Fry Products, Inc.

DECISIONS AND ORDERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the Matter of FRY PRODUCTS, INC. and LOCAL 431, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA Case No. R-1298-Decided April 1, 1939 Automobile Accessory Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Represent- atives: controversy concerning representation : employer refused to recognize union without certification by the Board-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all hourly and piece-work production employees, excluding office and supervisory employees ; stipulation as to-Representatives: proof of choice : comparison of list of employees and cards designating union as representative- Certification of Representatives : upon proof of majority representation. Mr. Charles F. MeErlean, for the Board. Mr. Guy Bratton, of Detroit, Mich., for the Company. Mr. Ernest Goodman, of Detroit, Mich., for the Union. Mr. Theodore W. Kheel, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES STATEMENT OF THE CASE On December 16, 1938, Local 431, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Fry Products, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On February 7, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called 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, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On February 15, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and upon the Union. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on 12 N. L. R. B., No. I- I 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD February 28, 1939, at Detroit, Michigan, before J. J. Fitzpatrick, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, and the Union were represented by counsel and partici- pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions with respect to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACTS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Company, a Michigan corporation, is engaged in the business of the manufacture, sale, and distribution of automobile seat covers. Its office, principal place of business, and only plant are all located in Detroit, Michigan. During normal operations , the aggregate busi- ness of the Company amounts to $80,000 a month. It purchases 50 per cent of the raw materials used in manufacture from sources out- side the State of Michigan and ships 90 per cent of the finished automobile seat covers to places outside the State of Michigan. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 431, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, is a labor organization admitting to its membership all hourly and piece-work production employees of the Company, exclud- ing office and supervisory employees. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Prior to December 13, 1938, a labor dispute arose concerning wages and other conditions of employment. This dispute resulted in a strike on December 13, 1938, which was settled and an agreement executed by the Union and a creditor's committee of the Company on December 15, 1938. This agreement provided that negotiations should be instituted for the purpose of settling the matters in dispute but that a final written contract embodying any terms agreed upon should not be executed until the Board had certified the Union as the representative of a majority of the employees. We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of employees of the Company. FRY PRODUCTS, INC. 3 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 Company 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 obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT It was stipulated and agreed by all parties in interest, and we so find, that all the hourly and piece-work production employees of the Company, excluding office and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES During the months of November and December 1938, the Company was in normal operation. The pay roll of December 10, 1938, intro- duced into evidence, listed the names of 146 employees in the appro- priate unit on that date. The Union introduced into evidence cards signed by employees of the Company authorizing the Union to represent them. The genuineness of the signatures was not con- troverted. A comparison of these cards with the pay roll of Decem- ber 10, 1938, shows that 120 employees within the appropriate unit have authorized the Union to represent them as their bargaining agent. It is clear, therefore, that a majority of the employees of the Company within the appropriate unit desire the Union to repre- sent them for such purposes. We find that the Union has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their represent- ative for the purposes of collective bargaining. It is, therefore, the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the pur- poses of collective bargaining, and we will so certify. 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 rep- resentation of employees of Fry Products, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, 169134-39-vol. 12-2 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The hourly and piece-work production employees of the Com- pany, excluding office and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. Local 431, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, is the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES 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, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, IT Is HEREBY CERTIFIED that Local 431, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, has been designated and selected by a majority of the hourly and piece-work production employees of Fry Products, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, excluding office and super- visory employees, as their representative for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining and that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, Local 431, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, is the exclusive representative of all such em- ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of em- ployment.