Ripley Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter Of RIPLEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY , EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT & AGRICUL- TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER Case No. 7-R-2425.-Decided February 12,1947 Mr. C. R. Meyers, of Croswell, Mich., and Miller, Can field, Paddock, and Stone, by Mr. Emmett Fagan, of Detroit, Mich., for the Employer. Maurice Sugar and N. L. S7nokler, by Mr. N. L. Smokier, of Detroit, Mich., for the Petitioner. Mr. Keith Dennison, of Croswell, Mich., for the Independent. Mr. Philip Licari, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon an amended petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Port Huron, Michigan, on September 17, 1946, before Meyer D. Stein, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing 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 I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Ripley Manufacturing Company, a Michigan corporation, is en- gaged at Croswell and Cass City, Michigan, in the manufacture and sale of wire cloth products and perforated metal. The Employer's plants in both cities are involved in this proceeding. During the year 1945, the Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $200,000, of which 50 percent was obtained from sources outside the State of Michigan. During the same period, the Employer sold finished products valued in excess of $200,000, of which 50 percent was shipped to points outside that State. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 72 N. L. It. B., No. 106. 559 731242-47-vol. 72-37 560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Employer. Independent Screen and Strainer Workers, herein called the Inter- venor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Employer.' III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner or Intervenor as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until either 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 The Petitioner seeks a unit of all the Employer's employees at the Croswell, Michigan, plant, including factory clerks, but excluding office and clerical employees, foremen, and all other supervisory em- ployees. Although in agreement as to the specific composition of the foregoing unit, the Employer and the Intervenor contend that the Employer's two plants located at Croswell and Cass City, Michigan, respectively, together constitute an appropriate unit. The Employer's plants at Croswell and Cass City are approximately 54 miles apart. There is no history of collective bargaining with re- spect to either plant. The record discloses that although the two plants are functionally related and are subject to certain over-all managemelit policies, each of the plants is under separate supervision, which includes independent authority to hire and discharge employ- ees, the method of payment of wages for the two plants is different,2 the Employer maintains separate pay rolls at each plant, and there is no interchange of employees. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of a history of collective bargaining on a broader basis, we are I In the event the Board directs an election in this case , the Petitioner seeks to prevent the Intervenor from appearing on the ballot , on the ground that it is not a bona fide labor organization Although the Intervenor does not have a constitution or bylaws and does not yet collect dues from its members, the record discloses that it has held a membership meeting, at which officers were elected , that it has secured a petition from the Emplovei's employees authorizing it to represent them , and that it has sought to engage in collective bargaining with the Employer , with respect to wages, hours, and conditions of employment. In view of the foregoing, we find that the Intervenor is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. See Matter of Gielow Inc., 60 N L R B 1477 , Matter of Air Reduc- tion Sales Company, 58 N L R B 522 ; and Matter of Frigidatire Division , General Motors Corporation, 39 N L R B 1108 2 The employees at the Croswell plant are paid on an hourly basis , whereas those at the Cass City plant are paid on an incentive -pay plan. RIPLEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 561 of the opinion that the employees at the Croswell plant only constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.3 We find that all the employees at the Employer's Croswell, Michi- gail, plant, including factory clerks, but.excluding office and clerical employees, foremen, and all other supervisory employees with an- thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such ac- tion, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.4 DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with Ripley Manufacturing Company, Croswell, Michigan, 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 Seventh 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 Regula- tions-Series 4, among the employees 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 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 per- son at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to, be represented by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), or by Independent Screen and Strainer Workers, for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining, or by neither. S See Matter of Mountain Ice and Fuel Corporation , 71 N. L. R. B. 180 , Matter of May, McEwen Kaiser Company, May Full-Fashioned Division, 66 N. L R. B. 1341 ; Matter of Salant & Salant Inc., 69 N. L. R. B. 84. 4 Although the Intervenor submitted evidence of some membership among the employees at the Cass City plant, we shall not direct an election among them inasmuch as neither the Petitioner nor the Intervenor has requested an election in a unit confined to the employees at that plant.