Federal Screw Works

In the Matter of FEDERAL SCREW WORKS and LOCAL 174, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA Cases Nos . C-1148 and R-1150.-Decided March 4, 1:940 Nuts, Bolts, and Screw Manufacturing Industry-Company-Dominated Union: charges of, not sustained-Complaint : dismissed-Investigation of Representa- tives: controversy concerning representation of employees : rival unions; com- pany refuses to recognize either as exclusive representative pending certifica- tion by Board-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance employees including inspectors but excluding supervisory , clerical workers, timekeepers and plant protection men-Representatives: eligibility to participate in choice : employees who worked for 60 days in preceding year and who were not discharged for cause in view of seniority and rehiring agree- ments-Election Ordered eligibility date ' pay roll preceding date of Direction of Election ; apparent , agreement among parties to use date preceding hearing disregarded Mr. George J. Bott, for the Board. Freud, Markus & Stutz, of Detroit, Mich., by Dlr. 0. A. Marku.e and Mr. L. Weiner, for the respondent. Mr. Stanley Nowak, of Detroit, Mich., for the U. A. W. A. Mr. P. J. M. Halley, of Detroit, Mich., for the League. Mr. Edward Scheunemann, of counsel to the Board. DECISION ORDER AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On May 18, 1938, Local 174, United Automobile Workers of America, herein called the U. A. W. A., filed with the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), charges al- leging that Federal Screw Works, herein called the respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section '2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On June 18, 1938, the U. A. W. A. filed with the Regional Director a petition alleging that a question had arisen concerning the rep- 21 N. L. R. B., No. 15. 100 FEDERAL SCREW WORKS 101 resentation of employees of the respondent, and requesting an in- vestigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On November 4, 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), and Article II, Section 37 (b), of National Labor Relations. Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, consolidated the complaint and representation cases and ordered the Regional Director to conduct an investigation of representatives and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. Upon the charge duly filed by the U. A. W. A., the Board by the Regional Director, issued its complaint dated November 9, 1938, against the respondent alleging that it had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the- complaint and the petition, accompanied by notices of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the U. A. W. A. The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent (1) from April 1 to September 1, 1937, encouraged, sponsored, dominated, and interfered with the formation of and contributed support to Unit 10 of the American Labor League, herein called the League, (2) from April 1, 1938, to the date of the issuance of complaint encour- aged, sponsored, dominated, and interfered with the formation of and contributed support to Unit 25 of the League, and (3) by the aforementioned acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On November 23, 1938, the respondent filed its answer denying the alleged unfair labor practices, and moving that the complaint be dismissed. On November 25, 1938, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative to make it more definite and certain. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Detroit, Michigan, from November 28 to December 8, 1938, inclusive, before R: N. Denham, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted a motion by Units 10 and 25 for per- mission to intervene. The Board, the respondent, and Units 10 and 25 were represented by counsel and the U. A. W. A. by an official, and all participated 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. At the beginning of the hearing, the respondent renewed its motion to make the complaint more definite and certain. The Trial Exam- 283032-41-vol. 21-8 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD finer denied the motion, but stated that if, at the close of the testi- mony offered by the Board, the respondent was surprised, he would grant a motion for a continuance to enable respondent to prepare its defense. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner granted a continuance to the respondent from December 1, 1938, the date the Board com- pleted its testimony, to December 3, 1938. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On December 14, 1938, the respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner. On January 23, 1939, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. He found that the respondent had not engaged in the alleged unfair, labor practices and reommnded that the complaint be dismissed. On February 13, 1939, the U. A. W. A. filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and requested permission to file briefs, and present oral argument. The requested permission was given but was not availed of by any of the parties. The Board has considered the exceptions and, save as they are con- sistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: I FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent is a Michigan corporation with its principal office and place of business in Detroit, Michigan. It manufactures nuts, bolts, screws, and screw-machine products in its factories located in Detroit and Chelsea, Michigan. The respondent -employs approxi- niately 200 person's in its Detroit plant. It purchased materials for its Detroit plant valued at $623,716 during the year 1937, and ob- tained approximately 89 per cent in value of such materials outside the State of, Michigan. Its sales from its Detroit plant totalled $1,851,740 in value for the same period, and it shipped 16.4 per cent in value of manufactured products to States other than Michigan. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local 174, United Automobile Workers of America, is a labor organization; "a'ff'iliated with'the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership employees of the respondent. Units 10 and 25 are labor organizations affiliated with the Ameri- can Labor League. They admit to membership employees of the respondent. FEDERAL SCREW WORKS III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 103 In February 1937, the U. A. W. A. began organizing among employees of the respondent. Early in March 1937 it engaged in a strike which closed the respondent's plant. The strike was settled after 3 days. The respondent and the U. A. W. A. then entered into a contract by which the respondent recognized the U. A. W. A. as bargaining representative for its own members. On or about April 15, 1937, Floyd Fuller and Archie Allman, job- setters, and William Kopp, an inspector, became interested, as it result of a newspaper article, in organizing a unit of the League in the respondent's plant. Fuller and Allman circulated a paper and obtained 23 signatures of employees who might be interested in becoming members of the League.' On April 17, 1937, Fuller attended a meeting of the League at a hotel in Detroit to obtain information helpful to him in organizing at the respondent's plant. Fuller vas made a member of the national executive committee of the League at this meeting. On April 19, 1937, Fuller reported the events of this meeting to Allman and Kopp. On April 22, 1937, John Perryman, national organizer for the League, met with Fuller, Allman, and Kopp at Fuller's home. All- man and Kopp signed application cards for membership in the League. Fuller testified that Allman said he was a foreman and that Perryman advised hint to fill in his card as "die setter." Allman, Kopp, and Perryman denied that Allman said he was a foreman and we find that the statement was not made. Early in May 1937, Un it 10 held its first meeting. Although 19 of the employees had signed application cards for the League at Kopp's request only 4 employees attended the meeting. Allman was not present. but he was designated by the others as acting president. Unit 10 was unsuccessful and by September 1 only Fuller was still paying dues. He decided, therefore, to give up the attempt to organ- ize and in October 1937, the League canceled the charter of Unit 10. In November Fuller become a member of the U. A. W. A. During this period, an amicable relationship existed between the respondent and the U. A. W. A. Both sides performed their obliga- tions under the contract in good faith. In February 1938 the respondent proposed a wage cut of 20 per cent in order to bring its production costs into line with those of colnpetitors. The U. A. W. A. rejected this proposal and the respondent's subsequent proposal that wages be cut 10 cents per hour. ' Allman denied that lie had circulated the paper The Trial Examiner did not credit his denial in view of the testimony of other witnesses and Allman's general activity and participation in the formation of Unit 10 We adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On February 25, 1938, the respondent terminated the contract, and a few days later posted a notice on the time clock that a wage cut of 10 cents per hour would become effective March 28, 1938. On March 28, 1938, the U. A. W. A. declared a strike. Approximately 15 or 20 employees %vent through the picket line under police protec- tion and worked during the 3-day strike. On April 2, 1938, a truce was declared. The U. A. W. A. and the respondent began negotiations for a new contract. On April 9, 1938, the parties executed a new contract whereby the respondent again recognized the U. A. W. A. as bargaining rep- resentative for its own members, and agreed that for 60 days after the signing of the contract the U. A. W. A. would be exclusive representative of all employees. During this period Unit 25 of the League had been formed. It requested exclusive recognition and collective bargaining negoti- ations of the respondent. The respondent refused both requests be- cause it was then dealing with the U. A. W. A., and because the Board had not certified Unit 25. The claim that the respondent sponsored Units 10 and 25 conflicts with the above recital of the facts. It is contended that Allman, Herman Zink, Leslie Frush, and Elmer Roe, who engaged in activity on behalf of the League, represented management in such activity. We cannot agree with this contention. These four employees, known as job-setters, adjust the tools on the machines and in the course of performing these duties may give appropriate directions occasionally as to the operation of the machines. Job-setters frequently operate machines themselves. These four employees do not attend meetings of supervisory employees. Grievances are not presented to them. They have no greater authority than the ordinary employee to report on the work of other employees. It is true that these 4 persons are among a group of 13 employees whom the respondent, pursuant to the second agreement with the U. A. W. A., designated as "fore- men," but the record establishes that the sole purpose of such designa- tion, revealed to the U. A. W. A. during the negotiations preceding the execution of the contract, was to insure that the seniority pro- vision of the agreement would not require the lay-off of these key production employees. Although the record suggests that the League was organized more because of opposition to existing labor organizations than because of a desire to further the interests of the employees through. collective bargaining, it does not support the allegation that the League was unlawfully sponsored by the respondent. We find that the respondent has not dominated or interfered with the formation or administration of Unit 10 or Unit 25'or contributed support to them. FEDERAL SCREW WORKS IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION 105 The U. A. W. A. and Unit 25 each represents a substantial number of employees. Both have demanded exclusive bargaining rights. The respondent has refused both demands pending certification by the Board. We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the respondent. V. 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 respondent 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. VI. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The parties agreed and we find that all production and maintenance ,employees should be included in the appropriate unit and that super- visory and clerical employees, plant-protection men, and the head timekeeper should be excluded. Since the other timekeepers are primarily clerical workers, we shall exclude them too. The inspectors examine machinery and equipment, determine when machines should be shut down or repaired, and work in close cooperation with the production employees who operate the machines. We believe, there- fore, that they should be included in the unit. We find that the production and maintenance employees, including inspectors, but excluding supervisory and clerical employees, time- keepers, and plant-protection men constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self- organization and collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VII. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We find that the question which has arisen concerning representa- tion can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot. The- record discloses that the number of men employed in the respondent's plant is subject to substantial variations. Since 1935 the respondent has maintained a "live list" of employees who are not then working but who are subject to recall. Pursuant to contract 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with the U. A. W. A., the respondent agreed that employees who had worked 60 days and who were laid off through no fault of their own, should retain their seniority for a period of 1 year. Because of these circumstances, eligibility to vote in the election should not be confined to persons working at the time of the election. We shall, therefore, direct that all employees in the appropriate unit, employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, and all employees not then working, but who had been employed by respondent for a period of not less than 60 days during the year preceding the date of this Direction of Election including any employees who did not work during the stated pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation, and any -employees who were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding employees who were then or have since been discharged for cause, shall be eligible to participate in the election 2 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. Local 174, United Automobile Workers of America, Unit 10, American Labor League, and Unit 25, American Labor League, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the respondent within Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The production and maintenance employees of the respondent including inspectors but excluding supervisory and clerical workers, timekeepers, and plant-protection men constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 2 The parties were in apparent agreement at the hearing that the pay roll of November 31, 1938, and a list of employees who had worked not less than 60 days prior to that date should be used. In view of the length of time which has elapsed since the hearing, we believe the pay-roll period immediately preceding this Direction of Election , supple- mented as indicated in the text, will be more representative of those who have a tangible interest in the outcome of the election. FEDERAL SCREW WORKS DIRECTION OF ELECTION 107 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 National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for purposes of collective bargaining with Federal Screw Works, Detroit, 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 of Election under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, acting in this matter as agent for the Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all production and maintenance employees, including inspectors, of Federal Screw Works, Detroit, Michigan, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election and all such employees not then working but who had been employed by respondent for a period of not less than 60 days during the year preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work dur- ing the stated pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation, and employees who were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding clerical and supervisory employees, plant-protection men, timekeepers, and employees who were then or have since been dis- charged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Local 174, United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or by Unit 25 of American Labor League, for purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.