Landis Machine Co., Inc.

In the Matter of LANDIS MACHINE COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICUL- TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER Case No. 6-R-1410.-Decided October 4,,1946 Messrs. Moultrie Hitt and John C. Gall, both of Washington, D. C., and Messrs. Crawford N. Kirkpatrick and John J. Schmidt, both of Waynesboro, Pa., for the Employer. Messrs. Robert P. O'Donnell and Harold N. Pittman, both of Waynesboro, Pa., for the Petitioner. Mr. Arthur Christopher, Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on June 13, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among employees, of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collective bargaining.' At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 675 eligible voters and that 600 of these eligible voters cast ballots, of which 347 were for the Petitioner and 253 were against the Petitioner. Thereafter, a hearing was held at Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, on July 11, 1946, before W. G. Stuart Sherman, hearing officer. At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the document indicates on its face that Petitioner does not rep- resent a majority of the employees in the alleged appropriate unit. The hearing officer referred the motion to the Board for ruling thereon. For reasons stated hereinafter, the motion is denied. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error 'On June 10, 1946, before the election herein , the Employer filed with the Regional Director a motion to correct the procedure in which it questioned the Board's practice of holding prehearing elections and argued that "on principles of equity and sound public policy a hearing should certainly precede an election in order to afford an opportunity to any other party or parties who might hod they had an interest to appear, and give testi- mony in advance upon which the Board might thereafter decide advisedly, in the light of the evidence , whether an election was necessary or proper." The Regional Director denied the motion . We have previously considered similar contentions in analogous cases and, as in those cases, find them to be lacking in merit. Accordingly, we hereby sustain the Regional Director' s ruling Matter of E. R. Squibb & Sons, 67 N. L. R. B. 557 . Cf., also, Inland Empire District Council, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union v. Millis, et al., 325 U. S 697. 71 N. L. R. B., No. 33. 282 LANDIS MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 283 and are hereby affirmed. The request of the Employer for oral argu- ment before the Board is hereby denied inasmuch as we are of the opinion that the record adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Landis Machine Company , a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of threading and cutting machines, die heads, and collapsible taps at its plant in Waynesboro, Pennsylvania. During the 1-year period ending June 10, 1946, the Employer purchased approximately $1,250,000 worth of raw materials for use in its manufacturing operations at this plant , of which amount about 20 percent represented shipments from sources outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania . During the same period , the Em- ployer sold and distributed from this plant in excess of $4,000,000 worth of finished products, of which amount approximately 75 percent represented shipments to points outside the Commonwealth. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On March 12, 1946, the Petitioner requested recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit. The Employer refused such recognition. On May 3, 1946, the Petitioner filed its' petition. In its brief the Em- ployer, in effect, urged that the June 15, 1944, contract between it and International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 513, herein called the IAM, constitutes a bar to this proceeding. Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election,2 the Board, on April 5, 1944, certified the IAM as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of the employees here involved. On June 15, 1944, the Em- ployer and the JAM executed a collective bargaining contract cover- ing these employees. It provided for an initial period of 1 year and for its automatic renewal from year to year thereafter, unless either party gave notice in writing at least 30 days before any anniversary date of 2 54 N L R B 1440. 284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a desire to modify or terminate the agreement. At the close of the first year an issue arose between the parties as to whether the contract was automatically renewed for another year. This issue and others were thereupon certified to the War Labor Board which issued its directive -early in 1945 and found, among other things, that the contract had not expired on the first anniversary date. Although the parties entered into further negotiations, the last conference being held in March of 1946, they were unable to agree upon the terms of another contract. In fact, it now appears that the IAM has surrendered its charter to its parent organization and has, through its International representative, advised an agent of the Board that it has no interest in this proceeding. As appears above, the petition was filed on May 3, 1946, in advance of the operative date in 1946 of the 30-day automatic renewal notice clause in the contract. It is well settled, therefore, in view of the timeliness of the petition, that the contract cannot operate as a bar to an election at this time.3 Moreover, and apart from other considera- tions, we find that the fact that the IAM has ceased to function as a representative of the employees of the Employer renders the June 15, 1944, contract with the Employer ineffective as a bar to this proceeding.' The Employer contends, also, that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that the document indicates on its face that Petitioner does not represent a majority of the employees of the Employer. It points, in this connection, to the following statement therein : "The Unit contains approximately 500 employees, of which number 243 have designated or selected petitioner as their bargaining representative." We find no merit in the Employer's position. It is clear that a peti- tioner need not establish its majority status in advance of an election.5 At the petition stage of the proceeding, all that is necessary is that the petitioner place the employer on notice of its claim to majority repre- sentation. And we have held that the filing of a petition in itself meets that requirement .6 Moreover, Petitioner specifically apprised the Employer of its majority claim by its letter of March 12, 1946, re- questing exclusive recognition. The provision in the petition for a statement as to the showing of the labor. organization is merely to help the Board or its agent to determine administratively whether there is a probability that the petitioner maybe selected by a majority. Indeed, the election results have vindicated the Regional Director's judgment in that connection. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on this ground. 3Matter of Michigan Producers' Dairy Company, 68 N. L. R. B. 6, and cases cited therein. 4 Matter of Air Utilities, Inc, 70 N. L. R. B 887 , and cases cited therein. ° Beebe Corporation v. Millis, et al., 58 Fed. Supp. 993. ° Matter of Chicago Bridge and Iron Co., 68 N. L. R. B. 470, and cases cited therein. LANDIS MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 285 For reasons stated by us in the 0. D. Jennings case,7 we also find no merit in the Employer's objection to the absence of evidence in the record as to the number of employees who have designated the Peti- tioner as their exclusive representative for collective bargaining purposes. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties , that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer, including sweepers but excluding janitors, foundry and pattern shop employees, draftsmen, office and clerical employees, watchmen, plant-protection employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro- mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action , 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 The results of the election held previous to the hearing show that the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast. Under these circumstances, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Union, United Automo- bile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW- CIO) has been designated and selected by a majority of all production and maintenance employees of Landis Machine Company, Inc., Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, including sweepers but excluding jani- tors, foundry and pattern shop employees, draftsmen, office and cler- ical employees, watchmen, plant protection employees, and all super- visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis- cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with re- spect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi- tion's of employment. Matter of 0 D Jennenq.a & Company, 68 N L It B 516 s The election was held among employees in this unit.