Metalloy Corp.

In the Matter Of METALLOY CORPORATION and ' DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, NORTHWESTERN REGION Case No. R-4951.-Decided March 22, 1943 Jurisdiction : chemicals manufacturing industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: diss- pute as to the appropriateness of the proposed unit ; dispute as to the right of the employees within the proposed unit to have the same representative as other of the company's employees ; election necessary. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : non-supervisory plant-protection employees, including regularly employed relief men, but excluding other em- ployees of the company. Messrs. Herbert W. Rogers and Ward B. Stevenson, of Minneapolis, Minn., for the Company. Mr. John H. Cook, of St. Paul,, Minn., for the Union. Mr. Wallace E. Royster, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petition duly filed by District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Northwestern Region, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Metalloy Corporation, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro- vided for an appropriate hearing upon due' notice before Robert E. Rissman, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held. at Minneapolis, Minnesota, on March 2, 1943. The Company, and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex- amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the* hearing the Company moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Union is seeking an inappropriate unit. The_ Trial Examiner reserved ruling thereon. The motion is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 48 N. L. R. B., No. 49. 406 METALLO'Y CORPORATION 407 Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Metalloy Corporation is a Minnesota corporation with its 'only plant in St. Louis Park and its offices in Minneapolis, both in the State of Minnesota. It is engaged in the production of lithium chloride. The raw materials used monthly have a value of approximately $30,000, and are received at the plant from points outside Minnesota. The monthly production of the Company has a value in excess of $30,000 and is shipped from the plant to points outside Minnesota. All of the Company's product is sold to the War Department. The Company concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED District 50,, United Mine Workers of America, Northwestern Region, is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to mmber- ship employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On February 23, 1943, the Company and the Union entered into a consent election agreement as to the Company's employees at the plant. The Company refused to include plant-protection employees in the unit covered by the said agreement and has since refused to recognize the Union as the bargaining representative of the plant- protection employees as a separate unit, arguing, alternatively, that such employees should not have the same representative as the others, and that their duties and responsibilities are such as to exclude them from any bargaining unit. A statement' of the Regional Director, introduced into evidence, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter' found appropriate.' I We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concern- ing the representation of employees of the Company within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 1 The Regional Director stated that the Union submitted three authorization cards, 'rill dated in January 1943 and all bearing the apparently genuine, original signatures of poi- sons whose names appear on the Company's pay roll of February 23, 1943. ' There are four employees in the appropriate unit. 408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RE'LAT'IONS, BOARD IV. THE -APPROPRIATE UNIT The Company employs four plant-protection employees who are armed and under the supervision of the military authorities. Their duties do not appear tq differ from those of similar em- ployees in other war industries. Three of them are-employed full time; the fourth works regularly as a relief man 3 days each week and has other employment. None is in a supervisory status as to the others and only one is on duty on each shift. The Union re- quests, a unit of such employees, including the relief man aild exclud- ing all other employees of the Company. As hereinbefore stated, the Company opposes any unit which would include these employees. but makes no further objection to the inclusion of the relief man. We have frequently held that plant-protection employees may con- stitute an. appropriate unit and have refused to deny them their collective bargaining, rights because of their duties.2 As to the Company's contention that such employees should not have the same representative as the others, Section 7 of the Act provides that em- ployees shall have the right to bargain through representatives of their own choosing. We have also held that regular part-time employees, otherwise eligible, have such an interest in the subject matter of collective bargaining that they may appropriately be included in the unit. Accordingly, we find that all non-supervisory plant-protection em- ployees of the Company, at St. Louis Park, Minnesota, including regularly employed relief men, but excluding all other employees of the Company, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which 'has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the employees in the appropriate unit who were employed -during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. 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 Rela- 2 Matter of Chrysler Corporation, Highland Park Plant and Local 114, United Auto- 'mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America , affiliated with the C. 1 0., 44 N. L. R. B. 881 . See also Matter of Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company (Indiana Harbor Plant ) and United Steelworkers of America, Local 2775, C I. 0., 47 N L R B 391. - ' METALLOY CORPORATION 409 tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain represent- atives for, the purposes of collective bargaining with Metalloy Cor- poration, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, 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 super- vision of the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III; Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees of the Company in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including em- ployees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including em- ployees in the armed forces of the United States who present them- selves in person at the polls, but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whetjier or not they desire to be represented by District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Northwestern Region, for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.