Spicer Manufacturing Corp.

In the Matter of SPICER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and INTER- NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL No. 12 (C. I. 0.) Case No. C-2628.-Decided July 24, 1943 DECISION AND ORDER On May 31, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re- port in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in a copy of the Intermediate Report annexed hereto. Excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of excep- tions were thereafter filed by the Union. The respondent filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report, and oral argument was held before the Board on July 13, 1943. The Board has con- sidered the rulings -made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the briefs and exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations, made by the Trial Ex- aminer, with the following addition : It appears that certain of the employees alleged by the Board to be included within an appropriate unit are supervisors whose in- terests are divorced from other employees, and that the functions of others are of either a highly professional or confidential character. It is apparent that all the so-called "fringe" or "questionable groups" here present do not, in light of the unit considerations presented by this record, necessarily fall within an appropriate bargaining unit alleged to include the respondent's production and maintenance employees. The respondent, in questioning the unit inclusion of such employees, did not refuse to bargain collectively within the mean- ing of the Act. We do not, however, deem it necessary to determine at this time what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit for the 51 N. L. R. B, No. 114 679 680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent's employees, and nothing herein found shall be deemed a determination of the appropriate unit for the purposes of further proceedings; since such determination would have no bearing on our disposition of the instant case, which is to dismiss the complaint. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint against Spicer Manufacturing Corporation , Toledo, Ohio, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Max W. Johnstone, for the Board. Messrs. Marshall, Melhorn, Wall and Block, by Messrs. Arnold F. Bunge, Lloyd J. Haney, and Robert B. Haynes, of Toledo, Ohio, for the respondent. Messrs. Thomas H. Burke, James B. Patterson, Scott G. Rogers and Frank' M. Rostetter, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local No. 12, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Direc- tor, for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued its complaint, dated January 22, 1943, against Spicer Manufacturing Corporation, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance that the respondent: (1) at various times in the year 1941 and at all times there- after at its Toledo, Ohio plant, refused to bargain collectively with the Union, although the Union on February 12, 1937, and at all times thereafter was the exclusive representative of the respondent's employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining; (2) on or about September 18, 1942, through Robert Haynes, its master mechanic and a supervisory employee, advised the employees of Department 67 that they could do better work if they were not members of the Union, and that the respondent might be able to secure with- drawal cards from the Union for these employees; and (3) by the foregoing acts, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On March 17, 1943, the respondent filed with the Regional Director, its answer to the complaint admitting that It was engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act, but denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursdant to notice a hearing was held at Toledo, Ohio, on March 15, 16, 22, 24, 25 and 26, 1943, before A. Bruce Hunt, a Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. At the commencement of the hearing, the Trial Examiner denied the motion of the Board to strike certain portions of the answer. The Trial Examiner at this time granted in part the respondent's motion for a Bill SPICER ,MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 681 of Particulars.' The respondent's request for the issuance of subpenas was held in abeyance until such time as their issuance appeared necessary for the proper presentation of the respondent's case.2 The hearing was reconvened at Toledo, Ohio, on March 31, and thereafter continued on April 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, and 29, 1943, before James C. Batten, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner, to act in place and stead of A. Bruce Hunt. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by its representatives and participated in the hearing. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.3 At the close of the Board's case, the undersigned denied the respondent's motions to dismiss the unfair labor practices alleged under Section 8 (1) and 8 (5) of the Act. At the close of the hearing, the undersigned reserved ruling on respondent's renewal of these motions. The motions are now denied. At the conclusion of the hearing the undersigned without objection, granted the Board's motion to conform the pleadings to the proof respecting minor details. No oral arguments were made at the conclusion of the hearing. The undersigned advised all parties that they might file briefs, provided that such briefs were submitted within 7 days from the close of the hearing. Briefs were filed by the Board, the respondent and the Union. From the entire record thus made and from the undersigned's observation of the witnesses the undersigned makes in addition to the above the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS 'OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, Spicer Manufacturing Corporation, is a Virginia corporation with its principal office located in Toledo, Ohio, where it is engaged in the manufacture of axles, transmissions, and other parts for trucks, tanks, artillery movers, power torpedo boats, armoured cars, jeeps, gun operating mechanisms and other equipment which calls for the use of gear transmissions and power trains. It owns and operates in addition to the Toledo plant, here involved, a plant at Hillsdale, Michigan, known as Hillsdale Steel Products Company ; a plant at Pottstown, Pennsylvania, known as Spicer Manufacturing Corporation ; a plant at Buffalo, New York, known as General Drop Forge Division ; a plant at Reading, Pennsylvania, known as The Parish Pressed Steel Company ; a plant at Birmingham, England, known as Hardy-Spicer Company ; an affiliate at Merrit- ton, Ontario, Canada, known as Hayes Steel Products Co.; and, prior to the fall of France, a plant in Paris, France, known as Societe Glaenzer-Spicer. Of the principal raw materials used, at the Toledo plant during the year 1942-steel, ' In denying parts of the motion, the Trial Examiner stated "that at the conclusion of the Board's case the Respondent may move for a reasonable length of time in which to prepare its defense." At the close of the Board's case, the respondent advised the under- signed that it desired, without delay, to proceed with its defense. 2 Later in the hearing counsel for the respondent advised the undersigned that there was no need for the issuance of the subpenas requested as "the witnesses whom we [respondent] desired to call were available without subpoena (sic), so we [respondent] did not renew the request." 8 When the hearing reconvened on March 31, 1943, the parties all consented to the undersigned's proceeding as the Trial Examiner. The respondent, however, stated that It was advisable to have the witnesses that were examined before Trial Examiner Hunt, reexamined so that the undersigned would be in a position to pass upon their credibility. The respondent, after Thomas H. Burke had been recalled for cross-examination, and Robert Haynes and Randolph Gray had testified at length before the undersigned, waived its objections to the present Trial Examiner passing upon the credibility of these witnesses. - 682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD iron, bronze and aluminum metals and parts-valued in excess of"one million dollars, 85 percent were purchased without the State of Ohio. Respondent's sales during the same period, were more than 2 million dollars. Of these sales approximately 85 percent were made and shipped out of the State of Ohio. Re- spondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of ,Section 2 (6) of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local No. 12, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent's Toledo plant. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 0 A. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion Aside from one incident not in dispute, that occurred on or about September 18, 1942, when Robert Haynes, the respondent's master mechanic (admittedly a supervisory employee) advised certain of the employees in one of his depart- ments, that they could better perform their work if not members of the Union and that he might be able to secure for them withdrawal cards from the Union, there is no evidence in the record of interference, restraint, or coercion other than such as is alleged to be directly connected with the principal issue of respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union. In the interest of brevity and chronological orderliness this matter will be disposed of in the following section. B. The alleged refusal to bargain 1. The issues and contentions of the parties The complaint alleged in substance : that the respondent at various times in, the year 1941 and at all times thereafter refused to bargain collectively with the Union and to negotiate in a bona fide (emphasis supplied) manner concerning rates of pay, hours of employment, grievances and other terms and conditions of employment within the meaning of the Act, as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of, all (emphasis supplied) the employees at its Toledo, Ohio, plant, including the employees in Departments 17, 66, 67, 69 and 80 ` (emphasis sup- plied), exclusive of die sinkers in the die room (Department 4) and those in a confidential, supervisory, or executive capacity. The respondent's answer in substance denied : that the Union has at any time been the exclusive representative of the employees in the "unit" as set forth in the complaint and that the "unit" as set forth in the complaint is an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. The answer affirmatively avers that the respondent has at all times bargained collectively with the Union, as exclusive bargaining representative of all 'the employees within an appropriate unit. The Board contends that although the respondent in August 1941, raised the question of the appropriateness of the Union representing certain employees, it 4 These departments are composed principally of employees designated as follows : 17. Foiemen, ass't foremen or group leaders. 66. Process production clerks. 67. Tool Engineers. 69. Plant construction and maintenance layout men. 80. Foremen's and superintendent's clerks SPICER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 683 did not refuse to bargain on behalf of the employees in departments 17, 66, 67, 69, and 80, until August and October, 1942. The Board further contends that because the respondent's answer alleged that departments 51, 72, and 795 were not a part of the appropriate unit, it had exhibited for the first time bad faith, thereby refusing to bargain as to these departments. The Board also asserts that in June 1941, the respondent made administrative changes in the plant set-up by transferring of work and functions among various groups of employees for the purpose of defeating the Union's efforts to bargain on behalf of these employees. The Union contends that the respondent during August and October, 1942, re- fused to bargain for the employees in Departments 17, 66, 67, 69, and 80 and that the employees in these departments, by virtue of a long history of bargaining, are a part of the appropriate unit defined by the collective bargaining contract of August 1941. The Union does not assert that the respondent has shown bad faith by alleging in its answer that Departments 51, 72, and 79 are not within the appropriate unit. It admits the respondent has at all times bargained for these departments. The respondent contends that it has at all times bargained with the Union for the employees who are properly within the unit, and that the history of collective bargaining in the Toledo plant supports this contention. Respondent also con- tends that the present proceeding is based entirely upon a dispute as to the ap- propriate unit. It further asserts that the growth and development of the respondent's business, especially under present conditions made changes neces- sary in the administrative set-up of the plant for the purpose of utilizing all the machine capacity and man-power available. 2. The events giving rise to the issues Sometime prior to 1935 the Union organized the employees in the respondent's Toledo plant. In August 1935, the Union was issued a charter by the Inter- national Union, United Automobile Workers of America, then affiliated with the A. F. of L., as the successor to Federal Labor Union, Local No. 15,384. In April 1936, the Union affiliated with the newly formed C. I. O. In August of 1941, the name of the organization was changed to International Union, United Automo- bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. The contracts _ that have been signed with the respondent were with the same local Union in its various successive affiliations. In February 1937, the Union and the M. E. S. A. had for some period of time been conducting organizational campaigns in the plant. ' Through the efforts of the Toledo Industrial Peace Board, the two labor organizations and the respondent entered into a consent election agreement to determine which organization was entitled to represent the employees. The Union won the election and since that time has bargained for and entered into agreements in behalf of certain employees in respondent's Toledo plant. Prior to and subsequent to the election in February 1937, the respondent has had con- tractual relations with labor organizations other than the Union, covering some specialized groups of employees. d These departments , which were established some time prior to the reorganization and establishment of the other departments presently involved , are composed principally of employees designated as follows : 51. Watchmen and guards. 72. Tool designers and draftsmen. 79. First aid attendants. 684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In February 1935, two committees of employees entered into similar agree- ments containing clauses pertaining to seniority, hours, and wages, for the respondent's hourly paid employees. The separate Shop Committees set up by these agreements represented the Federal Labor Union and the M. E. S. A. The agreements did not recognize the labor organizations by name, being signed "in behalf of ourselves [the committee] and those who have elected us to repre- sent them." It is apparent that each organization through the committees was bargaining only for its own members. On or about September 1, 1935, the respondent' entered into new agreements with committees representing the Federal Labor Union and the M. E. S. A.' Neither of these agreements contained a recognition clause, but under the hour and wage clauses such agreement provided that, "All factory workers- male or female-who were on the payroll on or after February 3, 1935, and those laid off during or prior to this Agreement shall receive all benefits gained through this Agreement." The committees signed "in behalf of ourselves and those who have elected us to represent them." Both of these contracts clearly indicate that they were intended to cover only factory workers paid upon an hourly rate basis. On September 1, 1935, the respondent and the International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop-Forgers and Helpers of America entered into an agreement covering hours, wages, and working conditions, for all those employees under the jurisdiction of that labor organization. The agreement recognized that all employees engaged in the following class of work came within this organiza- tion's jurisdiction : "the operating of ' board and steam-drophammers, rolling machines, bulldozers, upsetting and other-forging machines. All work generally recognized as blacksmith worktool hardeners, heaters, hot and cold trimmers, crane operators, inspectors, shearmen, set-up men, heattreaters, building fires, lighting furnaces and shear operators." On September 1, 1936, the respondent and a committee representing the M. E. S. A entered into an agreement covering hourly rated employees, in the tool maintenance and die divisions. Sometime during the winter of 1936 and 1937, the Union and the M. E. S. A. each acquired a substantial number of members among the employees of the respondent and in February, a rather serious dispute arose between these two organizations as to which one was the exclusive bargaining representative for the respondent's employees in the Toledo plant. In order to settle this dispute these two labor organizations and the respondent entered into a stipulation for a consent election, which provided that the Toledo Industrial Peace Board, through its Director, would conduct aii, election on February 12 and 13, 1937," "for the purpose of determining whom the majority of the production and main- tenance employees (emphasis supplied) of The Spicer Manufacturing Company (sic) wish to select as their representative for the purposes of collective bar- gaining . . ." Under the terms of the stipulation, the respondent was required to turn over to the Director, 24 hours prior to the election, its pay-roll list "con- taining the names and timeclock numbers of all employees in the production and maintenance departments, (emphasis supplied) with exception of foremen, super- visors and clerical workers, but not draftsmen and designers in Tool Division." At the election, eligibility of voters was determined by this list of employees restricted to production and maintenance employees paid upon an hourly rate basis.' 6 The evidence indicates that the respondent included upon the pay-roll list furnished the Director, names of several employees who were clerical workers and others who were not production or maintenance workers, but were employed on an hourly rate basis. Whether any of these classifications of employees were challenged when they attempted to vote, the record does not disclose, although there were 22 unopened challenged ballots. SPICER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 685 The report on the secret ballot by the Director of the Toledo Industrial Peace Board, states that "on February 12th and 13th, 1937, the Toledo Industrial Peace Board conducted a secret ballot of all the maintenance, production, draft- ing and designing employees, (emphasis supplied) employed as of February 6th, 1937, in the Spicer Mfg. Corporation plant at Toledo, Ohio." According to the Director's report the Union won the election. Sometime in February, shortly after the election, the respondent and the Executive Shop Committee of the Union entered into an agreement, which was to continue in force until December 31, 1937. The agreement did not clearly set forth the employees represented. However, under the provisions entitled "Hours," appears the following: "All factory workers, (emphasis supplied) male or female, who were on the payroll on or after February 3rd, 1935, and those laid off during or prior to this Agreement shall receive all benefits gained through this Agreement." In September 1937, the M E. S A., not satisfied with the outcome of the election, called a strike at the plant. While this strike was in progress, the respondent and the Union entered into a supplemental agreement, effective as of January 1, 1937. The agreement stated that the International Union, United Automobile Workers Union, Local 12 has been selected to represent all the employees (empasis supplied) at an election on February 12, and 13, 1937, and recognized the Union as "the exclusive representative of all employees, (emphasis supplied) of the Spicer Manufacturing Corporation with the exception of Time Study Men, and those in confidential, supervisory, or executive capacity." 7 On January 5, 1939, the respondent and the Union entered into an agreement which recognized the Union as the "sole and exclusive representatives of all its employees (emphasis supplied) for the purpose of collective bargaining in its plant. Die sinkers in the Die room (Dept. 4) and those in confidential, super- visory, or executive capacity shall be excepted under this section." On the same date that the above agreement was consumated, the respondent entered into an agreement with Toledo Lodge No. 105, International Association of Machinists, recognizing that organization as the representative of employees in the "Drop Forge Die Department, known as Department No. 4." Sometime after the execution of this agreement with the I. A. M , a consent election was held by the Board among all the employees of the "Drop Forge Die Department, known as Department No. 4," to- determine whom the employees wished to have represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. As a result of this election the Board certified the International Die Sinkers Conference, Toledo Lodge 160, as the exclusive representative of the employees in Department 4. On or about May 1, 1941, the respondent executed an agreement with the Die Sinkers' Conference. In this agreement the Die Sinkers Conference was recog- nized "as the sole and exclusive representative of all its [respondent's] employees in the die room hereinafter designated in Department #4." On June 8, 1941, the respondent entered into the present contract with the Union recognizing that organization "as the sole and exclusive representatives of 7 It should be noted that this is the first instance in which the contracts with the Union were not specifically applied to factory workers and hourly paid employees. However, the evidence indicates, and the consent election agreement heretofore referred to, discloses that both the respondent and the Union continued to apply the contracts to factory workers paid on an hourly basis (production and maintenance employees). The second paragraph in the supplemental agreement entered into between the respondent and the Union on September 10, 1937, recognizing the Union, established a wage schedule for "hourly rated employees" only. It is clear from the record that by the use of the expression, all of the employees, in these subsequent contracts, the parties have not extended the contracts to cover employees other that those set forth in the consent election agreement between the respondent and the Union with the Toledo Peace Board, dated February 11, 1937. 686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD all its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in its plant. Die sinkers in the Die Room (Dept. 4) and those in confidential supervisory or,ex- ecutive capacity shall be excepted under this section." This contract became effec- tive on June 8, 1941, to continue for a period of one year and thereafter until .terminated, modified, or amended. It further provided that the contract would automatically be extended "unless either party shall give thirty (30) days notice in writing of such intent to terminate, modify or amend." Under an agreement with the War Labor Board, the respondent and the Union agreed that the present contract would continue in force for the duration, subject however to the adjust- ment of certain matters then before the War Labor Board for decision. Contemporaneously with the development of contractual relations between the respondent and the various labor organizations, the Toledo plant increased both in the number of employees and physical facilities. In 1929, the Toledo plant occupied about 360,000 square feet of floor space and employed an average of 1100 men. In 1937, at the time of the Toledo Peace Board election, there were approximately 2000 persons employed in the plant. By the middle of 1941, when the Company started full scale war production, the number of employees had increased to approximately 4600 and the floor space occupied by the plant had increased to over 1,000,000 square feet. Sometime in 1941, the respondent at the Toledo plant started to reorganize its administrative set-up to utilize all of its resources and facilities, to meet the demands for ever increasing production. At that time the respondent was aware of the fact, that if production schedules were to be completed the enlarged program beginning in 1941, would call for the establishment of new departments to plan, supervise, and direct the produc- tion activities in order to, without waste or loss make available all the man- power and physical facilities of the plant. The evidence is undisputed that there was a need in 1941, in the Toledo plant, for a more definite planning of the work, and an expanded supervisory staff. Accordingly, the respondent established several new departments. Of these new departments the Union claimed as within the unit, the following: depart- ment 17, supervisory employees ; department 66, shop process production clerks ; department 67, tool engineering group; department 69, plant engineering em- ployees ; and department 80, foremen's and superintendent's clerks. It is un- necessary here to describe in detail the duties of the employees in these various departments. The respondent admits that it refused to deal with the Union in behalf of these groups from the time the departments were established. 3. Summary and Conclusions It is plain from the foregoing and the record in its entirety, that the issue in dispute is the question of an appropriate unit rather than the refusal to bargain. It, therefore, becomes pertinent to determine the respondent's good faith in refusing to deal with the Union as the representative of certain groups of employees as a part of the plant-wide unit. The evidence is clear that the Union admits in its brief that the respondent at-all times has bargained with that organization as the representative of the employees in departments 51, 72, and 79, although the respondent's answer ques- tioned the advisability of including watchmen and guards, tool designers and draftsmen, and first aid attendants in the unit. The question of the Union's right to represent the employees in departments 17, 66, 67, 69, and 80 as a part of the plant-wide unit has been under' considera- tion by the parties since the latter part of 1941. The record discloses that the respondent has consistently from the time the departments were organized ques- tioned the right of the Union to represent these groups as a part of the plant-wide SPICER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 687 unit. The evidence herein satisfies the undersigned that, neither the history of collective bargaining between the respondent and the Union, nor the recognition given the Union as the representative of all respondent's employees indicates an intention to include these departments in the plant-wide unit. The facts, on the other hand, would create an honest doubt as to the propriety of including these employees in such a unit. Further, the decision on the part of the respondent to raise this question was not a rejection of the principle of collective bargaining. Certainly it cannot be said that respondent's attitude reflects bad faith. The respondent need not decide such an issue at its peril where the refusal, as here, .was not motivated by any other reasons. The Union had, available to it the repre- sentation procedure provided by the Act for a determination of the unit question by the Board. This procedure the Union chose not to use. Until the question of the unit had been resolved, particularly where the dispute concerned the in- clusion within the unit of so-called "fringe" or "questionable groups", respondent's refusal to recognize the Union as the representative of these employees was not a refusal to bargain within the meaning of the Act. There is no doubt, and the undersigned is of the opinion and finds from the entire record that the respondent reasonably and in good faith questioned the propriety of including departments 17, 66, 67, 69, and 80 in a plant-wide unit. The respondent because of an honest doubt as to the unit refused to recognize the Union's right to represent the disputed groups. Therefore, the respondent has not refused to bargain collectively. In view of the foregoing it is unnecessary to make any determination in this report as to the appropriate bargaining unit or as to representation by the Union of a majority in such unit. The complaint also alleged that the respondent had by the statements of Haynes interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Several of the Board's witnesses testified, that Haynes did not ask them to withdraw from the Union, and did, in fact, state that "he didn't care if we belonged to a dozen" unions. It was further testi- fied, that there were no withdrawals by any of the men from the Union, and that the incident in no way influenced them in their feelings toward the Union. The undersigned further finds that under all the circumstances heretofore re- lated, especially in view of the collective bargaining relations existing between the parties over a period of several years, the isolated statement of Haynes,' has not interfered with the rights of the employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Since the respondent has not engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices, the undersigned recommends that the complaint be dismissed. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: . CONcLusIONs or, LAW 1. The operations of the respondent, Spicer Manufacturing Corporation, con- stitute a continuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States of the United States within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, Local No. 12, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial 8 This incident serves to illustrate the position maintained by the respondent during the period of collective bargaining between the parties, since the establishment of the new departments, that the employees in this department were not within the appropriate unit, and that its refusal to bargain was justified by a sincere, bona fide dispute as to whether the particular group of employees was within or without the appropriate unit. Egg DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained , or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) of the Act. - , As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28, 1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board , Shoreham Building, Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections ) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. JAMES C. BATTEN, Trial Examiner. Dated May 31, 1943. l