California Metal Trades Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 624 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of CALIFORNIA METAL TRADES ASSOCIATION, SAN FRAN-
CISCO MACHINE SHOP DIVISION AND ITS MEMBER PLANTS, EMPLOYER
and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO (SUCCESSOR TO MA-
CHINISTS UNION, INDEPENDENT), PETITIONER
In the Matter of ACE MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY COMPANY, EM-
PLOYER and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO (SUCCESSOR
TO MACI-IINISTS UNION, INDEPENDENT), PETITIONER
In the Matter of BELMONT ENGINEERING COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO (SUCCESSOR TO MA-
CHINISTS UNION5 INDEPENDENT), PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 20-R-1806, 20-R-1815, and PO-R-1816, respectively.-
Decided February 14,1947
Littler, Coakley c Lauritzen, by Mr. Johan B. Lauritzen, of San
Francisco, Calif., and Mr. Charles V. Cole, of San Francisco, Calif.,
for the Employers.
Messrs. J. H. Sapiro, E. F. Dillon, and Harry Hook, all of San
Francisco, Calif., and Mr. Philip Y11. Curran, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for
the Petitioner.
Mr. A. C. McGraw, of Oakland, Calif., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Sydney S. Asher, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION -
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing in these
cases was held at San Francisco, California, between September 4 and
13, 1946, before Robert E. Tillman, hearing officer. The hearing offi-
cer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed.,
The Employers and the Intervenor, by separate motions, moved to
dismiss the petitions on the grounds that the Petitioner is not a labor
IIn their brief, the Employers moved to make certain corrections In the transcript and
exhibits -No objections to this motion have been filed by any of the other parties. Accord-
ingly. the motion is hereby granted
72 N L U. B , No. 120.
624
CALIFORNIA METAL TRADES ASSOCIATION 625
organization within the meaning of the Act, that the Petitioner's
showings of representation are not, adequate, that no questions of
representation have arisen because neither, the Petitioner nor the
Petitioner's predecessor ever requested recognition before filing the
petitions herein, that the contracts between the Intervenor and the
Employers constitute bars to the present proceedings, and that the
units sought by the Petitioner are inappropriate. For reasons stated
in Sections IT, III, and IV, below, the motions are hereby denied.
After the hearing, the Intervenor moved to combine these cases with
Cases Nos. 20-11^1721, 20-R-1722, 20-R-1801, 20-R-1811 and 20-R-
1817, involving, respectively, employees of California State Brewers
Institute, Western Can Company, Edward J. Dreis, Co., Ltd., Liberty
Machine & Pole Line Co.. and Oscar Krenz, Incorporated. We have
this day issued a separate Decision in those cases, and have therein
denied the Intervenor's motion to combine, and given our reasons for
doing so. The Intervenor's request for oral argument herein is denied
inasmuch as the record, in our opinion, adequately presents the issues
and positions of the parties.
Upon the entire records in the consolidated cases, the National
Labor Relations Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
California Metal Trades Association, herein called the Association,
is a California corporation having as members firms engaged in the
metal trades industry in California. One of its functions is to nego-
tiate collective bargaining contracts in behalf of its member firms
with labor organizations. To facilitate its operations, the Asso-
ciation has been organized into various divisions, including the San
Francisco Machine Shop Division, which is the only division involved
herein. The individual member firms of the Association do a gross
business ranging from approximately $10,000 to over $5,000,000 per
year. The percentage of purchases outside the State of California
of the member firms of the Association ranges from a minimum of
approximately 5 percent to a maximum of more than 50 percent. The
percentage of sales outside the State of the member firms of the Asso-
ciation ranges from a minimum of 3 percent to a maximum of over
50 percent. They are one or two members of the Association which
are engaged predominantly in engineering and experimental work
and such work is in connection with and for firms engaged in inter-
state commerce within the meaning of the Act.
Ace Manufacturing and Supply Company, herein referred to as
Ace, is successor to Kusber Bros, fi Page, and conducts business at an
626 DECISIONS OI NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
establishment in San Francisco, California. It has been a member
of the Association since May 1, 1946.
Belmont Engineering Company, herein called Belmont, conducts
business at its establishment in Belmont, California. It has been a
member of the Association since October 1, 1945.
Each of the Employers admits, and we find, that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Intervenor mainthins that the Petitioner is not a labor organ-
ization within the meaning of the Act on the ground that the Peti-
tioner's predecessor, Machinists Union, Independent, herein called the
Independent, was not a labor organization. Whatever the status of
the Independent while it existed, the Petitioner itself is unquestion-
ably a labor organization as defined by Section 2 (5) of the Act, and
we so find. ,
San Francisco Lodge No. 68, affiliated with the Intei national Asso-
ciation of Machinists, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organ-
ization claiming to represent employees of the Employers.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
A. The Association
For many years, Lodge 68 of the International Association of
Machinists, herein called Lodge 68, has bargained for tool and die
makers, machinists, specialists, helpers and apprentices employed by
most uptown shops 2 in San Francisco and vicinity. From 1938 to
1944 there were formal bargaining contracts between Lodge 68 and
the Association. Generally, employers which were not members of
the Association signed separate identical contracts during these years
of Association-wide bargaining. In 1944 there was no contract be-
tween Lodge 68 and the Assoeiation.3 However, Lodge 68 did nego-
tiate a number of contracts with individual shops in 1944 and also in
1945.
On August 19, 1944, the Secretary of the Navy took possession of
99 machine shops in the San Francisco area. On August 20, 1945, the
Association notified Lodge 68 that the Navy Department had given it
permission to negotiate with Lodge 68. Negotiations were then en-
tered into. No agreement was reached and on October 29, 1945, Lodge
68 called a strike against all members of the Association and against
all independent shops with which it had no contracts. However, nego-
Uptown shops are manufacturing, contract jobbing, and general machine contract shops
On June 3, 1944, the National War Labor Board prohibited the Association and Lodge
68 from entering into any agreement.
CALIFORNIA METAL TRADES ASSOCIATION 627
tiations between the Association and Lodge 68 continued during the
strike.
On February 16, 1946, the Executive Council of the Grand Lodge
of the International Association of Machinists, herein called the
International, which had not authorized the strike, arrived in San
Francisco to investigate the strike situation. The next day, the Inter-
national's representatives conferred with officers of Lodge, 68. On
February 20, 1946, the Association submitted proposals for a new
agreement to Lodge 68 and the International. The International
called a membership meeting of Lodge 68 on February 26, 1946, to dis-
cuss the proposals of the Association, but nothing was accomplished.
On February 27, 1946, the International sent letters to all members
of Lodge 68 setting forth the terms of the Association's proposals.
The members were asked to ballot as to whether (1) the proposals
were acceptable, and (2) the International should sign a contract with
the Association in behalf of Lodge 68. About 7,500 ballots were
mailed out and 2,750 were returned. Of the returned ballots, ap-
proximately 2,400 answered both questions in the affirmative. On
March 3, 1946, Lodge 68, at the call of its local officials, held a special
meeting at which the proposals of the Association were rejected by a
vote of 2,198 to 624.
On March 5, 1946, the International notified the officers of Lodge
68, in writing, that the President of the International had filed
charges against Lodge 68, that a trial would be had on these charges
on March 11, 1946, and that, pending this hearing, Lodge 68 was
restrained from taking further actions of any kind. On March 7,
1946, the International sent letters to all members of Lodge 68 in-
forming them of the charges. On March 7 or 8, 1946, the International
notified the Association that charges were pending against Lodge 68.
On March 10, 1946, a special meeting of Lodge 68 was held, at
which approximately 4,000 members attended. Admission was limited
to members of Lodge 68 in good standing. At this meeting, a motion
to secede from the international Association of Machinists and to con-
tinue as an independent union carried by an overwhelming majority.
All officers of Lodge 68 joined in the secession.
On March 11, 1946, a representative of the Independent 4 tele-
phoned a representative of the Association, between 9: 30 a. in. and
11 a. in., to tell him of the secession, and claimed that the Independent
represented the "machinists in this town." On the same day, the In-
ternational held a hearing on the charges against Lodge 68 and tem-
porarily suspended the latter. The International then notified the
4 The Independent was originally known as "Machinists Union No 68 " By court order
of March 16 , 1946 , it was restrained from using "No 68" in its name, and thereafter was
known either as "Machinists Union" or as "Machinists Union, Independent "
628 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Association, in writing, that it was authorized to act in behalf of Lodge
68 and that it was prepared to meet immediately with representatives
of the Association for purposes of collective bargaining. The meeting
convened at about 7: 30 p. in. The parties reached a tentative agree-
ment and initialed it before midnight.
About noon on March 12, 1946, representatives of the Independent
delivered to the Association a letter stating that the machinists in the
employ of firms affiliated with- the Association were now members of
the Independent and that the Independent was prepared to enter into
negotiations for a new contract. Later the same day, the collective
bargaining contract between the International, acting in behalf of
Lodge 68, and the Association was formally signed. This agreement,
herein called the master contract, provided that it should remain in
effect until March 31, 1947, and should continue in effect for 1 year
thereafter, unless either party gave to the other written notice of
desire to alter, amend or terminate, at least 30 days before the termi-
nation date. On March 14, 1946, the International notified members of
Lodge 68 that the contract had been signed and that they should
return to work. On March 18, 1946, the strike terminated.
Since the schism in its ranks, Lodge 68 has been governed by officials
appointed by the International. Lodge 68 has, however, continued to
collect dues , hold membership meetings and elect shop stewards and
committeemen. At the time of the hearing, it had 6,500 members.
On June 16, 1946, the Independent voted to affiliate with the Peti-
tioner and was chartered on July 3, 1946 , with the same officers. On
June 26, 1946, the Petitioner, as successor to the Independent, filed
the petition herein with respect to machinists employed by members
of the Association.
B. Ace
In 1944, Kusber Bros. & Page, predecessor of Ace, signed a collective
bargaining agreement with Lodge 68. This contract was to expire
April 1, 1945, but was to continue in effect for 1 year thereafter, unless
either party gave to the other written notice of desire to alter, amend,
or terminate, at least 30 days before the expiration dates. No such
notice was served by either party 30 days before April 1, 1945, and the
contract therefore was automatically renewed until March 31, 1946.
Sometime in October 1945, Ace signed an interim contract with Lodge
68, effective from October 29, 1945, to March 31, 1946. At the same
time, the parties executed a stipulation which provided : -
In the event a Master Agreement is accepted by the Lodge for its
jurisdiction, the terms and conditions of said Master Agreement
shall apply to and be incorporated in the collective bargaining
agreement entered into this day by the parties hereto.
CALIFORNIA METAL TRADES ASSOCIATION 629
On April 2,1946, after the schism, Ace signed a collective bargaining
contract with the International, acting in behalf of Lodge 68, identical
in its provisions with the master contract between the International
and the Association. The petition herein with respect to machinists in
Ace's employ was filed on June 28, 1946.
C. Belmont
In December 1945, Belmont signed a collective bargaining contract
with Lodge 68 for a term to expire on March 31, 1946, and renewable
for an additional year in the absence of written notice by either party
to the other of desire to alter, amend or terminate, at least 30 days
before the expiration date. On March 25, 1946, after the schism, Bel-
mont signed a contract with the International, acting in behalf of
Lodge 68, identical in its terms with the master contract. The petition
herein with respect to Belmont's machinists was filed on June 28, 1946.
D. Conclusions
The Employers and the Intervenor contend that the contracts be-
tween the Employers and the International constitute bars to any
present elections, especially since none of the petitions was filed within
10 days after the Independent's initial demands for recognition.5 The
Petitioner, on the other hand, maintains that the 10-day rule should
not be applied here.
We find it unnecessary to consider the contract bar question in the
form in which it has been raised. All the contracts which are urged
as a bar may be terminated on March 31, 1947, less than 2 months from
the present time, upon appropriate notice by the parties thereto. Un-
der these circumstances, we find that the existing contracts are not bars
to current determinations of representatives.'
The Intervenor maintains that no questions concerning representa-
tion have arisen, inasmuch as the Petitioner has not made sufficient
showings of interest, and neither the Petitioner nor its predecessor, the
Independent, requested recognition before filing the present petitions.
These contentions are without merit. As to the Petitioner's showings
of interest, which were submitted to the Board for administrative
reasons, we are satisfied that they are adequate. With respect to the
contention that no requests for recognition were made upon the Em-
ployers, assuming that such requests were not made, it is well settled
that a demand for recognition before the filing of a petition is not
a prerequisite to raising a question concerning representation.'
'Cf. Matter of General Electric X-Ray Corporation, 67 N L R.13 997.
6 Matter of Clark Bros Co , Inc., 66 N. L. R. B. 549.
7 Matter of The Union Fork & Hoe Company, 63 N. L R B 194; Matter of Trans-Bridge
Lines, Inc., 61 N. L. R B 320; Matter of Sylvania Electric Products, Inc, 59 N. L. R. B.
1298.
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find, therefore , that questions affecting commerce have arisen
concerning the representation of employees of the Employers within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRTATE UNITS
A. The contentions of the parties
The Petitioner seeks one Association-wide unit of tool and die mak-
ers, machinists, specialists, helpers and apprentices and separate units
of similar classifications of employees employed by those members
of the Association which it proposes to exclude from the Association-
wide unit. The Petitioner would limit the Association-wide unit to
machinists employed by those members of the Association which,
before the schism, had been members of the Association, had empow-
ered the Association to act in their behalf during the 1945-1946 nego-
tiations, and had not entered into separate contracts with Lodge 68
in 1945 or 1946. The Intervenor and the Employers contend, firstly,
that the appropriate, unit should be area-wide in scope, and, secondly,
that if any Association-wide unit should be established, it should
include all machinists employed by firms which may be members of
the Association at the time of the issuance of our Decision and Direc-
tion of Elections herein. The Employers and the Intervenor agree
with the Petitioner as to the categories of employees to be included
in any unit or units.
B. The area-wide unit
For the reasons stated in California State Brewers Institute, et al.,
Cases Nos. 20-R-1721, 20-R-1722, 20-R-1804, 20-R-1811, and 20-8-
1817 (72 N. L. R. B. 665), decided this day, we find that an area-
wide unit is not appropriate.
C. The Association-wide unit
At the time of the hearing, the Association had 111 members .8
The Petitioner agrees that the machinists of 80 of these 111 firms
should be included in the unit. It desires the exclusion of the ma-
chinists employed by the remaining 31 companies.
Of the 31 firms in dispute :
4 had delivered powers of attorney to the Association before
the master contract was signed on March 12, 1946, and had not
signed separate agreements?
8 The 111 members claimed by the Association consisted of Ace Manufacturing and
Supply Company, Belmont Engineering Company, Oscar Krenz, Incorporated, Western Can
Company, the 84 firms listed in Appendix A, attached hereto, and the 23 firms listed in
Appendix B attached hereto It excluded King Manufacturing Co , Northern Packing
Company, Pacific Machine Shop, The Rex Company and Staples & Pfeifer, which 5 con-
cerns had withdrawn from the Association before the hearing
'Anderson Steel Products Co, Carlen Tool & Die Works, Federal Mogul Corporation
and the San Francisco Elevator Co.
k
CALIFORNIA METAL TRADES ASSOCIATION 631
7 had delivered powers of attorney to the Association at the
beginning of the negotiations in the Fall of 1945, but later, during
the strike and before the signing of the master contract, signed
separate agreements with Lodge 68.10
20 had never delivered powers of attorney to the Association
at any time, or had delivered powers of attorney to the Associa-
tion after the master contract was signed on March 12, 1946.11
The constitution and bylaws of the Association give the Associa-
tion no power to bind the members to Association-wide contracts.
The constitution provides :
The objects of this Association shall be to: . . . (d) Represent
or assist members, when requested, in the settlement of disputes
with their employes.
Apparently because of this lack of express authority, Local 68 has
insisted since 1940 that, before starting negotiations for a new con-
tract, the Association obtain and deliver to it powers of attorney from
those of its members which were to be bound by the contract to be
negotiated. Each year since 1940, the Association has complied with
this request of Local 68. When agreement was reached on the terms
of a contract, the secretary of the Association has signed the contract
in behalf of those firms from which it had received powers of attorney.
Not all Association members have delivered powers of attorney to the
Association. Those that did not, signed separate agreements. Some
members have given powers of attorney 1 year and have not given
such powers the following year.12 The number of shops covered by the
Association-wide contracts has varied from 25 in 1938 to 86 in 1942.
The broadest unit which the Board is empowered to find appro-
priate under Section 9 (b) of the Act is the "employer unit." The
term "employer" is here used as defined in Section 2 (2) of the Act,
that is, it "includes any person acting in the interest of an employer."
io Belmont Engineering Company, Duart Manufacturing Co, Ltd, International Sales
Company, International Totalizer Company, 'Niagara Duplicator Company, Reichel Engi-
neering Company and U S. Pipe & Manufacturing Co
The record is conflicting as to whether or not Belmont delivered a power of attorney to
The Association. in the fall of 1945 We find that Belmont did deliver such a power of
attorney, and it is therefore included in the above list The testimony was conflicting as
to whether or not Carlen Tool & Die Works signed a separate contract with Lodge 68 during
the strike we find that no such contract was executed and have therefore omitted Cailen
Tool & Die Works from the above list.
"Ace Manufacturing and Supply Company, Atomized Metals Company, Brunig's Machine
Works, Calif Saw Works, Cherry Buirell Corporation, Connor Spring Mfg Company,
Gettins Steel Company, Oscar Krenz, Incorporated, Lathe Tool Works, Liberty Machine
& Pole Line Co , Joseph Lawrence Company, Michel & Pfeffer, Montague Pipe & Steel Com-
pany, Otis Elevator Company, Pump Repair Service, A Schilling Company, Stanger Man-
ufacturing Company, Jos. Wagner Mfg. Company, Western Can Company and Western Pipe
& Steel Company.
ii The powers of attorney were not continuing in nature, but merely remained in effect
with respect to the specific contract for which they were given. Thus, new powers of
attorney had to be executed at the beginning of negotiations for each new contract.
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When a number of employers voluntarily group themselves together
in an association for the purpose of negotiating uniform wages, hours
and working conditions for the employees of members of the asso-
ciation and entrust the association with the power to make binding
collective bargaining agreements in their behalf, the association is an
"employer" within the meaning of the Act inasmuch as it acts "in
the interest of an employer." And where a well established history
of collective bargaining on an association-wide basis already exists
the Board will usually find an association-wide unit appropriate as
an "employer unit." 13
In the present case, none of the parties has questioned the right of
the Board to find an association-wide unit appropriate. In fact, the
Employers and the Intervenor have contended that the Association-
wide unit is too narrow in scope ; they desire to enlarge it to include
all appropriate firms in the San Francisco area, a contention which
we have rejected. The only question, therefore, is as to the inclusions
in the Association-wide unit.
As a recent practice establishes, the Association's power to bind its
members to collective bargaining agreements stems not from mere
membership in the Association but from the powers of attorney. By
not granting a power of attorney in any year, an Association member
has, in effect, withdrawn from the Association-wide unit for that
year.14 A number of member firms manifested such an intention by
their conduct during the 1945-1946 negotiations which culminated in
the March 12, 1946, agreement between the Association and the Inter-
venor. These firms either did not give powers of attorney to the
Association before March 12, 1946, or, if they did, repudiated them
by signing separate individual agreements with Lodge 68.15 Some of
them delivered powers of attorney to the Association after March 12,
and their names were thereafter listed as bound by the master con-
tract. But this ex post facto adherence does not create true associa-
tion-wide bargaining. It is an act hardly distinguishable from that
of a company which, after the execution of the master contract, signs
a separate identical contract with the union. True association-wide
bargaining exists only where the association has received power in
advance to negotiate for and to bind the association's members. In
13 Matter of Waterfront Employers Association of the Pacific Coast , et al , 71 N L R B.
80; Matter of Bercut Richards Packing Company , et al. 64 N . L. R B. 133; Matter of
Rabin E Rappcport & Sons, et at, 62 N. L R. B. 1118 ; Matter of Advance Tanning Com-
pany, et al, 60 N L R B 923
li Compare Second Supplemental Decision in Matter of Bey cut-Richards Packing Com-
pany , et al , 68 N. L. R . B. 605 , in which the Board held that employees of an Employer
which had withdrawn from the employer association since the issuance of the original
Decision constituted a separate unit.
15 Although the powers of attorney stated that they were irrevocable , they could be
revoked Restatement of the Law of Agency, Section 118 -h. It would seem clear that the
signing of a separate contract with Lodge 68 constituted a revocation . Restatement of
the Law of Agency, Section 125.
CALIFORNIA METAL TRADES ASSOCIATION 633
this sense, only the firms which- delivered powers of attorney to the
Association before March 12, 1946, properly indicated their desire to
be part of an association-wide unit. It is also interesting to note
that, with one exception,16 only these firms had their names affixed to
the March 12 contract at the time of the signing. Accordingly, we
are of the opinion that at the present time, the Association-wide unit
should be limited to the machinists of those member firms which
delivered valid, outstanding powers of attorney to the Association
before March 12, 1946. The net result of our determinations is that
the machinists in the employ of the 80 undisputed firms, plus 4 of
the firms in dispute,- properly belong in the Association-wide unit,18
while the machinists employed by the remaining firms in dispute do
not. We conclude and find that the Association is the employer of
the machinists of the firms listed in Appendix A, attached hereto,
within the meaning of the Act.
D. Separate employer units
The Petitioner urges that separate elections be directed for the
machinists of each of the firms which are excluded from the Associa-
tion-wide unit. It filed separate petitions for only two of these ex-
cluded firnis-A ce and Belmont-and made substantial showings of
interest in each of these cases . It filed no petitions for the other ex-
cluded firms,16 i ncl the showing of interest which it made in its petition
for an association-wide unit does not show what interest, if any, it has
among the machinists of the other firms which we have excluded from
the Association -wide unit . Under these circumstances , we shall dis-
miss the petition with respect to machinists employed by all of the
excluded firms , with the exception of Ace and Belmont 20
With respect to Ace and Belmont, neither firm has ever been covered
by an association -wide bargaining contract . In view of the past
bargaining history of these two firms, we are persuaded that the
machinists employed by Ace and Belmont respectively constitute
separate appropriate units.
16 San Francisco Elevator Co delivered its power of attorney to the Association on
March 11, 1946. For some unexplained reason, its name does not appear on the master
contract
"Those listed in footnote 9
"The 84 firms whose machinists constitute the Association-wide unit ate listed in
Appendix A, attached hereto.
"Except for Oscar Krenz, Incorporated, Liberty Machine & Pole Line Co , and western
Can Company. In our Decision in California State Biewers Institute, et at, 72 N L R. B.
665. issued this day we have disposed of unit contentions with respect to machinists em-
ployed by each of three concerns We there dismissed the petition with respect to machin-
ists in the employ of Liberty Machine & Pole Line Co and found that the machinists
employed by Oscar Krenz, Incorporated, and western Can Company respectively constitute
separate appropriate units
20 This dismissal applies to the machinists of all firms listed in Appendix B, attached
hereto
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
E. Conclusions
We find that each of the following units, excluding from each unit
all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, is appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
1. All tool and die makers, machinists, specialists, helpers and
apprentices employed by members of the Association listed in Ap-
pendix A, attached hereto.
2. All tool and die makers, machinists, specialists, helpers and ap-
prentices employed by Ace.
3. All tool and die makers, machinists, specialists, helpers and ap-
prentices employed by Belmont.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by elections by secret ballot, subject to the
limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
The Petitioner requests that eligibility to vote be determined by
the first pay-roll period following the termination of the strike on
March 18, 1946, on the ground that there is a possibility of the dis-
charge of its members under the provisions of the existing agreement.
We perceive no merit in this argument as a basls,for departing from
our usual eligibility rule. We shall therefore direct that employees
within the appropriate units who are employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the issuance of the Direction of Elec-
tions shall be eligible to vote.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
As part of_ the investigations to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with California Metal Trades As-
sociation, San Francisco Machine Shop Division and its member
plants, San Francisco, California, Ace Manufacturing and Supply
Company, San Francisco, California, and Belmont Engineering Com-
pany, Behnont, California, elections by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Twentieth Region, acting in this matter as agent
for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections
203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 4, among the employees in each of the units found
appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, includ-
CALIFORNIA METAL TRADES ASSOCIATION 635
big employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because
they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including
employees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired
or reinstated prior to the date of the elections, to determine in each
unit whether they desire to be represented by United Steelworkers
of America, CIO (Successor to Machinists Union, Independent), or
by International Association of Machinists, for itself and in behalf
of its subordinate lodge, San Francisco Lodge No. 68, for the purposes
of collective bargaining, or by neither.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certi-
fication of representatives of employees of California Metal Trades
Association, San Francisco, Machine Shop Division, and its member
plants, San Francisco, California, Case No. 20-R4806, filed by United
Steel Workers of America, CIO (Successor to Machinists Union, In-
dependent) be, and it hereby is, dismissed without prejudice, insofar
only as it relates to employees of member firms listed in Appendix B,
attached hereto.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Elections.
APPENDIX A
American Can Company
American Laundry Machinery
Co.
American Machine & Metals
(Troy)
W. R. Ames Company
Anderson Steel Products Co.
Atlas Elevator Company
Chas. M. Bailey Co.
Bianchi's Machine Shop
Bodinson Manufacturing Com-
pany
C. F. Bulotti Machinery Co.
Busch Manufacturing Company
Butte Electric & Mfg. Co.
Calif. Packing Corporation
Calif. Pellett Mills
Calif. Press Mfg. Company
Calif. Screw Gompany
Carlen Tool & Die Works
A. B. Chance Company-Bowie
Switch Division
Christie Machine Works -
J. D. Cochin Mfg. Company
Coen Manufacturing Company
L. H. Cook Research Labs.
Crane Con-ipany
Carle Mfg. Company
Cyclops Iron Works
Dahno Victor Inc. .
DaLeval Pacific Company
Doi-ward Pump Company
Elite Machine Works
Enterprise Engine & Foundry
Fairbanks, Morse & Company
Federal Mogul Corporation
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Ferry Steel Products & Equip.
Co.
Forderer Cornice Works
Fraser & Johnston Company
General Tool, Die &, Stamping Co.
Goodrich Manufacturing Com-
pany
M. Greenberg's Sons
Jenkins Machine Works, Ltd.
Judson-Pacific Company
Kehoe Display Fixture Company
King Gun Sight Company
King Sales & Engineering Co.
Kingwell Bros. Ltd.
Kortick Manufacturing Co.
Larkin Specialty Mfg. Company
A. Lietz Company
Link-Belt Company-Pacific Di-
vision
Marine Electric Company
Mathews Conveyor Co.-West
Coast
Metals Manufacturing Co.
Mutual Engineering Company
National Motor Bearing Com-
pany
National Welding Equipment Co.
Nicrometal Marine Hardware
Co.
Orton Machine Company
Pacific Can Company
Pacific Electrical Mfg. Corp.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pacific Elevator & Equipment
Co.
Pacific Foundry Company
Pacific Gear &, Tool Works
Pacific Screw Products Co.
Payne's Bolt Works ,
Pelton Water Wheel Company
Price Pump Div. (Fairbanks,
Morse & Co.)
Ray Burner Company
San Francisco Elevator Co.
San Francisco Screw Products
Co.
H. M. Shanzer Company
Soule Steel Company
Stone-Ryals Electric Mfg. Co.
Superior Grinding & Motor Co.
J. A. Symon Machine Works
Turner Machinery Company
Union Machine Company
Victor Equipment Co.
Weichart-Fairmont Company
West Coast Laundry Machinery
Co.
Western Crown, Cork & Seal
Corp.
Western Piping & Engineering
Co.
Louis Weule Company
Vincent Whitney Co.
Williams & Wallace
H. C. Wrootl Machine Works
APPENDIX B
Atomized Metals Company
Brun],-'s Machine Works
Calif. Saw Works
Cherry Burrell Corporation
Connor Spring Mfg. Company
Duart Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Gettins Steel Company
International Sales Company
International Totalizer Company
Lathe Tool Works
Joseph Lawrence Company
Liberty Machine & Pole Line Co.
Michel & Pfeffer
Montague Pipe & Steel Company
Niagara Duplicator Company
Otis Elevator Company
Pump Repair Service
Reichel Engineering Company
A. Schilling Company
Stanger Manufacturing Com-
pany
U. S. Pipe & Manufacturing Co.
Jos. Wagner Mfg. Company
Western Pipe &-, Steel Company