers were on the Company's pay roll as of any,given date. The Trial Examiner per-
mitted counsel to "spot-check" the petitions by selecting every 15th or 20th name and
comparing it with the Company's employment record. Such a method is obviously
inconclusive. -
10 The Company's president testified that at no time did U A W ever present any show
of strength although at the time of the injunction in August 1941, the Company did not
know which group had a majority. -
930 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proceeding and the subsequent actions of U. A. W. were sufficient to
put the Company and the Brotherhoods on notice of a claim, however
timely, of a'rival organization . Dismissal of the petition by the Board
is not to be construed as a waiver by the U. A. W. of its previously
asserted and often reasserted claim. The Company and the Brother-
hoods were at liberty to alter or expand their agreement , but they
could not, by extending its life, preclude U. A. W. from again raising
the issue of representation at a proper time." Since the contract would
now, but for the extension , be about to expire," and since it was entered
into subsequent to the assertion of the U. A. W.'s claims it does not bar
this proceeding.
The Brotherhoods further 'contend that since the evidence does not
show that U. A. W. ever had - a majority , the latter could not win an
election and therefore none should be held. It is true that where a
petitioning labor organization shows no probability that it can win an
election the petition may be dismissed -" However , the U. A. W. was
not required to establish that it had already been designated by a
majority of the employees but only to show sufficient representation to
raise the possibility that it may be so selected upon an election 14 The
evidence submitted by U. A. W., though short of establishing a ma-
jority, was substantial ,15 and the short time elapsing between dismissal
of the previous petition and the filing of the present one sufficiently
answers'the allegation . that it is stale.
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 I above, has a: close; intimate , and substantial relation to
trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and tends to lead
" Matter of Textileather,Corporation and Federal Labor Union , No. 22008 (A F. L ),
35 N L R B 7, Matter of New England Overall Company and Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America ( CIO), 25 N L R. B 326; Matter of Max Hoffman, etc, and
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America ( CIO), 25 N L. R . B 311; Matter of The
Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company and United Retail and Wholesale Employees of
America (C 1. 0 ), 33 N. L. R -B 1103; Matter of Garod Radio Corporation and
Local 430 of the United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America, C. I . 0 , 29 N. L
R B 184.
'a Matter of Cohen & Company , Inc., and Steel Workers ' Organizing Committee ,, Local
No. 2287 ( CIO), 30 N L R B. 31; Matter of McLouth Steel Corporation and Local 174,
International Union , United Automobile Workers of America (CIO), 30 N . L R B 1000
13 Matter of Montgomery Ward & Co. and Office Employees ' Union, etc '%31 N L R B. 912
14 Matter of New York Handkerchief Manufacturing Company and International Ladies'
Garment Workers ' Union, Local No. 76, 16 N L R B 532 ; Matter of Ward Baking Co.
and United Retail and Wholesale Employees of America ( CIO), 21 N. L. It B 483.
16 See footnote 7, supra.
SUPERIOR COACH CORPORATION 931
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties stipulated at the hearing, and we find, that all production
and maintenance employees of the Company, including watchmen, but
excluding supervisory employees, foremen, subforemen, working fore-
men or straw bosses, draftsmen, engineers, and office and clerical help,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
We further find that said unit will insure to employees of the Company
the full benefit of their right to self-organization and collective bar-
gaining and will otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES -
We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen
can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot. In accordance
with our usual practice, we shall direct that all employees in the appro-
priate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to such
limitations and additions as are therein set forth, shall be eligible to
vote.
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 Superior Coach Corporation; Lima, Ohio,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Company, in-
cluding watchmen, but excluding supervisory employees, foremen,
subforemen, working foremen or straw bosses, draftsmen, engineers,
and office and clerical help, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses 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,
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 bargaining
932 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with Superior Coach Corporation , Lima, Ohio, 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 Eighth Region, acting in
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and sub-
ject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among
all production and maintenance ' employees of the Company at Lima,'
Ohio, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately pre-
ceding the date of this Direction , including watchmen, and employees
who did not work during such ' pay-roll period because they were ill or'
on vacation , or in the active military service or training of the United
States, or temporarily laid ` off, but excluding supervisory employees,
foremen, ' subforemen , working foremen or straw bosses , draftsmen,
engineers , office and clerical employees , and employees who have since
quit or been discharged for 'cause , to determine whether they .desvie to
be represented by International Union, U. A. W.-C. I. 0., and Local
711 thereof ,- affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
or by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Local No.
B-32 thereof , International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop
Forgers and Helpers, and Local No. 602 thereof, Upholsterers ' Inter- _
national Union of North America, and Local No. 237 thereof, and
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Stablemen and
Helpers, and Local No. 908 thereof , all affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, for the purpose of collective bargaining, or by
neither.