Mattison Machine Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1599 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

MATTISON MACHINE WORKS 15599
there is sufficient community of interest between seasonal and non-
seasonal employees as to terms and conditions of employment to
warrant the inclusion of the former group in the unit. Therefore,
in accord with the Regional Director 's recommendation we overrule
the challenges to their ballots.'
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Second
Region shall , within 10 days from the date of this Direction, open
and count the ballots of Clarence White, Jose Felipe Aponte, Edith
Corbett, and Eva Eason and the ballots of those employees listed
in Appendix B (seasonal workers ) attached to the Regional Di-
rector's report on challenges and prepare and serve upon the - parties
a supplemental tally of ballots.]
6 See, e . g., J. G. Boswell Company, 107 NLRB. 360, 361-362 ; Utah Canning Company,
100 NLRB 606, 607; Libby, McNeill ,& Libby, 90 NLRB 279, 280.
Mattison Machine Works and United Automobile , Aircraft &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America , UAW-AFI^CIO.
Case No. 13-CA-2784. February W, 1959..
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 18, 1958, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending, that it cease and desist therefrom
and, take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, 'the Respondent
filed'exceptious to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.'
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire Tecord
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the' Trial Examiner.
' In its answer, the Respondent alleged certain matters to the effect that the Union was
not properly certified by the Board. At the hearing, the General Counsel moved to strike
these allegations and the Charging Party joined in such motion. The Trial Examiner
referred the motion to the' Board. As the Board has already determined in the earlier
representation proceeding that these allegations did not raise substantial and material
issues, we hereby grant the motion to strike.
122 NLRB No. 189.
1600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Mattison Ma-
chine Works, Rockford, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive certified representative of all production
and maintenance employees at its Rockford, Illinois, plant, including
plant clerical employees, but excluding office clerical employees, pro-
fessional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts
of the said labor organization to bargain collectively with the Re-
spondent on behalf of the employees in the appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain. collectively with United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the
appropriate unit described above, concerning rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement. .
(b) Post at its plant in Rockford, Illinois, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." z Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, as to what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
MATTISON MACHINE WORKS
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
1601
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW-AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all our em-
ployees in the certified bargaining unit described below with
respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment and, if any understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bar-
gaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees at our Rock-
ford, Illinois, plant, including plant clerical employees, but
excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with
the efforts of the above-named labor organization to bargain
collectively with us, or refuse to bargain with said Union, as
the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bar-
gaining unit set forth above.
MATTISON MACHINE WORKS,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A charge having been duly filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing
thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, and an answer having been filed by the above-reamed Re-
spondent Company, a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, was held in Rockford, Illinois, on
July 22, 1958.
At the hearing all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence per-
tinent to the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and pro-
posed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Agreement was waived. A brief
has been received from General Counsel.
At the hearing ruling was reserved upon two motions: (1) by General Counsel
to strike certain portions of the Respondent's answer; and (2) by the Respondent
to dismiss the complaint. Since the matters raised in the answer which General
1602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Counsel seeks to have stricken have already been before the Board, according to
a concession by counsel for the Respondent, it appears to the Trial Examiner that
he is bound by the Board's administrative decision and that consideration of such
matters is not appropriately before him. However, since the Board may wish to
reconsider the issues raised in such sections of the answer, the said motion to
strike is referred by the Trial Examiner to the Board for its action thereon. As
to the motion to dismiss, it is hereby denied.
. All evidence introduced at the hearing was documentary, or in the form of oral
stipulations.
After the close of the hearing, a motion was received from counsel for the
Respondent to have included in the official record a certain affidavit (of Herbert
Habecker) and attachments. The motion was made pursuant to an understanding
reached by all parties at the hearing. Said motion is granted. The motion and its
attachments are hereby made a part of the official record.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Mattison Machine Works is an Illinois corporation with principal office and
place of business in Rockford, Illinois, where it is engaged in the manufacture of
machine tools, woodworking machinery, and other related products.
During the calendar year 1956 the Respondent purchased raw materials and
equipment from outside the State of Illinois, for shipment directly to its Rock-
ford plant, valued at more than $500,000. During the same period, it manufactured
and shipped products directly to and performed services for customers located
outside the State of Illinois valued at'more than $100,000.
The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. (The
Respondent concedes the fact, and the Board so found. in its Decision and Direc-
tion of Election, in Case No. 13-RC-5405, dated June 28, 1958, unpublished.)
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW-AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges, the Board found (in its Supplemental Decision and Cer-
tification of Representatives, 120 NLRB 58), and in accordance with the Board's
determination the Trial Examiner now finds that a unit appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, among the
Respondent's employees, consists, of: .
All production and maintenance employees including plant clerical employees
employed at its Rockford, Illinois, plant, but excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
A Board election was held July 23, 1957, pursuant to the above-cited Decision
and Direction of Election. On or about March 6, 1958, the Board certified that
the Charging Union had been designated and selected by a majority of the em-
ployees in the above-described unit and that pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act,
said Union is the exclusive representative of said employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment. Later in March, and again in May 1958,
the Union requested the Respondent to bargain. The Respondent refused, and
continues to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union.
It appears that the Respondent has taken and maintained the position that the
Board-conducted election was improperly conducted, and that the Board has erred
in its certification. Clearly the merit of the Respondent's position is not before
the Trial Examiner for his determination. Since the Respondent offered no new
evidence, or raised matters not already passed upon by the Board, the Trial Exam-
iner considers his position to be merely that of a medium through whom questions
previously raised may again be considered by the Board.
The Trial Examiner therefore concludes and finds, on the basis of the record
before him, that at all times since March 20, 1958, the Respondent has refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees
in the above-described unit, and that by such refusal the Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise -of rights guaranteed by
the Act.
UNIO}q DE SOLDADORES , MECANICOS, ETC. 1603
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring is
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
.It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practice
of refusing to bargain collectively with the chosen representative of its employees
in an appropriate unit. It will therefore be recommended that it cease and desist
therefrom and from like. and related conduct . It will further be recommended
that the Respondent, upon request , bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW-AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees including plant clerical employees
employed at the Respondent 's Rockford , Illinois, plant , but excluding office clerical
employees , professional employees , guards , and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
3- The said labor organization was on March 6 , 1958 , and at all times since
then has been , the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
4. By refusing on and after March 20, 1958 , to bargain collectively with the
aforesaid Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain with the Union, the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning .of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Union de Soldadores, Mecanicos, Montadores de Acero, Aux-
iliares y Ramas , Anexas, Local 1839, ILA-Ind ., and Inter-
national Longshoremen 's Association , District Council of the
Ports of Puerto Rico , ILA-Ind.' [Sucesores de Abarca, Inc.]
.and Luis Rodriguez , Arroyo. Case No. 24-CB 191. Febru-
ary 26, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 21, 1958, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his
Intermediate Report in this case, finding that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act, and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
1 Hereinafter referred to as Local 1839 and District Council, respectively.
122 NLRB No. 188.