Toledo Stamping & Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 7, 1944

56 N.L.R.B. 1291 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of TOLEDO STAMPING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS of AMERICA, LOCAL #12 (CIO)
Case No. 8-R-14.98.-Decided June 7, 1944
Messrs. Alan B. Loop and R. M. Saw/aill, of Toledo, Ohio, for the
Company.
Messrs. Edward Lamb, David A. Guterman, and Cyrus Martin, of
Toledo, Ohio, for the CIO.
Messrs . George Pilkiewiez and Henry G. Dreyer, of Toledo, Ohio,
for the MESA.
Mr. William C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local
#12 (CIO), herein called the CIO, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Toledo Stamping & Manufacturing Company, Toledo, Ohio, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before'Louis Plost, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held at Toledo, Ohio, on May 2, 1944.
The Company, the CIO, and Mechanics Educational Society of Amer-
ica, (CUA), herein called the MESA, appeared and participated. All
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on the issues,
and to file briefs with the Board. The Trial Examiner's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Toledo Stamping & Manufacturing Company is an Ohio corpora-
tion, having its only plant and office at Toledo, Ohio, where it is en-
56 N. L. R. B., No. 228. 1291
1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaged in the manufacture of metal stampings. The principal raw
material used is steel. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1943, the
value of the principal raw material used was $378,690, of which ap-
proximately 95 percent was purchased outside the State of Ohio. The
value of the Company's finished products for the same period exceeded
$900,000, approximately 95 percent of which was shipped to points
outside the State of Ohio. The Company employs approximately
175 persons exclusive of its officers.
The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the'meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local #12 (CIO), affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, and Mechanics Educational
Society of America (CUA), affiliated with the Confederated Unions, Of
America, are labor organizations admitting to membership employees
of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
At the hearing the parties stipulated that. on or about April 1, 1944,
the CIO advised the Company that it represented a majority of the
employees within an alleged appropriate bargaining unit and requested
recognition as their exclusive bargaining representative, and that the
Company refused to accord the CIO such recognition because of the
Decision and Order issued by the Board on March 30, 1944, in Matter
of The Toledo Stamping cC Manufacturing Company.'
In the cited case the Board dismissed the petition for investigation
and certification of representatives filed by the CIO because of the
fact that one Dean, the Company's chief inspector, who, as the record
clearly established, was a supervisory employee, admitted that he had
sponsored the CIO's membership drive. In dismissing the prior peti-
tion the Board said, "We shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition with-
out prejudice to the CIO's right to seek an investigation and deter-
mination of representatives when it can produce satisfactory prima
f arie evidence of its designation as collective bargaining represent-
ative of the employees of the Company, secured without the assist-
ance of any supervisory employees." The evidence submitted by the
CIO in the instant case in support of its representation claim consists
of a petition dated in April 1944, signed by 172 persons, 163 of whose
1 55 N. L. R. B. 865.
TOLEDO STAMPING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1293
names appear on the Company's pay roll of April'8, 1944.' This
petition reads as follows :
We, the undersigned employees of the Toledo Stamping and
Manufacturing Company in Toledo, Ohio desire to express our
opposition to the decision of the . . . Board . . . in Case No.,
8-R-1334. We desire to have the . . . C. 1. 0. as our collective
bargaining agent and as of this date reiterate their designation
- of representation.
In accordance with my legal rights, I hereby designate the
International Union,/United Automobile Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, Local No. 12 as my. agent
for collective bargaining with my employers.
Neither the Company nor the MESA questions the authenticity of
the signatures appearing on the above-described petition nor the
method by which the signatures were procured. The instant case is
based upon a new petitiion for investigation- and certification of
representatives filed by the CIO subsequent to the dismissal of its prior
petition and is apparently supported by new evidence, secured without
the assistance of any supervisory employees, which indicates that"a
substantial, number of employees within the unit it alleges to be appr'd-
priate have designated it as their collective bargaining representative.
We find that a' question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section' 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Contentions of the parties
'The CIO contends that all production and maintenance employees of
the Company, excluding office employees, and supervisory employees
with authority to hire and discharge, constitute an appropriate bar-
gaining unit. The MESA contends' for two separate appropriate
,units, one to be comprised of all employees in the tool and die depart-
ment of the Company's plant, including tool and die makers, appren-
tices, and learners; the other to be comprised of all remaining pro-
duction and maintenance employees, excluding supervisory employees
and office workers. The Company takes no position with respect to
the appropriate unit.
Bargaining history
The record indicates that the MESA has been, recognized by the
Company as exclusive bargaining representative of the production
587784-45-vol. 56-83
1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and maintenance employees since about 1936. It further appears that
on April 22, 1941, the Company and the MESA entered into a union-
shop contract for a term of 1 year with a provision for an extension for
an additional period of 11 year unless written notice of termination
was given by either party within 30 days of the original expiration
date. No such notice was given and the contract was automatically
extended for a period of 1 year from April 22, 1942. No new contract
or written agreement to extend the original contract was thereafter
entered into by the contracting parties. Thus, in accordance with its
express terms, the contract as extended expired on April 22, 1943.
Prior to the execution of the aforesaid union-shop contract a ma-
jority of the tool and die department employees of the Company were
members of an American Federation of Labor union and were not
represented by the MESA. The tool and die department employees
joined the MESA shortly after the execution of the above-mentioned
contract. The record is not clear as to whether there was or is one
shop committee for production and maintenance workers and another
for the tool and die department employees. The MESA maintains
two locals in the Toledo, Ohio, area; one (Local 3) for production
workers and the other (Local 4) for skilled workers. The tool and
die department employees are members of Local 4. Both Locals have
a common secretary, Earl S. Streeter. Also, both Locals are named
in the contract as parties thereto. The contract's recognition clause
states, in part, "The Company agrees to recognize the MESA as
sole bargaining agents for all employees" (italics supplied). It
excepts from the union-shop provision "foremen, assistant foremen,
supervisors of all departments and office employees." The contract
enumerates the five departments in the plant, namely, (1) tool and
die, (2) pressroom, (3) shearroom, (4) assembly, packing, shipping,
inspection and miscellaneous, and (5) maintenance and millwright.
Wage scales appear under two headings, namely, "production depart-
ments" and "tool and die department." Under the latter heading ap-
pears the following clause :
$1.00 per hour minimum for tool and die makers.
It is understood that the management will discuss the matter
with the committee in the die room and agree who the die makers
are and which ones qualify for this minimum guarantee.
All other provisions such as hours of employment, overtime, vacations,
and other conditions of employment, are set out generally for all em-
ployees.
The CIO contends that collective bargaining has been conducted
by the MESA on a plant-wide basis and that a single shop com-
mittee has handled all plant grievances including those of tool and die
department employees.
TOLEDO- STAMPING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 1295
r'•,1 I t)
Co?tV7mion
Although the record contains some evidence in support of the'CIO's
contention, in this 'situation; considering the inconclusive history of
collective bargaining and the conflicting, contentions of the parties, we
shall permit the scope of the bargaining unit, or units to be determined,
in; part,, by the, desires, of. the employees involved as reflected by the
means of separate elections? .
We-are of1the,opinion that the employees in, the tool and die depart-
men subject to certain named exclusions, may appropriately, consti-
tute a separate bargaining unit or be, merged in, the industrial unit
requested ,by,the CIO. As stated in Section III, supra, the CIO has
ubmitted sufficient 'evidence of interest.with respect to its proposeds ,
unit to warrant ,placing it on. the ballots in the elections which,ve shall
direct. The MESA has participated in collective bargaining for the
Company's employees ,under the above-mentioned contract and there-
fore has demonstrated a sufficient interest to warrant placing, it on the
ballots in,the'elections hereinafter directed.,
There remains for consideration the composition of the, voting
groups,
The parties are in substantial agreement with respect to the inclu-
sions and, exclusions. The Company employs two unmilitarized
watchmen whom.the parties agree to include, in the larger production
and maintenance unit. , We shall include them in the,larger of the
two voting groups.' There shall be excluded from,each voting group,
in addition-to others specifically mentioned, therein, all supervisory
employees, with authority, to hire,, promote,, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect'changes in the status of employees, or effectively-
recom-mend such action. , The respective voting groups shall be as follows :
(1) All employees in the tool and die department of the Company's
plant, ,including ,tool 'and die makers, apprentices, and learners, to de-
termine whether they desire to be represented by the MESA, or by the
CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or,by neither; and
(2) All remaining production and maintenance employees of the
Company, including watchmen, .but excluding office employees, to de-
termine whether they desire to be represented by,.the CIO, or by the
MESA, for the,purposes of collective bargaining,,or, by neither..'
We shall make no final determination as to the ,appropriate unit or
units .pending, the results of, the elections. , Those eligible: to vote in
the elections which, we-shall direct, shall be,theemployees of,the Com-
pany described in the voting groups above who were employed during
the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction
2 See Matter of Basic Refractories Incorporated, 55 N. L. R. B. 391 ; Matter of Basic
Magnesium Incorporated, 55 N. L. R B. 380; and Matter of Erie Concrete t Supply Co.,
Ship Building Division of Erie, Pa , 55 N. L R B. 1124.
r
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth
therein.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
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 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Toledo'Stamping
& Manufacturing Company, Toledo, Ohio, elections 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 super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 10 ,and 11, of said Rules and Regulations,
among the employees in the voting groups described below who were,
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction, including employees-who did not work during said
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid
oft, and including employees'in the armed forces of the United States
who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding any em-
ployees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have
not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elections and
further excluding,all supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action :
(1) All employees in the tool and die department of the Company's
plant, including tool and die makers, apprentices, and learners, to
determine whether they desire to be represented by International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & 'Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, Local #12 (CIO), or by Mechanics Educational
Society of America (CUA), for the purposes of collective bargaining,
or by neither; '
(2) All remaining production and maintenance employees of,the
Company, including watchmen, but excluding office employees, to
determine whether they desire to be represented by International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, Local #12 (CIO), or by Mechanics Educational
Society of America (CUA), for the purposes of collective bargaining,
or by neither.
I