Metropolitan Engineering Co.

In the Matter Of METROPOLITAN ENGINEERING Co. and METROPOLITAN DEVICE CORP. and LOCAL No. 1224 OF UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA In the Matter Of METROPOLITAN DEVICE CORP. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION ,No. 3 Cases Nos. R-818 and R-820, respectively.Decided July 28, 1938 Steel Products Manufacturing;' Electrical Products ifannfacturing Industry- Investigation of Pepresentatvves: question concerning representation of em- ployees: agreement to hold election by employer and contesting unions: petition for intervention denied where filed by organization found to be company-dom- inated in prior Board Decision-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: production, maintenance, and shipping employees, excluding salesmen, guards, watchmen, research workers, and office, clerical and supervisory employees ; no controversy as to-Electron Ordered: company-dominated union excluded from ballot. Mr. Albert Ornstein, for the Board. Mr. Joseph A. McNamara, of New York City, for the Companies. Mr. Edward J. McAlinn and Mr. Joe J. Duffy, of New York City, for the I.B.E.W. Mr. Frank Scheiner, by Mr. David Scribner, of New York City, for the U.E.R.W. Mr. Francis D. Saitta, of New York City, for the Association. Mr. David Rein, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On February 18, 1938, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein referred to as the I. B. E. W., filed with the Re- gional Director for the Second Region (New York City) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Metropolitan Device Corp., Brook- lyn, New York, and requesting an investigation and certification of 8 N. L. R. B , No. 70. 670 DECISIONS AND ORDERS 671 representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National, Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On March 19, 1938, Local No. 1224 of United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, herein referred to as the U. E. R. W., filed with the Regional Director a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa- tion of employees of Metropolitan Engineering Co. and Metropoli- tan Device Corp., Brooklyn, New York, herein called the Companies, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On April 26, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Sections 3 and 10 (c) (2), of National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered a consolidation of the cases and authorized the Regional Director to conduct an investigation and to provide for an appropriate hear- ing upon due notice. On May 26, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear- ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Companies, the I. B. E. W. and the U. E. R. W. On June 2, 1938, Metropolitan Employees Association, herein called the Association, claiming to represent employees directly affected by the investigation, filed with the Regional Director a motion to intervene in the representation proceeding. This petition was denied by the Regional Director, with leave to renew the motion before the Trial Examiner at the hearing. Pursuant to the notice, the hearing on the consolidated petitions was held on June 3, 1938, before Howard Myers, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Companies, and the U. E. R. W. were represented by counsel and the I. B. E. W. by union officials, all participating in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro- duce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the hearing, the Association renewed its motion to intervene before the Trial Examiner, which motion was denied by the Trial Examiner on the ground that the Association had been found by the Board in a Decision on December 16, 1937,1 to have been dominated and inter- fered with in its formation and administration by the Companies, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, and the Companies had been ordered to disestablish the Association as the representa- tive of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the Companies concerning grievainces, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of employment. This ruling is hereby affirmed. 14 N L R B. 542 672 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Board has reviewed the various, rulings of the Trial Examiner on motions and objections to the admission of evidence -- and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES The Companies are New York corporations , with their ' principal -offices and places of business at 1250 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. They form a unified and integrated enterprise for the manufacture and sale of electrical devices. The cfficeFs and direc- tors of the Companies are identical ; the capital stock of both corpo- rations is held by substantially the same individuals , all being mem- bers of the same family ; and all their policies, ' including their labor policies, are jointly determined and administered . The Companies own and operate a plant and machinery of a value from $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 and do an annual gross business of approximately $1,7.00,000. Each of the Companies has a pay roll of its own, but in the event that one Company has more work than the other, em- ployees are interchanged. The Metropolitan Engineering Company is engaged in the manu- ±acture and sale of pressed steel and welded 'products , 70 per cent of which are sold to purchasers in States other than the State of New York. Packard Motor Car Company, Detroit, Michigan ,' is its larg- est single customer. The principal raw material used by the Metro- politan Engineering Company is steel, approximately all of which is purchased ' and transported from States other than the State of New York through channels of interstate commerce. Metropolitan Device Corporation is engaged in the manufacture and sale of electrical devices, meter , service, and entrance switches; reactance coils, and seals . About 60 per cent of its sales are made to purchasers in States other than the State of New York. Some ,of its products are sold to manufacturers who use them as parts and to, jobbers who resell them to 'electrical contractors and the retail Trade. About 50 per cent of its products are sold to public utilities who use them as part of their equipment. The principal raw ma- terials used by the Metropolitan Device Corporation are steel, porce- lain, copper, and paper cartons. About 80 per cent of these mate- rials are purchased in States other than the State of New York and are transported to the plant through channel s of interstate commerce. The Companies admit they are engaged in interstate commerce. ' DECISIONS AND ORDERS II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 673 The International Brotherhood,of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership all the production, maintenance, and shipping employees of the Companies, excluding salesmen, watch- men, supervisory, clerical, and office employees. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 1224, is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting to membership all the production, maintenance, and shipping employees of the Companies, excluding salesmen, n-atchmen, supervisory, clerical, and, office!employees.. The Metropolitan Employees Association is a labor organization limiting its membership to all employees of the Companies, exclusive of the superintendent, manager, and other officers. 111. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION At the hearing, both the I. B. E. W. and the U. E. R. W. claimed a majority of the employees of the Companies in the appropriate unit and it was agreed by the I. B. E. W., the U. E. R. W., and the Com- panies that the question should be determined by an election to be held by the Board. , We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of employees of the Companies. " IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, 'occurring in connection with the operations of the Companies described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tends to lead'to labor disputes burdening and obstruct nlg•V•comnlerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The I. B. E. W., the U. E. R. W., and the Companies agreed at the hearing that a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining should include all the production, maintenance, and shipping employees of the Companies employed at their plant located at 1250 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, but excluding, salesmemi, guards and watchmen, and office, clerical, and supervisory employees. 674' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Timekeepers and time-study men were shown by the evidence to be included in the class of clerical employees and, accordingly, will be excluded from the'appropriate unit. Employees engaged in 'research work in the laboratory were shown not to be production workers and will= also be excluded: from .the appropriate unit. ' , Joseph Hoffman, Dominick Farriella', Franz Newmar,' Jack D'An- gelo, Raymond Parretta, and George Frischman, who were found.to be supervisory employees by the' Board in its Decision of December 16, 1937,2 will'be excluded from the appropriate unit as-supervisory employees. We find that all production, maintenance, and shipping employees of the Companies; excluding salesmen, guards, watchmen, research workers, and 'clerical, office; and supervisory employees; constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the Companies the full benefit of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining and other- wise effectuate the,policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES At the hearing, the parties agreed that the question concerning rep- resentation could best be resolved by an election and we will therefore order that an election be held. Three lists of employees, dated March 13, 1937, January 1, 1938, and June 4, 1938, were introduced into evi- dence. The respective lists contained the names of the employees who had been on the pay roll of the Companies for the week prior'to the date of the list, and the number of employees on the lists were respec- tively 276, 174, and 155. It was shown at the hearing that the de- crease in the number of employees was due to decline in the business of the Companies. It was the position of the U. E. R. W. that the date for the deter- mination of eligibility to vote should be March 13, 1937, since it had been in the week of that date that the Companies had locked out mem-` bers of the U. E. R. W. as found by the Decision of the Board of December 16, 1937.2 The I. B. E. W. contended that the date should be fixed as of January 1, 1938, so as to include employees who although laid off would be likely to return to work .in the event of an increase in the business of the • Companies. The Companies stated -that they would be satisfied with, a date,for eligibility set in accordance with the usual practice of the Board, which they understood to be a date 2 or 3 weeks before the actual date of the election.. 2 4 N. L. R. B. 542. DECISIONS AND^ ORDERS 675 We feel that the date suggested by the U.:'E"R. W. , is too, remote to furnish -a 'proper- standard • for determining eligibility to vote. Al- though a lock-out did occur in the week of March . ,13,.1937, the. em- ployees' who' were locked out returned to work soon thereafter, and there , is no showing that the Companies discriminated against the members of the U. E. •R. W. in the' course of any subsequent dis- charges' of lay-offs. We find the date of January 1 , 1938, to be, the proper' date for the determination of, eligibility, since it will include those, employees who have been laid -off within a recent period and would therefore be likely to return to work in the event of an increase in -the business -of the Companies . Accordingly, those persons in the appropriate unit who were on the pay roll of the Companies during the-,week ending January 1, 1938, excluding those who ,have since quit or been discharged for cause, but including those only temporarily laid off, will be eligible to vote in the election. Since Metropolitan Employees' Association has"been found by the Board in a,Decision of December 16,1937,3 to have been dominated and interfered "with in its formation and administration by the Companies; within the"meaning of Section 8 (2) of the- At, and the, Companies were ordered to disestablish the Association as the representative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the Companies concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment, its name will not appear on the ballot. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Metropolitan Engineering Co. and Metro- politan Device Corp., Brooklyn, New York, within the meaning of :Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. 2. All production, maintenance, and shipping employees of the Companies, excluding salesmen , guards, watchmen, research workers, and clerical , office, and supervisory employees , constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purpose of,collective bargaining within the meaning Hof Section 9 (b) 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 Relations Act 3 See footnote 2. 117213-39-vol 8--44 676 , NATIONAL • LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, it is hereby DIEEOTED that as part-of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining with Metropoli- tan Engineering Co. and Metropolitan Device Corp., Brooklyn, New York, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted- within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Direction under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board and sub- ject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all production, maintenance, and shipping employees, excluding sales- men, guards, watchmen, research workers, and clerical, office, and supervisory employees, whose names appear upon the Companies' pay roll for the week ending January 1, 1938, excepting those who have since quit or been discharged for cause, but including those only temporarily laid off, to determine whether they desire to be repre- sented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3, or Local No. 1224 of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America for the purposes of collective bargain- ing, or by neither.