Hatfield Wire & Cable Co.

In the Matter of HATFIELD WIRE & CABLE COMPANY and INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. of L. Case No. R-22892.-Decided March 17, 1941 Jurisdiction : wire and cable products manufacturing industry. Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed without prejudice to the filing of another petition upon the expiration of a contract bet*een the rival union andl the Company. Mr. Daniel Baker, for the Board. Coult, Satz, Tomlinson cfi Morse, by Mr. David A. Morse, of, Newark,. N. J., for the Company. Mr. Thomas L. Parsonnet, of Newark, N. J., and Mr. Lawson,. Wimberly, of Washington, D. C., for the I. B. E. W. Mr. Samuel L. Rothbard, of Newark, N. J., for the United. Mr. Raymond J. Compton, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On September 6, 1940, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. of L., herein called the I. B. E. W., filed with the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City) a peti- tion and on December 7, 1940, an amended petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning -the representa- tion of employees of Hatfield Wire & Cable Company, Hackettstown, New Jersey, herein called the Company, and requesting an investiga- tion and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations, Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On December 2, 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 December 9, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon the I. B. E. W., and upon United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 30 N. L. R. B, No. 53. 360 HATFIELD WIRE & CABLE COMPANY 361 No. 403, herein called the United, a labor organization claiming to, represent employees directly affected by the investigation. Pursuant to notice and notice of postponement, a hearing was held on January 27, 1941, at Newark, New Jersey, before Martin Raphael,, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the Company, the I. B. E. W., and the United, were represented by counsel and all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-exaniine 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 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. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board on Febru- ary 25, 1941, at Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. The Company, the I. B. E. W., and the United, were represented by counsel and participated in the argument. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Hatfield Wire & Cable Company, a New Jersey corporation having its principal office and place of business at Hillside, New Jersey, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of wire and cable products, electrical appliances, and related articles. It also operates a plant at Hackettstown, New Jersey. During the period from Janu- ary 1 to November 30, 1940, the Company 'purchased raw materials, consisting principally of copper, cotton, rayon, crude rubber, asbestos, filler, lead, steel, fibre, and cord-set supplies, exceeding' $50,000 in value, of which approximately 25 per cent were shipped from points. outside the State of New Jersey. During the same period the Com- pany sold finished products valued at more than $50,000, of which approximately 90 per cent were shipped to States other than New Jersey. The Company employs approximately 73 production em- ployees at its Hackettstown plant and approximately 500 employees, at the Hillside plant. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is a labor organ- ization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to its membership employees of the Company. 362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 403, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Indus- trial Organizations, admitting to its membership employees of the Company. III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On December 21, 1938, pursuant to a stipulation between the Com- pany and the United, the Board issued its Decision and Order whereby the Company was directed to bargain collectively with the United as the representative of all production and maintenance employees at its Hillside and Hackettstown plants, respectively, excluding super- visory and clerical employees.' On May 10, 1939, the I. B. E. W. filed a petition with the Board, claiming to represent a majority of the employees at both the Hillside and Hackettstown. plants. On June 1, 1939, pursuant to an agreement between the United, the I. B. E. W., and the Company, the Board conducted an election among all production and maintenance employees at both plants, excluding clerical and supervisory employees. The United won the election, and on June 14, 1939, entered into an exclusive bargaining contract with the Company for the employees of both plants as a single, unit. On August 29, 1939, the I. B. E. W. filed a petition with the Board requesting an investigation and certification of representatives of employees in the Wire and Cable Division of the Hillside Plant.2 Following a preliminary investigation, the Board dismissed the peti- tion on October 3, 1939. On March 25, 1940, separate petitions were filed by the I. B. E. W. for the employees in the Wire and Cable Divi- sion and those in the Hackettstown plant, respectively. These peti- tions were likewise dismissed by the Board on April 17, 1940. On June 12, 1940, the United and the Company entered into a writ- ten agreement with respect to the holding of a consent election among the employees of the Wire and Cable Division of the Hillside plant, to determine whether they desired representation by the United or the I. B. E. W. The agreement provided that in the event the United won the election, the Company would enter into a closed-shop contract with the United covering all production employees at both the Hill- ' Matter of Hatfield Wire c6 Cable Company, Inc . and United Electrical, Radio c6 Machine Worl,ers, Local No 403, 10 N. L. R. B. 763. 2 The Hillside plant is divided into two divisions, the Wire and Cable Division and the Cord Set Division. Approximately 25 to 35 percent of the wire manufactured in the Wire and Cable Division is of the same type of lamp cord and fixture wire as that manufactured at Hackettstown ; the balance is a heavier type of wire and cable for use in building con- struction. The Cord Set Division cuts lamp cord wire into lengths and affixes sockets and .other electrical appliances thereto The management of both the Hillside and Hacketts- town plants is centralized at Hillside. The wages, hours, and working conditions of em- ployees at both plants are determined by the Hillside office, and all shipments of finished products are made from the Hillside plant. HATFIELD WIRE & , CABLE COMPANY 363 side and Hackettstown plants; that if the United lost the election, the contract would cover all production employees other than those employed in the Wire and Cable Division.' Although the I. B. E. W. was not a party to"this agreement, it was further stated therein that the Company would also enter into a contract with the I. B. E. W. if it were chosen by the Wire and Cable employees as their representa- tive. On July 9, 1940, with knowledge of the foregoing contract agreement between the Company and the United, the I. B. E. W. en- tered into a consent election conducted by the Board among the em- ployees in the Wire and Cable Division of the Hillside plant. The I. B. E. W. won the election. On August 14, 1940, the I. B. E. W. submitted to the Regional Di- rector a petition signed by 55 employees in the Hackettstown plant, stating that the signers thereof did not desire to be represented by either the 1.'B. E. W. or the United until they were afforded an op- portunity to express their choice. of a bargaining representative. Thereafter, the Company refused to grant recognition to the I. B. E. W. as the exclusive bargaining representative of its Hackettstown employees until certified by the Board. On September 6, 1940, the I. B. E. W. filed its petition in the instant proceeding. On October 11, 1940, `pursuant to''the agreement entered into on June 12, 1940, prior to the'consent election in the Wire and Cable Division, the Company and the United signed a closed-shop contract covering all production employees at the Hackettstown and Hillside plants with the exception of those in the Wire and Cable Divisionf to be retroactively effective from September 1, 1940, to June 1, 1941, and thereafter until terminated by either party upon 60 days' written notice. On December 3, 1940, the Company entered into a similar contract with the I. B. E. W., covering all employees in the Wire, and Cable Division, to be effective until April 1, 1942, and thereafter from year to year until terminated by either party upon 60 days' written notice. The United contends that its contract with the Company executed on,October 11, 1940, constitutes a bar to an election at this time. The I. B. E.. W., however, maintains that the contract does not preclude the Board from now determining representation of the Hackettstown employees, since it was entered. into after the Company had full notice of the representation claims of the I. B. E. W. and subsequent to the filing of its petition with the Board. While we have held that. a contract executed with knowledge of conflicting claims to repre- sentation is no bar to an investigation of representatives by the Board ,3 the facts in the instant case do not warrant,an application 3Matter of Colonic Fibre Company, Inc. and Cohoes Knit Goods Workers Union No 245141, A. F. of L., 9 N. L. R. B. 658; Matter of Precision Castings Company, Inc and National -364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of this principle. The I. B. E. W.' agreed to the consent election of July 9, 1940, among the employees of the Wire and Cable Division with full knowledge of the, prior written agreement between, the 'Company and the United whereby a contract with either or contracts with both the I. B. E. W. and the United were to be executed depend- ent upon the election results. Under these circumstances, we conclude -and find that the closed-shop agreement executed on October 11, 1940, pursuant to the agreement to contract entered into on June 12, 1940, operates as a bar to a present determination of representatives. Ac- •cordingly, we find that no question now exists concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Company. We, shall dismiss the peti- tion without prejudice to the filing of another petition by the I. B. E. W. upon expiration of the contract between the United and the ,Company. On 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 Hatfield Wire & Cable Company, in a unit appropriate for purposes of col- lective bargaining has arisen, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) •of the National Labor Relations Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the peti- tion for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of Hatfield Wire & Cable Company, filed by International Broth- erhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. of L., be, and it hereby is, dis- missed without prejudice. MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, concurring : The facts in this case show a close relationship between the Hack- •ettstowri and Hillside plants. The general management, policies, and labor relations of both are subject to the same executive control. De- partments located at the Hillside plant serve both plants with respect to financial and office management, sales, marketing, receiving, and -shipping. Practically the same wages, hours, and working conditions Association of Die Castinq 117orlers, Local # 4, C I 0 , 24 N L R B 1045 Matter of J. Edward & Co and United Shoe 1Vorhers of America, Local in, C. 1 0, 20 N L R B. 244; Matter of Malone Bronze Powder Works, Inc. and Malone Aluminum Corporation -and Aluminum and Bronze Powder Workers Union No. 21211 , affiliated with the A . F. of L, 119 N. L. R B 449; Matter of Stokely Brothers d Company, Inc and Van Camp's, Inc and Federal Labor Union No. 21752, affiliated with A. F. of L., 15 N. L. R. B. 872. HATFIELD WIRE & CABLE COMPANY 365 prevail at both plants. Moreover, the United has bargained for the Hackettstown and Hillside employees as a single unit, and the I. B. E. W. itself recognized the appropriateness of such a unit on June 1, 1939, when it entered into a consent election covering all the employees at both plants. Because the United subsequently consented to the separation of the employees of the Wire and Cable Division into a separate unit is no justification for a further modification of the two- plant unit previously established by collective bargaining. Accord- ingly, it is my view that a unit composed only of the employees in the Hackettstown plant, as sought by the I. B. E. W. in its petition, is not appropriate for'the purposes of collective bargaining, and that consequently no question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company in an appropriate unit.