The Wheland Co.

In the Matter of THE WHELAND COMPANY , EMPLOYER and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 10-17-2457.-Decided April 11, 1947 Messrs. W. D. Spears, S. W. Johnson, and J. E. Black, all of Chatta- nooga, Tenn., for the Employer. Mr. J. C. Stafford, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Petitioner. Mr. Draper Doyal, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Messrs. W. G. Kissinger and Claude L. Dudney, both of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Intervenor. Mr. Arthur Christopher, Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Chatta- nooga, Tennessee, on February 18, 1947, before William M. Pate, hear- ing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Wheland Company, a Tennessee corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of oil well drilling machinery, sawmill machinery, gray iron castings, and related products at its plant in Chattanooga, Tennes- see. During the 1-year period ending February 1, 1947, the Employer purchased raw materials worth more than $25,000, of which approxi- mately 50 percent was shipped to its plant from points outside the State of Tennessee. During the same period, the Employer sold fin- ished products valued in excess of $100,000, of which approximately 50 percent was shipped to points outside the State. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the, meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. TILE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 73 N. L R . B., No 66. 349 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer. III. TITE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.' 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, substantially in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that all foundry employees employed in the Employer's Chat- tanooga, Tennessee, plant, including flask repairmen, foundry ship- ping employees, and working foremen," but excluding office and clerical employees, administrative, and executive employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, 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. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 3 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Wheland Company, Chat- tanooga, Tennessee, 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 supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec- I On March 15 , 1946, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a collective bargaining contract, embracing the employees sought herein , which provided that it was to expire on March 15, 1947 , and contained a 30-clay automatic renewal clause Neither of the con- tracting parties asserts that this contract is a bar to a present determination of iepre- sentatives , nor could it be, inasmuch as the petition in this case was filed before the operative (late of its automatic renewal clause, and its anniversary date has passed =Pearl Lane and Griflith Turner, the only employees in this category , do not possess supervisory authority within the Board's customary definition. 3Any participant in the election heiem may, upon its prompt request to and approval thereof by the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot. THE WHELAND COMPANY 351 tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period imme- diately 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 off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been dis- charged for cause and have iiot been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be repre- sented by United Steelworkers of America, CIO, or by International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, A. F. of L.. for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. 739926-47--vol ,3-24