Landis Machine Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 282 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of LANDIS MACHINE COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER
Case No. 6-R-1410.-Decided October 4,,1946
Messrs. Moultrie Hitt and John C. Gall, both of Washington, D. C.,
and Messrs. Crawford N. Kirkpatrick and John J. Schmidt, both of
Waynesboro, Pa., for the Employer.
Messrs. Robert P. O'Donnell and Harold N. Pittman, both of
Waynesboro, Pa., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Arthur Christopher, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on
June 13, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among employees, of
the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether
or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes
of collective bargaining.'
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 675 eligible
voters and that 600 of these eligible voters cast ballots, of which 347
were for the Petitioner and 253 were against the Petitioner.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, on
July 11, 1946, before W. G. Stuart Sherman, hearing officer. At the
hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground
that the document indicates on its face that Petitioner does not rep-
resent a majority of the employees in the alleged appropriate unit.
The hearing officer referred the motion to the Board for ruling thereon.
For reasons stated hereinafter, the motion is denied. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
'On June 10, 1946, before the election herein , the Employer filed with the Regional
Director a motion to correct the procedure in which it questioned the Board's practice of
holding prehearing elections and argued that "on principles of equity and sound public
policy a hearing should certainly precede an election in order to afford an opportunity to
any other party or parties who might hod they had an interest to appear, and give testi-
mony in advance upon which the Board might thereafter decide advisedly, in the light of
the evidence , whether an election was necessary or proper ." The Regional Director denied
the motion . We have previously considered similar contentions in analogous cases and,
as in those cases, find them to be lacking in merit. Accordingly, we hereby sustain the
Regional Director' s ruling Matter of E. R. Squibb & Sons , 67 N. L. R. B. 557 . Cf., also,
Inland Empire District Council, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union v. Millis, et al., 325
U. S 697.
71 N. L. R. B., No. 33.
282
LANDIS MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 283
and are hereby affirmed. The request of the Employer for oral argu-
ment before the Board is hereby denied inasmuch as we are of the
opinion that the record adequately presents the issues and the positions
of the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Landis Machine Company , a Pennsylvania corporation , is engaged
in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of threading and cutting
machines , die heads , and collapsible taps at its plant in Waynesboro,
Pennsylvania . During the 1-year period ending June 10, 1946, the
Employer purchased approximately $1,250,000 worth of raw materials
for use in its manufacturing operations at this plant , of which amount
about 20 percent represented shipments from sources outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania . During the same period , the Em-
ployer sold and distributed from this plant in excess of $4,000,000
worth of finished products , of which amount approximately 75 percent
represented shipments to points outside the Commonwealth.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On March 12, 1946, the Petitioner requested recognition as the
exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer in
the alleged appropriate unit. The Employer refused such recognition.
On May 3, 1946, the Petitioner filed its' petition. In its brief the Em-
ployer, in effect, urged that the June 15, 1944, contract between it and
International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 513, herein called
the IAM, constitutes a bar to this proceeding.
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election,2 the Board, on
April 5, 1944, certified the IAM as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees here involved. On June 15, 1944, the Em-
ployer and the JAM executed a collective bargaining contract cover-
ing these employees. It provided for an initial period of 1 year and for
its automatic renewal from year to year thereafter, unless either party
gave notice in writing at least 30 days before any anniversary date of
2 54 N L R B 1440.
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a desire to modify or terminate the agreement. At the close of the first
year an issue arose between the parties as to whether the contract was
automatically renewed for another year. This issue and others were
thereupon certified to the War Labor Board which issued its directive
-early in 1945 and found, among other things, that the contract had not
expired on the first anniversary date. Although the parties entered
into further negotiations, the last conference being held in March of
1946, they were unable to agree upon the terms of another contract.
In fact, it now appears that the IAM has surrendered its charter to its
parent organization and has, through its International representative,
advised an agent of the Board that it has no interest in this proceeding.
As appears above, the petition was filed on May 3, 1946, in advance
of the operative date in 1946 of the 30-day automatic renewal notice
clause in the contract. It is well settled, therefore, in view of the
timeliness of the petition, that the contract cannot operate as a bar to
an election at this time.3 Moreover, and apart from other considera-
tions, we find that the fact that the IAM has ceased to function as a
representative of the employees of the Employer renders the June 15,
1944, contract with the Employer ineffective as a bar to this
proceeding.'
The Employer contends, also, that the petition should be dismissed
on the ground that the document indicates on its face that Petitioner
does not represent a majority of the employees of the Employer. It
points, in this connection, to the following statement therein : "The
Unit contains approximately 500 employees, of which number 243 have
designated or selected petitioner as their bargaining representative."
We find no merit in the Employer's position. It is clear that a peti-
tioner need not establish its majority status in advance of an election.5
At the petition stage of the proceeding, all that is necessary is that the
petitioner place the employer on notice of its claim to majority repre-
sentation. And we have held that the filing of a petition in itself meets
that requirement .6 Moreover, Petitioner specifically apprised the
Employer of its majority claim by its letter of March 12, 1946, re-
questing exclusive recognition. The provision in the petition for a
statement as to the showing of the labor. organization is merely to help
the Board or its agent to determine administratively whether there is a
probability that the petitioner maybe selected by a majority. Indeed,
the election results have vindicated the Regional Director's judgment
in that connection. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the Employer's
motion to dismiss the petition on this ground.
3Matter of Michigan Producers' Dairy Company, 68 N. L. R. B. 6, and cases cited
therein.
4 Matter of Air Utilities, Inc, 70 N. L. R. B 887 , and cases cited therein.
° Beebe Corporation v. Millis, et al., 58 Fed . Supp. 993.
° Matter of Chicago Bridge and Iron Co ., 68 N. L. R. B. 470 , and cases cited therein.
LANDIS MACHINE COMPANY, INC. 285
For reasons stated by us in the 0. D. Jennings case,7 we also find no
merit in the Employer's objection to the absence of evidence in the
record as to the number of employees who have designated the Peti-
tioner as their exclusive representative for collective bargaining
purposes.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties , that all
production and maintenance employees of the Employer, including
sweepers but excluding janitors, foundry and pattern shop employees,
draftsmen , office and clerical employees, watchmen , plant-protection
employees , 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
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act."
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held previous to the hearing show that
the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast. Under
these circumstances, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-
CIO) has been designated and selected by a majority of all production
and maintenance employees of Landis Machine Company, Inc.,
Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, including sweepers but excluding jani-
tors, foundry and pattern shop employees, draftsmen, office and cler-
ical employees, watchmen, plant protection employees, and all super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis-
cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9
(a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of
all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with re-
spect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tion's of employment.
Matter of 0 D Jennenq.a & Compan y, 68 N L It B 516
s The election was held among employees in this unit.