Hardy Manufacturing Corp

In the Matter of HARDY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and INTER- NATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 747, AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O. Case No. R-2261.-Decided March, 3, 1941 Jurisdiction : automotive equipment manufacturing industry. , Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re- fusal to accord union recognition; election necessary. Purported bargaining agreement between the company and the union, by which consideration of recognition was deferred six months held no bar to investigation and certification of representatives, since under the Act the Company had no right to refuse recognition to the duly selected representative of the majority of its employees, and the bargaining com- mittee of the union could not waive the statutory right of the employees to choose representatives. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all hourly rated employees, includ- ing production and maintenance employees and employees in the engineering department,, hut excluding supervisory, clerical, salaried, and sales employees, watchmen, and tmiekeepers; stipulation as to. , ` Mr. Kurt F. Fantoer, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the Company. Rhoads & Jacobs, by Mr. Mark W. Rhoads, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the Union. _ Miss Grace McEldowney, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On October 10; 1940, International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 747, affiliated with the C: I. 0.1 herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director of the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis, Indiana) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- ployees of Hardy Manufacturing Corporation ,2 Pendleton,, Indiana, 1 The petition ii as filed,by International Union United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I O. At the hearing a motion was granted to amend the pleadings by inserting "Local No 747 2Incorrectly designated in the petition and notice of hearing as Hardy Manufacturing Company 30 N. L. R B , No. 5. 3 ( 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certi- fication of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On December 21, 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. Pursuant to notice duly served upon the Company and the Union, a hearing was held on January 20, 1941, at Anderson, Indiana, before Robert I. Malarney, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Company and the Union were represented by counsel and 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 the parties. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner 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 COMPANY Hardy Manufacturing Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Sheller Corporation, has its principal office and place of business at Pendleton, Indiana, where it is engaged in the manufacture of automotive equipment. The raw materials purchased by the Com- pany from July 1, 1940, to February 14, 1941, included steel, screw- machine parts, and manufactured thermostats. Approximately 75 per cent of such materials, to a value of not less than $56,000, were obtained from sources outside the State of Indiana. The value of the output of the plant during the same period was in excess of $100,000, approximately 75 per cent of it being shipped to points outside the State of Indiana. At the time of the hearing the Company employed approximately 100 employees. The Company stipulated that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 747, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership employees of the Company. HARDY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 39 III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Union began its organizational activities in the Company's plant in the latter part of 1940. A meeting of employees was held on October 1 at which membership application cards were signed; plans for forming a local union were considered; and a tentative bargaining committee of five men was selected. At the request of the committee, on October 4 the general manager, Thomas Bradley, agreed to call a- meeting within a few days to discuss rates of pay. Nothing was said at this time about the Union. On the evening of October 7 a second meeting of employees was held at which the organization of the local was completed; officers were elected; and a new bargaining committee of five men was selected to take the place of the committee chosen at the October 1 meeting. Within a day or two thereafter, Bradley sent for the first com- mittee to go to his office. When one of the men explained that a new committee had been selected, it was suggested that both com- mittees attend the meeting. In addition to these 10 men, one of whom was no longer a member of the Union or of the committee to which he had been elected, there was present during the meeting the secretary-treasurer of the Union, who was not a member of either committee. At Bradley's suggestion the 11 men, during his absence from the room, drew up a schedule of pfoposed rates of pay which they presented to him on his return. In addition to such rates, the memorandum contained a provision respecting seniority rights and the following notation : "The Union is to be recognized U. A. W. A.-C. I. O." According to Bradley, this was the first time that he had heard of the existence of the Union, and he had then no information about its membership or majority status. He did not doubt, however, that the 11 men who were present represented a majority of the employees of the Company. After reading the memorandum, Bradley agreed to the rates of pay and the provision regarding seniority, but said that the Company did not feel that it was the time to grant recognition to any group. Thereupon a member of the first committee suggested that consideration of the matter be deferred for 6 months. Bradley agreed to this suggestion, and as no one spoke in opposition to the arrangement, he telephoned to higher officials of the Company and secured their approval 'of the proposed rates of pay. On the same day he had notices posted ,n the plant containing the language of the memorandum except for the provision relating to recognition of the Union. No contract was signed by the parties, nor was the agreement submitted to the membership of the Union for approval, as required by its constitution. 40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On October 8 a representative of the, International Union tele- phoned to Bradley, and later confirmed the call by letter, asking for a conference to discuss bargaining procedure and the official recog- nition of the Union. 'As the request was not granted, the Union filed the petition in the present proceeding. The Company contends' that its agreement, made with individuals whom it considered the representatives of a majority of its employees, is a binding collective bargaining agreement and a bar to any investigation of representatives by the Board at the present time. It is obvious, however, that the purported agreement cannot be considered an exclusive bargaining contract, since it expressly defers consideration of recognition of the Union for a period of six months. Under the Act the Company had no right to refuse recognition to the duly selected representative of the majority of its -employees, nor could the bargaining committee of the Union waive the statutory right of the employees to choose representatives. We find that the above-described agreement is no bar to the present investigation of representatives by the Board. A statement of the Regional Director introduced at the hearing shows that the Union represents a sub- stantial number of employees in the proposed unit.3 We find that a question, has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. 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 1 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 com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The parties stipulated that the appropriate unit should consist of all hourly rated employees, including production and maintenance employees and employees in the engineering department, but exclud- ing supervisory, clerical,' salaried, and sales employees, watchmen, and timekeepers. We see no reason for departing from such unit. We find that all hourly rated employees of the Company, includ- ing production and maintenance employees and employees in the .The Regional Director 's statement shows That the Union submitted in support of its claim 12 authorization cards and 40 application cards, dated between November 1940 and January 1941 The unit hereinafter found appropriate comprises approximately 100 persons HARDY 17A1UFACTURI-NG CORPORATION 41 engineering department , but excluding supervisory , clerical, salaried, and sales employees , watchmen , and timekeepers , constitute a unit appropriate -for the purposes of collective bargaining , and that such 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 We find that the question which has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Company can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot. The Union wishes to have the pay roll nearest- the date of the petition used to determine eligibility on the ground that it has been prejudiced by the subsequent delay. The Company believes that the pay roll nearest the election should be used because of the rapid expansion of the plant. Approximately twice as many employees were employed at the time of the hearing as at the time of the filing of the petition. In accordance with our usual practice we shall direct that the employees eligible to vote shall be those within the appropriate unit during the pay-roll period immediately preced- ing the Direction of Election, subject to such limitations and con- ditions as are set forth in the Direction. Upon the basis of the foregoing 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 Hardy Manufacturing Corporation, Pen- dleton, Indiana, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. All hourly rated employees of the Company, including pro- duction and maintenance employees and employees in the engineering department, but excluding supervisory , clerical, salaried , and sales employees, watchmen, and timekeepers , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the 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, 49 Stat . 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby 42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized' by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Hardy Manufacturing Corporation , Pendleton, Indi- ana, 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 of the Eleventh Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations , among all hourly rated employees of the Company , including production and mainte- nance employees and employees in the engineering department, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding 1 he date of this Direction of Election , and including employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were tem- porarily laid off, but excluding supervisory , clerical, salaried, and sales employees, watchmen , and timekeepers , and excluding also employees who shall have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Inter- national Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 747, affiliated with the C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.