Lord Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 667 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of LORD MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED RUBBER
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 6-B-983.-Decided March 13,1946
Messrs. W. Pitt Gifford and Thomas Lord, both of Erie, Pa., for
the Company.
Messrs. Robert E. Snuff and Carl A. Swartz, both of Erie, Pa., for
the CIO.
Messrs. Fred N. Lovejoy and Gordon E. Winchell, both of Erie, Pa.,
for the LEA.
Mr. A. G. Skundor, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Messrs. Robert A.
Warner and W. D. Dunlavey, of Erie, Pa., for the AFL.
51r. Herbert C. Kane, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Rubber Workers of America,
CIO, herein called the CIO, alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Lord
Manufacturing Company, Erie, Pennsylvania, herein called the Com-
pany, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice before Allen Sinsheimer, Trial Ex-
aminer. Said hearing was held at Erie, Pennsylvania, on November
20, 1944. The Company, the CIO,' the American Federation of
Labor, appearing on behalf of itself and the International Association
of Machinists and the International Brotherhood of Firemen and
Oilers, herein collectively called the AFL, and Lord Employees Asso-
ciation, herein called the LEA, appeared and participated 2 On
January 15, 1946, pursuant to an order of the Board, a further hear-
ing upon due notice was held at Erie, Pennsylvania, before W. C.
I The CIO waived the right to protest any election held as a result of this proceeding
on the basis of the charges of unfair labor practices filed by it in Case No. 6-C-915.
2 At this hearing the Trial Examiner granted the motion of the AFL and LEA to
intervene
66 N. L. R. B., No. 91.
667
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Stuart Sherman, Trial Examiner. The Company,3 the CIO, and the
LEA appeared and participated.4 All parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiners'
rulings made at the hearings 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:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Lord Manufacturing Company, a Pennsylvania corporation; is en-
gaged at its Erie, Pennsylvania, plant in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of anti-vibration mountings and similar products. The
principal raw materials used by the Company are steel, aluminum,
and monel. During the period from September 10, 1945, through
December 31, 1945, the Company purchased raw materials and other
items valued in excess of $600,000, of which approximately 18 percent
represented purchases from sources outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. During the same period the Company manufactured,
sold, and handled products of a value in excess of $600,000, of which
approximately 90 percent represented shipments to points outside the
Commonwealth.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Rubber Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
Lord Employees Association is an unaffiliated labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
s At the time of the original bearing the Company's plant was in the control and
possession of the United States Navy, and for that reason the Company appeared
specially to contest its status as an employer under Section 2 (2) of the Act, However,
by the time of the further hearing , the United States Navy had returned the premises
to the control of the Company and the Company appeared generally.
'Although served with notice of further hearing, the AFL did not appear at the
further hearing . Moreover , by the time of the reopened hearing the International
Association of Machinists and the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers had
forwarded to the Board' s Regional Office requests for the withdrawal of their interven.
tions which we hereby grant.
LORD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 669
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On May 25, 1943, as a result of a Board directed election,5 the
LEA was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
production and maintenance employees of the Company. There-
after, on July 22, 1943, the Company and the LEA entered into a
contract covering these employees for an initial period of 1 year
ending July 22, 1944. The contract provided further that it would
continue in full force and effect from year to year thereafter, in the
absence of notice by either party, at least 30 days before the anni-
versary date, of a desire to terminate or modify the contract. By
letter dated June 17, 1944, the CIO requested a collective bargaining
conference with the Company, asserting that it represented a sub-
stantial number of the Company's employees. The Company, by
letter dated June 20, 1944, replied that it was under contract with
the LEA and that it refused to recognize the CIO. On June 20,
1944, the CIO filed its petition with the Board.
At the reopened hearing the Company urged the contract between
it and the LEA as a bar to a present determination of representatives
on the ground that it had been automatically renewed in 1944 and
1945, and was, therefore, in effect until July 22, 1946. In support of
its position, the Company argues that the letter of June 17, 1944, in
which the CIO alleged that it represented a substantial number of
the Company's employees, was not sufficient to put the Company on
notice of the CIO's rival claim, in that it did not allege that the
CIO represented a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit.
We do not agree. In our opinion, the letter of June 17, 1944, was
sufficient to put the Company on notice that the contracting union
had an active rival and to preclude the Company from effectively
barring that rival union by renewing its agreement with the con-
tracting unions Moreover, the fact that the petition was filed 2 days
before the effective automatic renewal notice date, in itself, precludes
the creation of a bar. Accordingly, we find that the contract between
the Company and the LEA does not prevent a current determination
of representatives.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the C. I. O. represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate .7
5 49 N. L. R. B. 278.
0 See Matter of Buffalo Arms Corporation, 57 N. L It. B. 1560.
9 At the reopened hearing the Trial Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 169
authorization cards; that 168 of these cards appeared to have genuine , original signa-
tures ; and that a spot check of 100 of the cards against the Company's January 6, 1946,
pay roll revealed that 99 of these cards bore the names of persons listed on that pay
roll . There are approximately 370 employees in the appropriate unit . The LEA, in
addition to relying on its contract with the Company as evidence of its interest, sub-
mitted 83 application -for-membership cards to the Trial Examiner , Seventy-five of
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 accord with the agreement of the parties,
that all production and maintenance employees of the Company at
its Erie, Pennsylvania, plant, including time clerks who work
throughout the plant, nonmonitorial guards and watchmen," and non-
professional laboratory employees, but excluding foremen, assistant
foremen, professional technical, office and clerical employees, and all
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes at the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Company contends that no election should be directed at this
time because (1) the unit has not reached its maximum strength and
(2) the Company does not have a sufficiently stable and representa-
tive group of employees to warrant an election. The record shows
that approximately 2 weeks after September 10, 1945, the date when
the United States Navy relinquished control and possession of the
plant involved herein, the Company, in order to fill a backlog of
orders, resumed production. By September 30, 1945, the Company
had 238 production and maintenance employees, and by December 31,
1945, the Company's complement of such employees reached about
375, a level which it has since maintained. The Company contem-
plates that its full complement will be between 1,500 and 2,000 pro-
these cards bore the names of persons listed on the Company's pay roil of January 6,
1946.
At the reopened hearing the CIO objected to the granting of a place on the ballot
to the LEA on the ground that the LEA had become dormant before the hearing In
the instant case was reopened. The Trial Examiner referred this objection to the Board.
Because it is abundantly clear from the foregoing that the LEA is a functioning labor
organization with a sufficient interest in the proceeding to entitle it to a place on the
ballot, we shall overrule the objections and include the LEA on the ballot.
B On February 25, 1943, the Board found appropriate a unit of the Company's mili-
tarized guards (47 N. L. it. B. 1032). Thereafter, following an election, the CIO was
certified by the Board as the collective bargaining representative of these employees.
At the time of the reopened hearing the guards were no longer militarized or deputized.
The CIO sought the inclusion in a production and maintenance unit of the guards, as
well as the watchmen who are also unmilitarized and undeputized. The other parties
took no position on this issue. Under all the circumstances and because the record does
not disclose whether these employees have monitorial or non-monitorial functions, we
are herewith making provision for the inclusion of the guards and watchmen only if
they possess non-monitorial functions.
LORD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 671
duction and maintenance employees, and that it will attain that goal
within 2 years, by hiring, as soon as conditions warrant, between 100
and 150 employees per month. The record further shows that this
change will apparently invoke no materially different operations or
processes. At the time of the hearing, the Company was experiencing
same delay in its plans since it was then considering the reduction of
the working week from between 40 and 45 hours to 32 hours in order
to spread the work among an employee complement too large for the
work on hand.
Under these circumstances, we do not believe that the large number
of employees with representative skills now working at the plant
should be deprived simply because the Company intends to expand
its working force, of their present rights to bargain collectively with
the Company as provided in the Act. We shall, accordingly, proceed
with an immediate determination of representatives. However, be-
cause the number of production and maintenance employees may
more than double within a comparatively short time as a result of
the Company's planned expansion, we shall entertain a new repre-
sentation petition affecting the employees in this unit within a period
less than 1 year but not before the expiration of 6 months from the
date of any certification which we may issue in this proceeding upon
proof that (1) the number of employees in this unit is more than
double the number of employees eligible to vote in the election herein-
after directed; and (2) the petitioning labor organization represents
a substantial number of employees in the expanded units
We shall, accordingly, direct that the question concerning repre-
sentation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot
among the employees in the appropriate unit who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of our
Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions
set forth in the Direction.
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 Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Lord Manufac-
turing Company, Erie, Pennsylvania, an election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
9 See Matter of United Engineering ,t Foundry Co., 57 N. L It B 1208; Matter of
Aluminum Company of America, 52 N. L. R. B. 1040.
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Sixth 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 Regulations, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above,
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preced-
ing the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work
during the 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 themselves 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 election, to determine whether they desire to be represented
by United Rubber Workers of America, CIO, or by Lord Employees
Association, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.