American-Marsh Pumps, Inc.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1944

59 N.L.R.B. 1084 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

c.
In the Matter of AMERICAN-MARSH PUMPS, INC., and MICHIGAN METAL
CRAFTSMEN, INC.
Case No. 7-R-1885.-Decided December 16, 191.E
Cllr. Edwin F. Steffen, of Lansing, Mich., for thwCompany.
Mr. Leonard F. Donaldson, of Detroit, Mich., and Mr. Cuyler Cole-
man ,^of Grand Rapids, Mich., for the Independent.
'Mr:'L. O. Thomas, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. Carl Cederquist,
of Detroit, Mich., for the Machinists.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Michigan Metal Craftsmen, Inc., an
unaffiliated organization, herein called the Independent, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of American-Marsh Pumps, Inc., Battle Creek, Michigan,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Robert J.
Wiener,' Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Battle Creek,
Michigan, on October 17, 1944. 'The Company, the Independent, and
Lodge 46, International Association of Machinists, herein called the
Machinists, appeared, participated, and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. During the course of the
hearing, the Company moved to dismiss this proceeding. Although
the grounds urged in support of the Company's motion are not tenable;
the Board dismisses the petition for the reasons that appear in Section
III, below. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were
afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
59 N. L. R. B., No. 192.
1084
-AMERICAN-MARSH PUMPS, INC.- 1085
FINDINGS' OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
American=Marsh, Pumps, Inc., 'is engaged • in the' manufacture' of
pumps,at Battle Creek, Michigan.- During the year 1942, the Com-
pany's purchases of raw materials; consisting principally of steel,
exceeded one-half million dollars, of which approximately 90 percent
was shipped to its plant from points outside Michigan. In the same
year the Company's sales exceeded $1,000,000, of which approximately
95 percent represented products shipped from the plant to points out-
side Michigan.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce, within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS. INVOLVED
Michigan Metal Craftsmen, Inc., is an unaffiliated labor, organiza-
tion, admitting to membership employees,of the Company.
Lodge 46, International Association of Machinists, is a labor organ-
ization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On September 2, 1943, the Board certified the Machinists as exclusive
bargaining. representative' of production and maintenance employees
at.the Company's plant.'. Thereafter, the Company and the Machin-
ists conferred with respect to a contract covering these employees. On
October 14, 1943, they entered into a stipulation, witnessed by the Com-
missioner of the United States Conciliation Service of the Depart-
ment of Labor, to the effect that. they had failed in direct negotiations
before the Commissioner to settle certain matters in dispute between
them, namely, wages, retroactive date, and vacations, and on October
18; 1943, signed a written contract, effective October 14, 1943, making
no mention of wages or vacations, but incorporating in usual written
form' all agreed matters concerning working conditions at the plant.
The issues between the 'parties with respect to wages, retroactive
date, and vacations were submitted to the War Labor Board, and a
panel hearing upon the issues was conducted in December 1943. A
panel report with recommendations' followed on February 3, 1944.
On March 31, .1944, the War Labor Board issued a directive order,
i 52 N. L. R. B. 391 . On the same day the Board certified International Molders and
Foundry Workers Union of North America, Local 51, as the exclusive bargaining repre.
sentative of employees at the Company's foundry. Foundry employees are not directly
concerned in the present proceeding.
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
setting up wage rates for designated job titles, making wage provi-
sions retroactive to November 5, 1943, and providing for vacation priv-
ileges, and further directing the parties to negotiate questions rela-
tive to the proper grading of individuals within job classifications and
to negotiate appropriate rates, lower than those set forth in the direc-
tive, for minors and aged and handicapped employees. The Com-
pany thereupon•filed an appeal, protesting (1) the setting up of any
wage rates except on the.:basis. of previously established' job descrip-
tions at its plant and (2) the basis for computing vacation privileges.
The War Labor Board subsequently amended its directive with respect
to vacations, and the Company granted vacations to employees in
accordance therewith.
On April 27, 1944, the Independent orally asked the Company for
recognition as bargaining representative of its employees. The com-
pany refused on the ground that its contract with the Machinists,
effective October 14, 1943, constituted a bar to such recognition.
On July 25, 1944, the Company requested that the National War
Labor Board stay its appeal of the directive order issued on March
31, 1944, pending the making of job descriptions by the contracting
parties, which had been directed by the War Labor Board, and on
August 2, 1944, pending the completion of this work, requested a fur-
ther stay of appeal, alleging that the Company would advise the
National War Labor Board concerning the outcome of these negotia-
tions. Thereafter, the Company and the Machinists set about work-
ing out job descriptions for employees working at the plant.
On August 11, 1944, the Independent again requested recognition as-
bargaining representative of the Company's employees and filed its
original petition with the Board. On -August 29, 1944, the Company
replied to the letter of the Independent, stating that it would continue
to recognize the Machinists as bargaining representative of its em-
ployees until the Board or another Government agency directed it to
do otherwise. On the same day, the Company advised the Machinists
that the Independent claimed to represent a majority of employees
covered by the contract and that, although'the contract between the
Company and the Machinists, effective October 14, 1943, was subject
to renewal "in accordance with its terms," the Company would not
enter into further negotiations with the Machinists, "looking toward
the renewal of said contract," until there had been a determination
of the bargaining agency by the Board.
Between July 25, when the Company first requested a stay of its
appeal of proceedings ' before the National War Labor Board, and
October 17, the day of the hearing, herein, the Company and the
Machinists had worked out job classifications, all of which had been
rejected by the conciliator of the Department of Labor, ' to whom
AMERICAN -MARSH PUMPS , INC. 1087
they had been submitted for approval. Thereafter 38 of the 44 job
classifications had been rewritten, but none of these had, at the time
of the hearing, yet been approved by the conciliator or by the National
War Labor Board.
The Machinists contends that the protracted and still pending pro-
ceedings before the War Labor Board with respect to wage conditions
at the plant have delayed the completion of the contractual program
initiated by. the Machinists and thus denied to the Company's em-
ployees substantial enjoyment of their collective bargaining under the
leadership of their recently certified bargaining representative. We
find merit in this contention?
The Company and the Machinists, after the latter's certification,
committed to the form of a written contract matters concerning work-
ing conditions at the plant on which they were agreed, and they
promptly referred to the War Labor Board matters on which they
were in dispute. The wage issue, which was the principal subject of
the directive order of March 31, 1944, involved not merely the deter-
mination of fixed increases in already established wage rates, but a
complete wage program, bottomed on a comprehensive analysis of
work performed by the Company's employees and the establishment
of basic job classifications. The working out of these job classifica-
tions is 'thus a primary requisite to the establishment of -wage, rates
to be applied to employees at the Company's plant. Under these cir-
cumstances , we find that the Machinists' resort to the War Labor
Board, the long pendency before that agency of fundamental wage
issues, and , the present incomplete status of resulting negotiations
between the Machinists and their employer, has denied to the Com-
pany's employees, without fault on the part of their bargaining rep-
resentative, the settlement of the most vital element in their present
bargaining program. To disturb the negotiations at this time may
nullify the entire work. Thus, we do not believe that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to direct an immediate election.3 We shall
therefore dismiss the petition filed by the Independent herein.4
2 In support of its motion to dismiss this proceeding , the Machinists further urges that
the written contract, effective October 14 , 1943, became "automatically " renewed for a
further term of 1-year before the petitioner made known its claim to represent the Com-
pany's employees . According to our construction , the contract continued indefinitely after
the 1 -year term , subject to cancelation on 60 days ' written notice by either party In
any event the petitioner gave timely notice of its claim and filed its petition more than
60 days prior to October 14, 1944.
8 Matter of Taylor Forge & Pipe Works , 58 N L . R B. 1371, and cases cited therein.
4 During the course of the hearing ; the Company , believing that it could resolve the
issues between petitioner and the intervenor by such act , formally recognized the peti-
tioner as the bargaining representative of its employees , and moved that the Board
dismiss the proceeding on the ground that such recognition resolved the issues between the
rival organizations We cannot so evaluate the Company 's act . Our dismissal of the
petition filed by the Independent does not rest upon the ground that the Company's mis-
guided recognition of the Independent has resolved any issue presented in this proceeding.
The Act does not permit an employer to designate which of two rival labor organizations
618683-45-vol 59-70
1088 DECISION$, OF NATIONAL,-LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on the entire
record in the case , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the petition for investigation and certification 'of representatives
of employees of American-Marsh Pumps , Inc., Battle Creek, Mich-
igan , filed by Michigan Metal . Craftsmen , Inc., be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
shall be the representative of its employees . The basis of our dismissal in this proceed-
ing is , as indicated above, our conviction that at this critical period a challenge to the
representative status of the Machinists may disrupt the entire bargaining program by
nullifying the effect of the pending War Labor Board proceedings and thus deny to the
Company's employees the substantial benefits flowing from their negotiations during the
past year.