Lewis Bolt and Nut Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 11, 1940

23 N.L.R.B. 708 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of LEWIS BOLT AND NUT COMPANY and UNITED
ELECTRICAL RADIO MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1140
(C. I. 0.)
Case No. R-177d.-Decided May 11, 1940
Bolt and Nut Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives:
petition for, dismissed without prejudice, where filed 5 months after execution
of contract of 1 year duration which granted exclusive recognition to statutory
representative never before so recognized by employer; no controversy con-
cerning representation ; (Smith, concurring) the history of labor relations
between the employer and the contracting labor organization prior to execu-
tion of said contract affords no reason for concluding, where organization never
established itself as the statutory representative, that, despite brevity of rela-
tions under contract, an election at the present time would effectuate the
policies of the Act-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: as covered by
contract and stipulated to by the parties, found appropriate.
Mr. Lester Asher, for the Board.
Doherty, Rumble, Butler, Sullivan d Mitchell, by Mr. Irving
Clark, of St. Paul, Minn., for the Company.
Helstein c>c Hall, by Mr. Ralph L. Helstein, of Minneapolis, Minn.,
for the United.
Mr. Herman Husman, of Minneapolis, Minn., for the I. A. M.
Mr. Richard Johnston, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 25, 1940, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers
of America, Local 1140,1 a labor organization herein called the
United, filed a petition 2 with the Regional Director for the Eight-
eenth Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota), alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Lewis Bolt & Nut Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
1 This is the correct designation of this labor organization.
The petition was filed by Arlye Glynn in behalf of the United.
8 This is the correct designation of the Company.
23 N. L. R. B., No. 68.
708
LEWIS BOLT AND NUT COMPANY 709
herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On February 27, 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 March 11 the Re-
gional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which, together
with copies of the petition, were duly served upon the Company, upon
the United, and upon District No. 77 of International Association
of Machinists, a labor organization, herein called the I. A. M., claim-
ing through Local 382 of District No. 77 of International Association
of Machinists, a local thereof, herein called Local 382 of the I. A. M.,
to represent employees directly affected by the investigation. Pur-
suant to the notice a hearing was held on March 21 at Minneapolis,
Minnesota, before Berdon M. Bell, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Board. The Board, the Company, the United, and the
I. A. M. appeared and were represented by counsel or by a representa-
tive. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. During the course
of the hearing the Trial Examiner made various rulings on the
admission of evidence. He granted a motion by the United to amend
the pleadings in respect to the name of the Company. At the con-
clusion of the hearing the Company moved to dismiss the petition
herein, and ruling thereon was reserved for the Board. The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On March 26 the Company submitted to the Board a memorandum
in support of its motion to dismiss, and on April 9 the United sub-
mitted a memorandum setting forth its position. For reasons here-
inafter appearing, the motion is granted. On April 15 the Board
approved a stipulation of the parties providing for corrections of
the report of proceedings, and made it part of the record herein.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Lewis Bolt & Nut Company is a Minnesota corporation engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of bolts, nuts, rivets, highway
guard rail materials, pole line hardware, and special forged products,
- 283034-41-vol 23-46
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,and in hot galvanizing. Its only plant is located in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. It employs approximately 147 employees.
The Company purchases annually for use in its manufacturing
processes at the plant approximately 4,000 tons of bar steel and wire
rod. About 15 per cent of these raw materials are shipped to the
plant from steel mills located in the States of Illinois, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania. The Company also regularly purchases various prod-
ucts manufactured by other concerns, some of which it processes, and
which it' sells and distributes. Approximately 85 per cent of the
manufactured products which it purchases are shipped to the plant
from outside the State of Minnesota.
The amount of the Company's total annual sales is about $850,000,
30 per cent of which sales represent products shipped from the Min-
neapolis plant to persons located in States other than Minnesota.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local
1140, is a labor organization chartered by United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers of America, a labor organization affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations. The United admits to
membership all factory production employees of the Company.
Local 382 of District No. 77 of International Association of
Machinists, is a labor organization chartered by International As-
sociation of Machinists, a labor organization, affiliated with Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, admitting to its membership all factory
production employees of the Company. District No. 77 of Inter-
national Association of Machinists is a labor organization, including
Local 382 of the I. A. M. as a constituent organization.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
As representative of employees at the Minneapolis plant, the
I. A. M. in 1936 first began negotiations with the Company for a
contract covering working conditions of these employees . There is
no showing that at that time or at any time thereafter prior to
September 1, 1939, the I. A. M. was designated as collective bargain-
ing representative by a majority of the employees in the collective
bargaining unit hereinafter found to be appropriate or in any other
unit, or that the I. A. M. was recognized by the Company as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of employees in such
unit. In September 1936 the Company, with approval of the
I. A. M., issued a "statement of policy" governing wages, hours, and
other working conditions of the plant employees . The statement
also provided a procedure for the handling of employee grievances
through an employee committee , and for arbitration of grievances
LEWIS BOLT AND NUT COMPANY 711
in certain cases. The statement of policy was non-contractual in
character and did not name the I. A. M. or any other labor organi-
zation in the text or as a party. However, the employee committee
which functioned under the statement was one appointed by the
I. A. M. Following issuance of the statement of policy this com-
mittee dealt with the Company in respect to employee grievances
and likewise regarding certain modifications in the provisions of the
statement.
In May 1939 the United began solicitation of members among
employees of the Company. This effort, however, was unsuccessful.
In August 1939 the Company and the I. A. M. entered into a col-
lective contract, dated September 1, 1939, effective for a period of 1
year and thereafter terminable upon 30 days' notice in writing by
either party desiring a change. The contract provided for exclusive
recognition of the I. A. M. as collective bargaining representative
of employees of the Company in the unit hereinafter found to be
appropriate, and covered their wages, hours of service, and other
working conditions. At the time this contract was executed a
majority of the employees in the unit were members of Local 382
of the I. A. M. and, accordingly, of the I. A. M. Under Section 9
(a) of the Act the I. A. M. and Local 382 thereof were then the
exclusive representative of all employees in said unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other conditions of employment.
Following execution of the contract, in December 1939 and Janu-
ary 1940; a substantial number of the employees in the appropriate
unit applied for membership in the United and authorized that
organization to represent them for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing. An examination by the Regional Director of the various mem-
bership records and authorization cards submitted by the I. A. M.
and the United disclosed that there was considerable duplication
as to their respective memberships among employees in the unit, and
each "union claims upon this evidence to represent a majority of the
employees in the unit. But for the duplication, the claim of either
organization might be accepted as true.
In January 1940 the United notified the Company that it claimed
to represent for purposes of collective bargaining a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit and that, therefore, it was the
sole bargaining representative of all employees in the unit. The Com-
pany refused to recognize or bargain collectively with the United
as such representative, because of its above-mentioned contract of
September 1, 1939, with the I. A. M. Thereafter the United filed
its petition herein.
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board is of the opinion that it should not proceed at this
time with an investigation and certification of representatives, and
accordingly that the petition for investigation- and -certification of
representatives should be dismissed without prejudice. The chair-
man concurs in such dismissal for reasQns previously stated in deci-
sions of the Board.' Where a contract of reasonable duration and
providing for exclusive recognition is made with a legitimate labor
organization which is the statutory representative of the employees
as to whom recognition is granted, the Board in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act to attain stabilized labor relations in industry
through collective bargaining agreements should not proceed, pend-
ing the contract, to an investigation and determination of repre-
sentatives. Mr. Leiserson concurs on the facts in this case only.5
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The United, the I. A. M., the Company, and counsel for the Board
stipulated and agreed at the hearing that all factory production
employees of the Company, but excluding supervisory employees,
employees having the right to hire and discharge, clerical and office
employees, watchmen, janitors, and matrons, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The exclusive
recognition provision of the contract dated September 1, 1939, and
other of its provisions relate to employees within this, unit. We see
no reason for not finding this unit to be appropriate, and accordingly
we find that at the time the contract of September 1, 1939, was exe-
cuted, and thereafter, all factory production employees of the Com-
pany, excluding supervisory employees, employees having the right
to hire and discharge, clerical and office employees, watchmen, jani-
tors, and matrons, constituted and constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit insured and
insures to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right
to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise
effectuates the policies of the Act.
* Matter of Bon Ton Curtain Company and American Federation of Labor, Federal Union,
20 N. L. R B. 462; Matter of American Hair & Felt Company and Jute, Hair & Felt
Workers Local # 163 (United Furniture Workers of America, C. 1. 0.), 15 N. L R. B. 572;
Matter of The National Sugar Refining Company of New Jersey, L. I. City Refinery and
Local 11,76, Sugar Refinery Workers International Longshoremen 's Asa'n ., 10 N. L. R. B
1410; Matter of Superior Electrical Products Co and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and
Helpers International Union, Local No. 18, 6 N . L R B. 19. Cf Matter of Pacific Grey-
hound Lines and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 22 N L R. B. 111 , footnote 57;
Matter of Ansley Radio Corporation and Local 1221 United Electrical & Radio Workers of
America, C. I. 0., 18 N. L. R. B. 1028.
6 See his concurring opinion in Matter of American Hair & Felt Company and Jute, Hair
& Felt Workers Local # 163 (United Furniture Workers of America, C. 1 O ), 15 N L R B
572, 578
LEWIS BOLT AND NUT COMPANY 713
Upon 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 Lewis
Bolt & Nut Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, now exists, within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act.
k, ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion
of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby dismisses, with-
out prejudice, the petition for investigation and certification of
representatives filed herein by United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America, Local 1140.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, concurring :
I concur in the dismissal of the petition, without prejudice.
I agree, that, the, purposes of the Act will be effectuated in this
case by our not now proceeding to a determination of representa-
tives. Here only 5 months elapsed between the making of the
I. A. M. exclusive recognition contract and the filing of the peti-
tion." The contract purports to cover fully wages, hours, and other
Working conditions. In the Bon Ton Curtain Company case 7 the
Board unanimously dismissed a petition for investigation and certi-
fication of representatives, because of the "short duration of labor
relations under the contract." While the period between the mak-
ing of the exclusive recognition contract there involved and the
filing of the petition was shorter than the period here involved, the
reason for the dismissal there stated is applicable. The history of
labor relations between the I. A. M. and the Company prior to the
execution of the contract of September 1, 1939, affords no reason
for concluding that despite the brevity of relations under the con-
tract, an election at the present time would effectuate the purposes
of the Act. The I. A. M. never attained the status of statutory
representative, nor was it so recognized by the Company, prior to
the making of the contract."
e Compare my separate opinions in Matter of The National Sugar Refining Company of
New Jersey, L. I. City Refinery and Local 1476, Sugar Refinery Workers, International Long-
shoremen 's Ass'n, 10 N. L. R. B. 1410, and Matter of A merican Hair & Felt Company and
Jute, Hair & Felt Workers Local No 163 (United Furniture Workers of America, C. I. 0.),
15 N. L. It. B 572 , where more than 1 year had elapsed following certification by the
Board of the contracting union or its obtaining exclusive recognition through a consent
election No such facts are here shown
7 Matter of Bon Ton Curtain Company and American Federation of Labor, Federal Union,
20 N. L. R. B. 462.
8 See footnote 6, supra.