Lewis Bolt and Nut Co.

In the Matter of LEWIS BOLT AND NUT COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL RADIO MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1140 (C. I. 0.) Case No. R-177d.-Decided May 11, 1940 Bolt and Nut Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives: petition for, dismissed without prejudice, where filed 5 months after execution of contract of 1 year duration which granted exclusive recognition to statutory representative never before so recognized by employer; no controversy con- cerning representation ; (Smith, concurring) the history of labor relations between the employer and the contracting labor organization prior to execu- tion of said contract affords no reason for concluding, where organization never established itself as the statutory representative, that, despite brevity of rela- tions under contract, an election at the present time would effectuate the policies of the Act-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: as covered by contract and stipulated to by the parties, found appropriate. Mr. Lester Asher, for the Board. Doherty, Rumble, Butler, Sullivan d Mitchell, by Mr. Irving Clark, of St. Paul, Minn., for the Company. Helstein c>c Hall, by Mr. Ralph L. Helstein, of Minneapolis, Minn., for the United. Mr. Herman Husman, of Minneapolis, Minn., for the I. A. M. Mr. Richard Johnston, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On January 25, 1940, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 1140,1 a labor organization herein called the United, filed a petition 2 with the Regional Director for the Eight- eenth Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota), alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- ployees of Lewis Bolt & Nut Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1 This is the correct designation of this labor organization. The petition was filed by Arlye Glynn in behalf of the United. 8 This is the correct designation of the Company. 23 N. L. R. B., No. 68. 708 LEWIS BOLT AND NUT COMPANY 709 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 27, 1940, 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 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On March 11 the Re- gional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which, together with copies of the petition, were duly served upon the Company, upon the United, and upon District No. 77 of International Association of Machinists, a labor organization, herein called the I. A. M., claim- ing through Local 382 of District No. 77 of International Association of Machinists, a local thereof, herein called Local 382 of the I. A. M., to represent employees directly affected by the investigation. Pur- suant to the notice a hearing was held on March 21 at Minneapolis, Minnesota, before Berdon M. Bell, the Trial Examiner duly desig- nated by the Board. The Board, the Company, the United, and the I. A. M. appeared and were represented by counsel or by a representa- tive. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made various rulings on the admission of evidence. He granted a motion by the United to amend the pleadings in respect to the name of the Company. At the con- clusion of the hearing the Company moved to dismiss the petition herein, and ruling thereon was reserved for the Board. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On March 26 the Company submitted to the Board a memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss, and on April 9 the United sub- mitted a memorandum setting forth its position. For reasons here- inafter appearing, the motion is granted. On April 15 the Board approved a stipulation of the parties providing for corrections of the report of proceedings, and made it part of the record herein. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Lewis Bolt & Nut Company is a Minnesota corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of bolts, nuts, rivets, highway guard rail materials, pole line hardware, and special forged products, - 283034-41-vol 23-46 710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,and in hot galvanizing. Its only plant is located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It employs approximately 147 employees. The Company purchases annually for use in its manufacturing processes at the plant approximately 4,000 tons of bar steel and wire rod. About 15 per cent of these raw materials are shipped to the plant from steel mills located in the States of Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The Company also regularly purchases various prod- ucts manufactured by other concerns, some of which it processes, and which it' sells and distributes. Approximately 85 per cent of the manufactured products which it purchases are shipped to the plant from outside the State of Minnesota. The amount of the Company's total annual sales is about $850,000, 30 per cent of which sales represent products shipped from the Min- neapolis plant to persons located in States other than Minnesota. H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 1140, is a labor organization chartered by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. The United admits to membership all factory production employees of the Company. Local 382 of District No. 77 of International Association of Machinists, is a labor organization chartered by International As- sociation of Machinists, a labor organization, affiliated with Ameri- can Federation of Labor, admitting to its membership all factory production employees of the Company. District No. 77 of Inter- national Association of Machinists is a labor organization, including Local 382 of the I. A. M. as a constituent organization. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION As representative of employees at the Minneapolis plant, the I. A. M. in 1936 first began negotiations with the Company for a contract covering working conditions of these employees . There is no showing that at that time or at any time thereafter prior to September 1, 1939, the I. A. M. was designated as collective bargain- ing representative by a majority of the employees in the collective bargaining unit hereinafter found to be appropriate or in any other unit, or that the I. A. M. was recognized by the Company as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of employees in such unit. In September 1936 the Company, with approval of the I. A. M., issued a "statement of policy" governing wages, hours, and other working conditions of the plant employees . The statement also provided a procedure for the handling of employee grievances through an employee committee , and for arbitration of grievances LEWIS BOLT AND NUT COMPANY 711 in certain cases. The statement of policy was non-contractual in character and did not name the I. A. M. or any other labor organi- zation in the text or as a party. However, the employee committee which functioned under the statement was one appointed by the I. A. M. Following issuance of the statement of policy this com- mittee dealt with the Company in respect to employee grievances and likewise regarding certain modifications in the provisions of the statement. In May 1939 the United began solicitation of members among employees of the Company. This effort, however, was unsuccessful. In August 1939 the Company and the I. A. M. entered into a col- lective contract, dated September 1, 1939, effective for a period of 1 year and thereafter terminable upon 30 days' notice in writing by either party desiring a change. The contract provided for exclusive recognition of the I. A. M. as collective bargaining representative of employees of the Company in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate, and covered their wages, hours of service, and other working conditions. At the time this contract was executed a majority of the employees in the unit were members of Local 382 of the I. A. M. and, accordingly, of the I. A. M. Under Section 9 (a) of the Act the I. A. M. and Local 382 thereof were then the exclusive representative of all employees in said unit for the pur- poses of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. Following execution of the contract, in December 1939 and Janu- ary 1940; a substantial number of the employees in the appropriate unit applied for membership in the United and authorized that organization to represent them for the purposes of collective bargain- ing. An examination by the Regional Director of the various mem- bership records and authorization cards submitted by the I. A. M. and the United disclosed that there was considerable duplication as to their respective memberships among employees in the unit, and each "union claims upon this evidence to represent a majority of the employees in the unit. But for the duplication, the claim of either organization might be accepted as true. In January 1940 the United notified the Company that it claimed to represent for purposes of collective bargaining a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit and that, therefore, it was the sole bargaining representative of all employees in the unit. The Com- pany refused to recognize or bargain collectively with the United as such representative, because of its above-mentioned contract of September 1, 1939, with the I. A. M. Thereafter the United filed its petition herein. 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Board is of the opinion that it should not proceed at this time with an investigation and certification of representatives, and accordingly that the petition for investigation- and -certification of representatives should be dismissed without prejudice. The chair- man concurs in such dismissal for reasQns previously stated in deci- sions of the Board.' Where a contract of reasonable duration and providing for exclusive recognition is made with a legitimate labor organization which is the statutory representative of the employees as to whom recognition is granted, the Board in furtherance of the purposes of the Act to attain stabilized labor relations in industry through collective bargaining agreements should not proceed, pend- ing the contract, to an investigation and determination of repre- sentatives. Mr. Leiserson concurs on the facts in this case only.5 IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The United, the I. A. M., the Company, and counsel for the Board stipulated and agreed at the hearing that all factory production employees of the Company, but excluding supervisory employees, employees having the right to hire and discharge, clerical and office employees, watchmen, janitors, and matrons, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The exclusive recognition provision of the contract dated September 1, 1939, and other of its provisions relate to employees within this, unit. We see no reason for not finding this unit to be appropriate, and accordingly we find that at the time the contract of September 1, 1939, was exe- cuted, and thereafter, all factory production employees of the Com- pany, excluding supervisory employees, employees having the right to hire and discharge, clerical and office employees, watchmen, jani- tors, and matrons, constituted and constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit insured and insures to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act. * Matter of Bon Ton Curtain Company and American Federation of Labor, Federal Union, 20 N. L. R B. 462; Matter of American Hair & Felt Company and Jute, Hair & Felt Workers Local # 163 (United Furniture Workers of America, C. 1. 0.), 15 N. L R. B. 572; Matter of The National Sugar Refining Company of New Jersey, L. I. City Refinery and Local 11,76, Sugar Refinery Workers International Longshoremen's Asa'n., 10 N. L. R. B 1410; Matter of Superior Electrical Products Co and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union, Local No. 18, 6 N. L R B. 19. Cf Matter of Pacific Grey- hound Lines and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 22 N L R. B. 111 , footnote 57; Matter of Ansley Radio Corporation and Local 1221 United Electrical & Radio Workers of America, C. I. 0., 18 N. L. R. B. 1028. 6 See his concurring opinion in Matter of American Hair & Felt Company and Jute, Hair & Felt Workers Local # 163 (United Furniture Workers of America, C. 1 O ), 15 N L R B 572, 578 LEWIS BOLT AND NUT COMPANY 713 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSION OF LAW No question concerning the representation of employees of Lewis Bolt & Nut Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, now exists, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. k, ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby dismisses, with- out prejudice, the petition for investigation and certification of representatives filed herein by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 1140. MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, concurring : I concur in the dismissal of the petition, without prejudice. I agree, that, the, purposes of the Act will be effectuated in this case by our not now proceeding to a determination of representa- tives. Here only 5 months elapsed between the making of the I. A. M. exclusive recognition contract and the filing of the peti- tion." The contract purports to cover fully wages, hours, and other Working conditions. In the Bon Ton Curtain Company case 7 the Board unanimously dismissed a petition for investigation and certi- fication of representatives, because of the "short duration of labor relations under the contract." While the period between the mak- ing of the exclusive recognition contract there involved and the filing of the petition was shorter than the period here involved, the reason for the dismissal there stated is applicable. The history of labor relations between the I. A. M. and the Company prior to the execution of the contract of September 1, 1939, affords no reason for concluding that despite the brevity of relations under the con- tract, an election at the present time would effectuate the purposes of the Act. The I. A. M. never attained the status of statutory representative, nor was it so recognized by the Company, prior to the making of the contract." e Compare my separate opinions in Matter of The National Sugar Refining Company of New Jersey, L. I. City Refinery and Local 1476, Sugar Refinery Workers, International Long- shoremen's Ass'n, 10 N. L. R. B. 1410, and Matter of American Hair & Felt Company and Jute, Hair & Felt Workers Local No 163 (United Furniture Workers of America, C. I. 0.), 15 N. L. It. B 572 , where more than 1 year had elapsed following certification by the Board of the contracting union or its obtaining exclusive recognition through a consent election No such facts are here shown 7 Matter of Bon Ton Curtain Company and American Federation of Labor, Federal Union, 20 N. L. R. B. 462. 8 See footnote 6, supra.