Yale Rubber Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 131 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter Of YALE RUBBER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER
AND PETITIONER and UNITED RUBBER, CORK , LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC:
WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 7-Rlll-1 7.Decidecl July 11, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed a hearing in this matter was held at
Sandusky, Michigan, on April 13, 1949, before Francis E. Berger,.
hearing officer. The hearing officer referred to the Board a motion of-
the Union to dismiss the petition. Since we are dismissing the petition
for reasons other than those asserted by the Union in its motion, we
find it unnecessary to rule upon the motion in the posture presented by
the Union . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
h.as delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member
panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock , and Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board folds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,,
C. I. 0., herein called the Union, is a labor organization claiming to.
represent employees of the Employer.
3. The alleged question concerning representation :
Approximately 5 years ago the Employer opened an office and ware-
house in Detroit, Michigan . The primary operations performed at the.
Detroit installation were the purchasing and resale of rubber prod-
ucts. No manufacturing was engaged in there. About 31/z years ago,.
the Employer acquired a plant at Yale , Michigan, for the purpose of
manufacturing dense rubber . Shortly thereafter , the Employer recog-
nized the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for the production
and maintenance employees at this plant. In November 1946, the Em-
ployer and the Union executed a 1-year collective bargaining contract
85 N. L. R. B., No. 21.
131
857829-50--vol. 85-10
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
covering these employees, and excluding the employees at the Detroit
office and warehouse. At the expiration of this contract, a similar
contract was negotiated and signed in November 1947, for a 2-year
term ending December 1, 1949.
During the summer of 1947, increased orders warranted an expan-
sion of the Employer's manufacturing operations. A survey of the
Employer's facilities at Yale and of the resources of the town of Yale
indicated that the limited supply of water available to the Employer
would make expansion of the Yale plant financially unwise. The
Employer therefore decided to look elsewhere for another plant and,
in March 1948, purchased a plant at Sandusky, Michigan,-22 miles
from Yale. From the date of purchase until October 1948, mainte-
nance and construction employees readied the Sandusky plant for
the production of dense rubber, the same product as was being turned
out at Yale. Production commenced at Sandusky on a small scale
in October 1948 and increased gradually until March 1949, when pro-
duction had achieved capacity. In the meantime production at the
Yale plant was being curtailed, until in February 1949 the last em-
ployees at the Yale plant were discharged and the plant shut down.'
Shortly after the close of the Yale plant, at a time when the Union
sought to enforce the 1947 contract to cover the employees at San-
dusky, the Employer filed the petition herein for an election among
the employees at Sandusky. The Union claims that the current 1947
contract is a bar to such an election.
When the 1947 contract was executed, the Employer recognized
the Union as the majority representative in a production and main-
tenance unit at the Employer's operation at Yale and continued to
recognize the Union as such until the Yale plant closed. The Em-
ployer now refuses to recognize the Union as the majority representa-
tive of the employees at its Sandusky plant alleging that all of the
150 employees at Sandusky are new employees. However, the record
shows that included in this classification as new employees are 70 em-
ployees who were formerly employed by the Employer, and repre-
sented by the Union, at the Yale plant. These 70 employees were of-
fered employment at Sandusky and, upon acceptance of the offer,
reported directly from the Yale to the Sandusky plant. Thus despite
the formality of signing "quit" slips at Yale as required by the Em-
' The Employer states that the Yale plant is only temporarily shut down and that it
will reopen when converted for the production of a new rubber product. The eventual
reopening however is conditioned upon acquisition by the Employer of sufficient investment
capital and customers ' orders to warrant the step. It appears therefore that these plans
for the Yale plant are highly conjectural and not at all certain of eventual ascertainment.
Under these circumstances we cannot consider the Yale plant in existence for purposes of
this proceeding.
YALE RUBBER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 133
ployer and of being rehired at Sandusky, these 70 employees were in
effect transferred from Yale to the Sandusky plant.2
The record also shows that much of the machinery formerly used
in the 'Yale plant is now used in the Sandusky plant. Although this
machinery has been supplemented by new and improved machinery,
the production techniques and processes utilized at Yale have not been
altered in any substantial manner. The supervisory and manage-
ment personnel in charge of production at Yale is now similarly em-
ployed at Sandusky.
Under the foregoing circumstances we are impelled to the conclu-
sion that the Sandusky operation of the Employer is essentially noth-
ing more than the Yale operation transferred to a new location. It
follows therefore that the 1947 contract between the Employer and the
Union covers employees at the new location and constitutes a bar to
an election at this time.'
In addition to the contention of the Employer discussed above, the
Employer contends that the Union's majority status should at this
time be tested because the number of employees in the unit has in-
creased due to an expansion of the Employer's operation since the
1947 contract was executed. We do not agree. The record indicates
that there has been a 50 percent expansion in the Employer's opera-
tions by virtue of the transfer from Yale to Sandusky. Although this
represents a substantial increase in the size of the unit, the record
discloses, as hereinbefore pointed out, that there has been no material
change in the scope and character of the unit. Moreover, it appears
that the employees within the unit at the time the 1947 contract was
signed were representative of the employees now constituting the Em-
ployer's 'working force. Accordingly, as the 1947 contract is cur-
rently in effect, we do not believe that the expansion warrants an
election at this time.4
Nor do we find persuasive the Employer's further contention that
the use of the words "Yale plant" in the 1947 contract I means that the
2 The Employer technically rehired these employees ostensibly to extinguish any seniority
rights acquired by them at the Yale plant. In addition , 26 other former Yale employees
who had left the Employer ' s employ at Yale of their own volition had been reemployed
at Sandusky at the date of the hearing.
' Cf. Matter of St . Regis Paper Co?epany (Multi--Wall Bag Plant), 84 N. L. R. B. 454
and Matter of General Electric Company (Medford Plant ), 85 N. L . R. B. 150. In the
General Electric case cited we found no contract bar where a portion of a preexisting unit
was transferred and set tip as a new operation with a new managerial hierarchy.
4 Matter of Decker Clothes Inc., 83 N. L. R . B. 484. See Matter of Liggett d Myer8
Tobacco Co ., 73 N. L . R. B. 207, 210.
6 The Employer refers specifically to the introductory paragraph of the contract, which
is as follows : "THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this 1st day of December 1947.
by and between the YALE RUBBER MANUFACTURING CO., Yale Plant , Yale, Michigan
(hereinafter referred to as the "Company") and LOCAL UNION NO. 324 , of the United
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
terms of the contract can be applied only to such operations as may be
conducted at the Yale plant. We believe that this interpretation is
out of context and unnecessarily restrictive. Read in conjunction with.
those words. immediately preceding and following, the words "Yale
plant" are clearly descriptive of one of the parties to the contract,.
rather than of the operation or the unit covered by the contract.'
Upon the basis of all the foregoing and the entire record in this.
case, we find that no question concerning the representation of the Em-
ployer's employees at its Sandusky, Michigan, plant exists. We shall
therefore dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,.
dismissed.
Rubber , Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, CIO ( hereinafter referred to.
as the "Union "), covering all production and maintenance employees but excluding super-
visory employees . . . .
6 Cf. Matter of George F. Brasfield and Company , Incorporated, 72 N. L . R. B. 944, 945_