The Midland Steel Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1939

17 N.L.R.B. 936 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of THE MIDLAND STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, DETROIT
PRESSED STEEL DIVISION and LOCAL 410, INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH CON-
GRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. R-4565.-Decided November 00, 1939
Automobile Parts Manufacturing Industry-Labor Organizations Involved:
schism in ranks of union resulting from split in parent labor organization ; two
groups respectively affiliated with C. I. 0. and A. F. L.; groups now constitute
separate labor organizations-Investigation of Representatives: controversy con-
cerning representation of employees : doubt as to which is representative of
employees under contract with company ; contract by its terms renewed for
year in absence of termination by either party, no bar to determination of
representatives in view of confusion resulting from split and the contractual
'claims of the two organizations-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining:
:stipulated ; production and maintenance employees including all tool and die
employees, all shipping and receiving employees, truckers, and stock chasers,
excluding foremen, supervisors, assistant foremen, timekeepers, plant protection
-employees, and salaried employees-Election Ordered
Mr. Earl R. Cross, for the Board.
Mr. TV. T. Kinder, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Company.
Mr. Jack N. Tucker, of Detroit, Mich., for the C. I. O.-U. A. W.
Mr. J. L. Busby, of Detroit, Mich., for the A. F. L.-U. A. W.
Mr. Albert J. Hoban, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 30, 1939, Local 410, International Union, United Auto-
mobile Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, herein called the C. I. O.-U. A. W., filed with the
Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan) a
petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of The Midland Steel Prod-
ucts Company,' Detroit Pressed Steel Division, herein called the
1 Incorrectly referred to in the petition as "Midland Steel Products Co."
17 N. L. R. B., No. 84.
936
THE MIDLAND STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 937
-Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 State 449, herein called the Act. On October 4, 1939, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2,
-ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to
conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On October 6, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon the
C. I. O.-U. A. W., and upon Local 410, International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America., affiliated with the American -Fed-
-eration of Labor, herein called the A. F. L.-U. A. W., a labor organi-
zation claiming to represent employees directly affected by the
investigation.
Pursuant to notice, copies of which were duly served upon the
parties, a hearing was held on October 19, 1939, at Detroit, Michigan,
before Horace A. Ruckel, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Board. At the hearing the Company filed an answer to the petition.
The Board, the Company, the C. I. O.-U. A. W., and the A. F. L.-
U. A. W. were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties. At the close of the hearing the A. F. L.-U. A. W. moved
to dismiss the petition. The motion was denied by the Trial Exam-
iner. During the hearing the Trial Examiner made a number of
other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
dence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner 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
The Midland Steel Products Company is an Ohio corporation en-
gaged in the manufacture of automobile frames, brake equipment,
and heavy stampings at its plant in Detroit, Michigan, known as
the Detroit Pressed Steel Division. The Company also maintains a
plant at Cleveland, Ohio, which is not involved in this proceeding.
. The value of the raw materials used annually by the Company
and consisting principally of steel, malleable iron, rivets, and welding
wire - amounts to over $1,000,000. More than 50 per cent of these
raw materials are shipped from points outside the State of Michigan
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the Detroit Pressed Steel Division. Sales of finished products
manufactured at the Detroit Pressed Steel Division are in excess of
$1,000,000 annually. Approximately 90 per cent of these products
are shipped to plants within the State of Michigan where they are
used by their purchasers in the manufacture of automobiles. The
remainder of the products manufactured at the Detroit Pressed
Steel Division are shipped to customers located outside the State of
Michigan. The Company employs between 1,400 and 1,500 persons
at the Detroit Pressed Steel Division.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Early in 1939, a division occurred in the ranks of International
Union, United Automobile Workers of America, herein called the
International Union, a labor organization affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations. The division has resulted in two
separate labor organizations, one affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations and the other affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor.2
As a result of the schism the members of Local 410 of the Inter-
national Union, which admitted to membership the employees of the
Company, divided into two rival groups. One, the petitioning
union, is affiliated with the C. I. O.-U. A. W.; the other, claiming to
represent employees directly affected by the investigation, is affil-
iated with the A. F. L.-U. A. W.
We find that Local 410, International Union, United Automobile,
Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations, and Local 410, International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, affiliated with. the American Federation of
Labor, are labor organizations admitting to membership employees
of the Company engaged at the Detroit Pressed Steel Division.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On May. 26, 1938, the Company and Local 410, International Union,
United Automobile Workers of America, herein called Local 410,.
signed a contract providing for exclusive recognition and setting,
forth wages, hours, and working conditions. The contract was for
a period of 1 year and was automatically renewable in the absence of
notice of termination given by one of the parties . at least 30 days
prior to its expiration date.
In May 1939, after the split in the International Union, and while,
the Company was negotiating with an A. F. L.-U. A. W. committee,
2 Matter of Chrysler Corporation and United Automobile Workers of America, Local 371,
affiliated soith the C. I. O. et at., 13 N. L. R. B. 1303.
THE MIDLAND STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 939
:representatives of the C. I. O.-U. A. W. notified the Company that
they represented a majority of the members of Local 410 and that
collective bargaining negotiations should be conducted with their
committee. On June 20, 1939, the Company and the A. F. L.-
U. A. W. committee entered into an agreement which recited that
neither party to the contract of May 26, 1938, had given notice of
-termination, and that it was therefore still in effect.
The A. F. L.-U. A. W. and the C. I. O.-U. A. W. each claims to be
the only organization authorized to represent the employees covered
by the agreement. Under the circumstances we do not consider the
contract between the Company and Local 410 a bar to our deter-
mination of representatives. In the absence of such a ,determination,
the confusion resulting from the split in Local 410 and the con-
tractual claims of the two labor organizations will seriously interfere
with collective bargaining between the Company and its employees.3
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
the employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has