The Acklin Stamping Co.

In the Matter of THE ACKLIN STAMPING COMPANY and INTERNA- TIONAL-UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LooAL• No. 12 Case No. B-142.-Decided May 28, 1937 Metal Stamping and Pressing Industry-Election Ordered: controversy con- cerning representation of employees : refusal by employer to recognize union as exclusive representative; rival organizations-Unit Appropriate for Collec- tive Bargaining : functional coherence ; history of collective bargaining relations with employer ; eligibility for membership in both rival organizations ; plant ; production and maintenance employees-Certification of Representatives. Mr. Harry L. Lodish for the Board. Mr. Clyde E. Riker, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Union. Mr. Eldon H. Young, of Toledo, Ohio, for Mechanics Educational. Society of America, Local No. 4. Mr. Frederick P. Mett, of counsel to the Board. DECISION STATEMENT OF CASE On March 12, 1937, the International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 12, hereinafter referred to as the: Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio) a petition alleging that a question affecting com- merce had arisen concerning the representation of the production and maintenance employees of the Acklin Stamping Company, Lucas County, Ohio, hereinafter referred to as the Company, and request- ing the National Labor Relations Board to conduct an investigation pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49. Stat. 449, hereinafter referred to as the Act. On April 5, 1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions-Series 1, as amended, authorized the Regional Director for the Eighth Region to conduct an investigation and to provide for a hearing in connection therewith. On April 16, 1937, the Regional Director issued a notice of a hearing to be held at Toledo, Ohio, on April 26, 1937, copies of which were duly served on the Union, the Company, and the Mechanics Educational Society of America, Local No. 4, hereinafter referred to as the M. E. S. A., a labor organiza- tion named in the petition as claiming to represent the Company's production and maintenance employees. 872 DECISIONS AND ORDERS 873 Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in Toledo, Ohio, on April 26 and 27, 1937, before William Seagle, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Union, and the M. E. S. A. were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. The Company made no formal appearance, but gave testi- mony through Frank E. Graper, its vice-president and works man- ager. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was af- forded all parties. After counsel for the Board had examined Graper as to the nature of the Company's business, counsel for the M. E. S. A. moved to dismiss the petition "on the ground that there is not sufficient showing of interstate commerce". This motion was overruled by the Trial Examiner. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made numerous other rulings on motions and on objections to the introduction of evidence. We have examined all of the Trial Examiner's rulings and find that no errors were committed. His rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE COMPANY The Acklin Stamping Company, an Ohio corporation having its principal office and place of business in Lucas County, in the State of Ohio, is engaged in the job stamping business and produces pressed metal parts in steel, brass, aluminum, and other metals.' Almost all of its work is done on special order. All of its customers are manufacturers who use its products in the manufacture of other products such as automobiles, electric refrigerators, and electric vacuum cleaners. Approximately 25 per cent of the raw materials, such as sheet metals of various kinds, studs, and screws, used by the Company • ' in its business, comes from States other than the State of Ohio. Some of the sheet metal used by the Company, although produced in the State of Ohio, is manufactured from raw materials which have their origin in other states. Approximately 75 per cent of the Company's finished products is shipped to points in the United States outside of the State of Ohio. A considerable portion of the remaining 25 per cent, although shipped to customers in the State of Ohio, is used in the manufacture of products which are sold 'The following are some of the products regularly made by the company : ( 1) Brake dust shields; ( 2) light shades ; ( 3) motor casings ; ( 4) fuse caps ; ( 5) fuse covers; (6) bottom plates; and (7 ) receiver tanks. Whereas the Company normally fashions dies for its own use only , it does during slack periods make dies on special order for others. S74 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD throughout the United States. All of the Company's finished prod- ucts are shipped from its plant to its customers by truck and railroad. The company's annual sales total about $1,200,000. At the time of the hearing the Company employed approximately 400 employees in mechanical work, including about 15 shipping de- partment employees, and between 75 and 100 in office or clerical work. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. It admits to membership all employees -of the Company except supervisory and clerical or office employees. The M. E. S. A. is'a labor organization unaffiliated with any other 'body.- It likewise admits to membership all employees of the Com- pany except supervisory and clerical or office employees. III. THE EXISTENCE OF A QUESTION AFFECTING COMMERCE CONCERNING REPRESENTATION At all times during the period between 1934, when the M. E. S. A. first organized the employees of the Company, and January, 1937, the Company bargained collectively with the M. E. S. A. as the exclusive representative of all of its employees except supervisory and clerical employees. Negotiations between the Company ,and the M. E. S. A. during this period resulted in oral understandings between the parties as to wages, hours, and other working conditions. The last negotiations between the Company and the M. E. S. A. culminated .on January 7, 1937, in the granting of a higher wage scale by the Company for numerous classifications of employees. This wage scale is embodied,in a letter signed only by the Company and is effective for an indefinite period of time. _ . During December, 1936, the Union began an extensive organization -campaign. By the early part of. March, 1937, it had succeeded in organizing a considerable number of the employees of the Company., Shortly before March 12, •1937, the Union sought recognition by the Company as the exclusive representative of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Company's refusal to recog- nize the Union as such representative resulted in the filing of the petition in this case. Shortly thereafter, the Union submitted to the Company an agreement containing, among other things, a provision for the recognition of the Union as the exclusive representative of all of the Company's employees. Negotiations thereon immediately en- sued. During these negotiations the Company stood adamant in its refusal to grant exclusive recognition to the Union despite the latter's claims that more than a majority of the Company's employees had designated it as their representative for the purposes of collective DECISIONS AND ORDERS 875. bargaining. At the hearing Graper testified that the Company had- . refused to sign the agreement because it - was awaiting the Board's decision on the Union 's petition. Both the Union and the M. E. S. A. have members among the- Company's employees . In its petition. the Union claimed that it represented 275 of the Company's 350 production and maintenance employees . At the hearing it claimed that it had a membership of between 300 and 350 among the Company's approximately 400 pro- duction and maintenance employees .2 In substantiation of its claim that it represented a majority of the production, and maintenance- employees, but not as a basis for certification, the Union submitted in evidence the signatures*of soli-ie 280'employees, who it claimed had designated it as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. Although the Union claims to represent a majority of all of the production and maintenance employees as a upit it does not claim to represent a majority of the employees in each and every one- of the departments of the Company's plant which comprise-this unit. The record does not indicate the actual membership of the M. E:_ S. A. among the employees of the Company. At the hearing the M. E. S. A. did not claim that it represented the majority of the production and maintenance employees . It did, however , claim to represent 95 per cent of the employees in the tool and die and die repair department of the plant. In substantiation of its claim it Submitted in evidence at the hearing the signatures of some 40i employees in that department , who it claimed had designated it as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. Al- though the M. E. S. A . makes no specific claim as to the representation of employees in any of the other production and maintenance de- partments of the plant , it does not admit that it does not represent the majority of the employees in any of such departments. The Company has recognized the fact that a controversy concerning- the right to represent its employees for the purposes of collective :bargaining exists between the Union and the M. E. S. A., and has in consequence refused to grant the Union the exclusive right to bar- gain collectively with it on behalf of all of its employees. At the hearing the Union contended that this controversy could be most effectively resolved by means of an election by secret ballot. During the early part of the hearing, the M. E. S. A., on the other hand, con- tended that it did not believe that an election was necessary, at least not in so far as the tool and die and die repair department employees. were concerned , but later openly declared that it did not oppose an election even for such employees. Graper testified that the Company 2 The Union no doubt took this stronger position at the hearing because its member- ship and employment in the plant in all probability increased between the date of the- filing of the petition and the date of the hearing 876 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would abide by the Board's decision on the question of representation. We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of the production and maintenance employees employed by the Company. We also find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial re- lation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. We further find that this question can only be resolved by means of an election by secret ballot. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT In its petition the Union alleged that the production and mainte- nance employees, that is all of the Company's employees except super- visory and clerical or office employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the hearing it took the same position and contended that if an election is ordered by the Board it should be- conducted' on the basis, of such unit. On the other hand, the M. E. S. A. contended at the hearing and in its brief that the tool and die and die repair department employees and the machine repair and maintenance department employees each constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining separate and distinct from the remainder of the production and main- tenance employees in the plant, and that if an election is ordered each of these two groups of employees should be voted separately from the remainder. In support of its contention that the tool and die and die repair department employees constitute an appropriate unit, the M. E. S. A. advanced the following reasons: (1) These employees alone of all other employees in the plant are required to serve a four year apprenticeship; (2) they are the most skilled employees in the plant; (3) they receive the highest wages of any employees in the plant. Likewise, in support of its contention with respect to the machine repair and maintenance department employees the M. E. S. A. argued: (1) These employees are also highly skilled; and (2) they receive higher wages than any other production and maintenance employees in the plant except the tool and die and die repair depart- ment employees. The evidence supports these facts. However, other considerations more compelling incline us to the view, as urged by the Union, that all of the production and maintenance employees consti- tute one single unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The plant wide unit urged by the Union as appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining is coterminous with the groups of employees eligible for membership not only in the Union but in the M. E. S. A. as well. Both of these organizations admit to membership DECISIONS AND ORDERS 877 all employees of the Company except supervisory and clerical or office employees. Both are industrial in character. Neither organization maintains any divisions in its ranks based upon trade classifications or occupations in the Company's plant. The contention of the M. E. S. A. that the tool and die and die repair department employees and the machine repair and mainte- nance department employees each constitute a unit appropriate for -the purposes of collective bargaining is inconsistent with its former position in collective bargaining activities with the Company. At all times prior to January 7, 1937, the M. E. S. A. bargained with the Company for these employees not as constituting, separate and distinct units but merely as parts of the larger unit, namely, all of the production and maintenance employees in the plant. This was done by means of a single shop committee representing all of the, Company's employees. This type of bargaining on a plant wide basis was apparently successful. That the tool and die and die re- pair department employees as well as the other employees in the plant found no objection with this method of bargaining is clear from the record. The Company has divided its plant, consisting of one floor, into numerous small departments for cost purposes and into large de- partments for purposes of control. The tool and die and die repair department and the machine repair and maintenance department are two of these larger departments. They are separated from one another as are the other departments only by means of a fence. however, not all of the work performed by the employees in the plant including these employees in the two aforementioned depart- ments is performed within the physical confines of their respective departments. The performance of their duties constantly takes them to nearly every other department in the plant. Thus they work and come in contact with employees in the other departments all the time. Although there is some measure of physical separation between the various departments in the plant, including the tool and die and die repair as well as the machine repair and maintenance departments, all function coherently in the completion of a specific order for goods. Each department in turn contributes its share of work to the filling of every order for goods. Furthermore, every individual department cooperates fully with every other one in the completion of the finished product; none of the individual depart- ments is able to complete any specific order for goods without the help of the others. The history of collective bargaining in the plant, the eligibility of all of the employees in the plant, with certain reservations herein- before mentioned, to membership in each of the labor organizations involved here, the interdependence and functional coherence of the 878 NATIONAL LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD various departments of the plant, all compel us to take the view that the plant as a whole and not each or -any of its individual depart- partments is, an appropriate, unit for the purposes of collective bar- gaining. In order to insure to the, 'Company's employees the full benefit of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining,, and otherwise to,effectuate the policies of the Act,. we find that all of the Company's employees, except supervisory and clerical or office employees,, constitute a unit appropriate for the, purposes of collective bargaining. CONDUCT OF ELECTION At the hearing the parties, to this proceeding stipulated : all the parties concerned are agreed that the payroll date .to be used for-the purpose of election shall-be the week of March _12th (1937),,excluding those who have since that date been •dis'- charged or voluntarily quit as employees . , .." We see no reason why eligibility to vote in the ,.election hereinafter ordered should not be determined in accordance -with the above stipulation and we shall' so order. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of. the above findings of fact, the Board makes the following conclusions of law : 1. • All employees employed by the Acklin Stamping Company in all, of the departments of its plant in Lucas County, Ohio, except supervisory and clerical or office employees, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within,the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of the employees in the aforesaid unit, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 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- tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of' the investigation authorized by the Board to `ascertain representatives for collective bargaining with the Acklin Stamping Company, an election by secret ballot shall be DECISIONS AND ORDERS 879 conducted within 15 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eighth Re(yion, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela= tions Board, and subject to Article III, Section 91 of said Rules and Regulations, among all of the employees of the Ackliri, Stamping Company on its payroll during the work week of March 12; 1937, except supervisory and clerical or office employees, and those who since have quit or have been discharged for cause,- to determine whether they desire )to be represented by International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 12, oar by Mechanics Educational Society of America, Local No. 4, for the purposes of collective bargaining. SAME TITLE] CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES June 22, 1951' On March 12, 1937, International Union, United Automobile Work- ers of America, Local No.-12, hereinafter referred to-as the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the-Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of the production and mainte- nance employees of the Acklin Stamping Company, Lucas County, Ohio, hereinafter referred to as the Company, and requesting the National Labor Relations Board to conduct an investigation pur- suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, hereinafter referred to as the Act. On April 5, 1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, duly authorized the Regional Director for the Eighth Region to conduct an investigation and to provide for a hearing upon due notice. Pursuant to notice duly issued and served upon the parties by the Regional Director on April 26, 1937, a hearing was held on April 26 and 27, 1937, at Toledo, Ohio, before William Seagle, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Union and the Mechanics Educational Society of America, Local No. 4, were represented at and participated in the hearing. On May 28, 1937, the Board issued a Decision in which it found that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre- sentation of all the employees of the Company except supervisory and clerical or office employees , that such employees constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and that the question concerning representation could only be resolved by means of an election by secret ballot. In its De- 880 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cision the Board directed that an election be held among all of the: employees of the Company, except supervisory and clerical or office employees to determine whether they desire to be represented by Inter- national Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 12, or by Mechanics Educational Society of America, Local No. 4. Pursuant to the Board's decision, and the Direction of Election therein, an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 9, 1937, by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, among all of the em- ployees of the Company, except supervisory and clerical or office em- ployees. Thereafter the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties to the proceeding his Intermediate Report on the ballot. No exceptions to the Intermediate Report have been filed by any of the parties. As to the results of the secret ballot the Regional Director reported : Total number of employees eligible to vote------------------------------ 376 Total number of ballots counted--------------------------------------- 251 Total number of ballots for International Union, United Automobile Work- ers of America, Local No. 12----------------------------------------- 240 Total number of ballots for lyiechanics Educational Society of America, Local No. 4--------------------------------------------------------- 10 Total number of blank ballots---------------------------------------- 1 Total number of void ballots------------------------------------------ 0 Total number of challenged ballots------------------------------------- 0 The Union, having been selected by a majority of the employees of the Company, except supervisory and clerical or office employees, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, is by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of all of the employees of the Com- pany, except supervisory and clerical or office employees, and we will so certify it. Now THEREFORE, by virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act and pursuant to Article III, Section 8 of Na- tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Union, United Automo- bile Workers of America, Local No. 12, has been selected by a major- ity of all of the employees of the Acklin Stamping Company, except supervisory and clerical or office employees, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that pursuant to Sec- tion 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 12, is the exclusive representative of all of the employees of the Acklin Stamping Com- pany, except supervisory and clerical or office employees, for the pur- poses of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment.