Detroit Gasket and Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 718 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of DETROIT GASKET AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY and
LOCAL 174, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT &
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA (UAW-
CIO)
Case No. 7-R-1659.-Decided March 03, 1944
Mr. Max Rosenberg, for the Board.
Cook, Smith, Jacobs and Beake, by Mr. Grant L. Cook, and Mr. Glen
R. Miller, of Detroit, Mich., for the Company.
Mr. Nicholas J. Rothe, of Detroit, Mich., for the CIO. 0
Mr. Leonard F. Donaldson, of Detroit, Mich., for the Association.
Mr. William Strong, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Local 174, International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers Union of
America (UAW-CIO), herein called the CIO, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Detroit Gasket and Manufacturing Company, Detroit,
Michigan, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
Howard Myers, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Detroit,
Michigan, on February 21, 1944. The Company, the CIO, and De-
troit Gasket Employees Association, herein called the Association,
appeared and participated.' All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. The Company and the Association moved for dis-
missal of the petition. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling for the
1 Although at one point in the hearing , counsel for the Company stated that he appeared
only specially for the, purpose of making a motion to dismiss the petition, the Company
theicatter participated fully in the proceeding.
55 N. L. R. B., No. 128.
718
DETROIT GASKET AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 719
Board. For reasons 'stated more fully below, the motions are denied.2
All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, a Michigan corporation, is engaged at Detroit, Mich-
igan, in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of metal, cork, and
other gaskets and insulation materials. During 1943 the Company
purchased raw materials valued at approximately $10,000,000, about
75 percent of which was shipped to the plant from points outside the
State of Michigan. During the same period, the total value of the
Company's finished products was approximately $5,000,000, about 40
percent of which was shipped to points outside that State.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 174, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
Agricultural Implement Workers Union of America (UAW-CIO),
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and Detroit
Gasket Employees Association are labor organizations admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the C. I. O. as the
exclusive bargaining representative of certain the Company's em-
ployees.
At the hearing the Company and the Association asserted that a
contract between the Company and the Association constitutes a bar
to this investigation of representatives, for the reason that timely
notice of its claims had not been given by the CIO.3 The CIO wrote
to the Company on November 24, 1943, stating its recognition demands,
and the Company admittedly received the letter on November 30, 1943.
The contract in question was executed on April 2, 1943, is retroactive
to January 1, 1943, and provides that it is to continue in effect until
December 31, 1943, and for yearly terms thereafter until written notice
of desired cancellation is given by either party 30 days prior to the
annual renewal date. At the hearing, the Company and the Associa-
tion claimed that the 30-day provision contained in the contract was
2 See Section III, infra
3 Cf Matter of Mill B Inc., 40 N. L. R. B. 346, and Matter of Owens-Illinois Pacific
Coast Co., 36 N. L. It. B. 990.
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an error, and that the true intent of the parties had been to include a
60=day notice provision, and pointed to their previous contracts con-
taining a 60-day clause as evidence of their true intention. The Com-
pany and the Association moved for reformation of the contract; the
Trial Examiner properly denied the motion. We are here concerned
with the question of whether under the circumstances the contract
presents a bar to a present determination of representatives, rather
than the actual intent of the parties to the contract. The record dis-
closes that the CIO had sought an investigation of representatives in
April 1943 and in July 1943 was apprised of the existence of the con-
tract and of its 30-day notice provision. The CIO thereupon with-
drew its petition. A copy of the contract containing the 30-day clause
was also posted by the Company on the bulletin board in the plant, in
October 1943. In the light of these facts and of the CIO's timely
notification of its representation claims prior to the 30-day period, we
see no reason to assume that had the CIO been aware of the necessity
to repeat its representation claims 60 days before the anniversary date
of the contract, it would have failed to take that crucial step. The
parties to the contract cannot now be heard to complain, since the CIO
relied on the express terms of the agreement which they themselves
reduced to writing. We find that the contract does not constitute a
bar to this proceeding.
We also find no merit in the Company's objection to organizational
efforts of employees and to the holding of elections under the Act
during the war, and we deny the Company's motion on those grounds
for dismissal of the petition.4 No election has been held among the
Company's employees since November 1941. Our experience per-
suades us that the exercise by employees of self-organizational and
collective bargaining rights under the Act tends to further. rather than
retard effective production for the hear effort.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.5
4The Company complains in the main that the CIO engaged in unpropei organizational
methods, including the malicious slander of the Company and threats, coercion and intimi-
dation of the employees, producing a countercampaign by the Association, all of which
had the effect of harrassing the Company and the employees and interfering with the war
effort In support of its contentions in this respect, the Company offered no evidence,
except certain circulars which it claims were distributed to its employees by the CIO The
Trial Examiner rejected these circulars for the reason that they were incompetent, irrelevant
and immaterial Ilowevei, copies of the circulars, attached to the Company's motion papers,
are before us while we believe that the Trial Examiner properly rejected these proffered
exhibits, it is evident, and we conclude, that they fail to sustain the Company's assertions,
and disclose no organizational activity on the part of the CIO requiring dismissal of the
petition.
Responsive circulars were distributed by the Association , none were offered in evidence,
however.
6 The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 224 authorization cai ds all of
which bore apparently genuine original signatures, and that approximately 500 employees
DETROIT GASKET AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 721
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in substantial agreement with a stipulation of the parties,
that all hourly rated employees at the Detroit plant of the Company,
excluding office employees, full-time plant clerical employees, full-
time restaurant employees, timekeepers, plant-protection employees,
watchmen, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.6
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who Were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.7
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, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Detroit Gasket
and Manufacturing Company, Detroit , Michigan, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible , but not later than thirty
are in the appropriate unit. The Association submitted no evidence of its designation,
except its closed-shop contract with the Company.
The Company objects to the Field Examiner's statement that although requested to do
so, the Company failed to submit its pay roll in connection with the inquiry by the Field
Examiner into the CIO's representation interest in the employees in the unit, and states
further that these is no showing that the persons named on the CIO's cards are employees
of the Company . A copy of the pay roll was produced at the hearing Under all the cir-
cumstances here present , we conclude that the CIO has shown an interest sufficiently sub-
stantial to warrant our proceeding further in this matter
a'I'his unit appears to be substantially the same as that recognized between the Company
and the Association in their collective agreements.
7 The Unions desire to appear on the ballot as "International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO)" and "Detroit Gasket
Employees Association (DGEA)." The requests are hereby granted.
578129-44-vol 55 47
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula-
tions, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not
work during the said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca-
tion or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed
forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the
polls, but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the
election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW-CIO), or by Detroit Gasket Em-
ployees Association (DGEA) for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, or by neither.