Metropolitan Engineering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1938

8 N.L.R.B. 670 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of METROPOLITAN ENGINEERING Co. and METROPOLITAN
DEVICE CORP. and LOCAL No. 1224 OF UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO
AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
In the Matter Of METROPOLITAN DEVICE CORP. and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION ,No. 3
Cases Nos. R-818 and R-820, respectively.Decided July 28, 1938
Steel Products Manufacturing;' Electrical Products ifannfacturing Industry-
Investigation of Pepresentatvves: question concerning representation of em-
ployees: agreement to hold election by employer and contesting unions: petition
for intervention denied where filed by organization found to be company-dom-
inated in prior Board Decision-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining:
production, maintenance, and shipping employees, excluding salesmen, guards,
watchmen, research workers, and office, clerical and supervisory employees ; no
controversy as to-Electron Ordered: company-dominated union excluded from
ballot.
Mr. Albert Ornstein, for the Board.
Mr. Joseph A. McNamara, of New York City, for the Companies.
Mr. Edward J. McAlinn and Mr. Joe J. Duffy, of New York City,
for the I.B.E.W.
Mr. Frank Scheiner, by Mr. David Scribner, of New York City,
for the U.E.R.W.
Mr. Francis D. Saitta, of New York City, for the Association.
Mr. David Rein, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 18, 1938, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local Union No. 3, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, herein referred to as the I. B. E. W., filed with the Re-
gional Director for the Second Region (New York City) a petition
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Metropolitan Device Corp., Brook-
lyn, New York, and requesting an investigation and certification of
8 N. L. R. B , No. 70.
670
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 671
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National, Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On March 19, 1938, Local No. 1224 of United Electrical, Radio,
and Machine Workers of America, herein referred to as the U. E.
R. W., filed with the Regional Director a petition alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of Metropolitan Engineering Co. and Metropoli-
tan Device Corp., Brooklyn, New York, herein called the Companies,
and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives
pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act.
On April 26, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and
Article III, Sections 3 and 10 (c) (2), of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered
a consolidation of the cases and authorized the Regional Director
to conduct an investigation and to provide for an appropriate hear-
ing upon due notice.
On May 26, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Companies, the
I. B. E. W. and the U. E. R. W. On June 2, 1938, Metropolitan
Employees Association, herein called the Association, claiming to
represent employees directly affected by the investigation, filed with
the Regional Director a motion to intervene in the representation
proceeding. This petition was denied by the Regional Director, with
leave to renew the motion before the Trial Examiner at the hearing.
Pursuant to the notice, the hearing on the consolidated petitions was
held on June 3, 1938, before Howard Myers, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Companies, and the
U. E. R. W. were represented by counsel and the I. B. E. W. by
union officials, all participating in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the
hearing, the Association renewed its motion to intervene before the
Trial Examiner, which motion was denied by the Trial Examiner
on the ground that the Association had been found by the Board in
a Decision on December 16, 1937,1 to have been dominated and inter-
fered with in its formation and administration by the Companies,
within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, and the Companies
had been ordered to disestablish the Association as the representa-
tive of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the
Companies concerning grievainces, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or conditions of employment. This
ruling is hereby affirmed.
14 N L R B. 542
672 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has reviewed the various, rulings of the Trial Examiner
on motions and objections to the admission of evidence -- and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed . The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
The Companies are New York corporations , with their ' principal
-offices and places of business at 1250 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn,
New York. They form a unified and integrated enterprise for the
manufacture and sale of electrical devices. The cfficeFs and direc-
tors of the Companies are identical ; the capital stock of both corpo-
rations is held by substantially the same individuals , all being mem-
bers of the same family ; and all their policies, ' including their labor
policies, are jointly determined and administered . The Companies
own and operate a plant and machinery of a value from $1,000,000
to $1,500,000 and do an annual gross business of approximately
$1,7.00 ,000. Each of the Companies has a pay roll of its own, but
in the event that one Company has more work than the other, em-
ployees are interchanged.
The Metropolitan Engineering Company is engaged in the manu-
±acture and sale of pressed steel and welded 'products , 70 per cent
of which are sold to purchasers in States other than the State of New
York. Packard Motor Car Company, Detroit, Michigan ,' is its larg-
est single customer. The principal raw material used by the Metro-
politan Engineering Company is steel, approximately all of which
is purchased ' and transported from States other than the State of
New York through channels of interstate commerce.
Metropolitan Device Corporation is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of electrical devices, meter , service, and entrance switches;
reactance coils, and seals . About 60 per cent of its sales are made
to purchasers in States other than the State of New York. Some
,of its products are sold to manufacturers who use them as parts and
to, jobbers who resell them to 'electrical contractors and the retail
Trade. About 50 per cent of its products are sold to public utilities
who use them as part of their equipment. The principal raw ma-
terials used by the Metropolitan Device Corporation are steel, porce-
lain, copper, and paper cartons. About 80 per cent of these mate-
rials are purchased in States other than the State of New York and
are transported to the plant through channel s of interstate commerce.
The Companies admit they are engaged in interstate commerce. '
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
673
The International Brotherhood,of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No. 3, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, admitting to membership all the production, maintenance,
and shipping employees of the Companies, excluding salesmen, watch-
men, supervisory, clerical, and office employees.
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local
No. 1224, is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for
Industrial Organization, admitting to membership all the production,
maintenance, and shipping employees of the Companies, excluding
salesmen, n-atchmen, supervisory, clerical, and, office!employees..
The Metropolitan Employees Association is a labor organization
limiting its membership to all employees of the Companies, exclusive
of the superintendent, manager, and other officers.
111. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
At the hearing, both the I. B. E. W. and the U. E. R. W. claimed a
majority of the employees of the Companies in the appropriate unit
and it was agreed by the I. B. E. W., the U. E. R. W., and the Com-
panies that the question should be determined by an election to be held
by the Board. ,
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Companies. "
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, 'occurring in connection with the operations of the Companies
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tends to lead'to labor disputes burdening and obstruct nlg•V•comnlerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The I. B. E. W., the U. E. R. W., and the Companies agreed at the
hearing that a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining should include all the production, maintenance, and shipping
employees of the Companies employed at their plant located at 1250
Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, but excluding, salesmemi, guards
and watchmen, and office, clerical, and supervisory employees.
674' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Timekeepers and time-study men were shown by the evidence to be
included in the class of clerical employees and, accordingly, will be
excluded from the'appropriate unit.
Employees engaged in 'research work in the laboratory were shown
not to be production workers and will= also be excluded: from .the
appropriate unit. '
, Joseph Hoffman, Dominick Farriella', Franz Newmar,' Jack D'An-
gelo, Raymond Parretta, and George Frischman, who were found.to
be supervisory employees by the' Board in its Decision of December
16, 1937,2 will'be excluded from the appropriate unit as-supervisory
employees.
We find that all production, maintenance, and shipping employees
of the Companies; excluding salesmen, guards, watchmen, research
workers, and 'clerical, office; and supervisory employees; constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that
said unit will insure to employees of the Companies the full benefit of
their right to self-organization and collective bargaining and other-
wise effectuate the,policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
At the hearing, the parties agreed that the question concerning rep-
resentation could best be resolved by an election and we will therefore
order that an election be held. Three lists of employees, dated March
13, 1937, January 1, 1938, and June 4, 1938, were introduced into evi-
dence. The respective lists contained the names of the employees who
had been on the pay roll of the Companies for the week prior'to the
date of the list, and the number of employees on the lists were respec-
tively 276, 174, and 155. It was shown at the hearing that the de-
crease in the number of employees was due to decline in the business
of the Companies.
It was the position of the U. E. R. W. that the date for the deter-
mination of eligibility to vote should be March 13, 1937, since it had
been in the week of that date that the Companies had locked out mem-`
bers of the U. E. R. W. as found by the Decision of the Board of
December 16, 1937.2 The I. B. E. W. contended that the date should
be fixed as of January 1, 1938, so as to include employees who although
laid off would be likely to return to work .in the event of an increase
in the business of the • Companies. The Companies stated -that they
would be satisfied with, a date,for eligibility set in accordance with the
usual practice of the Board, which they understood to be a date 2 or 3
weeks before the actual date of the election..
2 4 N. L. R. B. 542.
DECISIONS AND^ ORDERS 675
We feel that the date suggested by the U.:'E"R. W. , is too, remote to
furnish - a 'proper- standard • for determining eligibility to vote. Al-
though a lock-out did occur in the week of March . ,13,.1937, the. em-
ployees ' who' were locked out returned to work soon thereafter, and
there , is no showing that the Companies discriminated against the
members of the U. E. •R. W. in the' course of any subsequent dis-
charges ' of lay-offs. We find the date of January 1 , 1938, to be, the
proper' date for the determination of, eligibility, since it will include
those, employees who have been laid -off within a recent period and
would therefore be likely to return to work in the event of an increase
in -the business -of the Companies . Accordingly, those persons in the
appropriate unit who were on the pay roll of the Companies during
the-,week ending January 1, 1938, excluding those who ,have since quit
or been discharged for cause, but including those only temporarily
laid off, will be eligible to vote in the election.
Since Metropolitan Employees' Association has"been found by the
Board in a,Decision of December 16,1937,3 to have been dominated and
interfered "with in its formation and administration by the Companies;
within the"meaning of Section 8 (2) of the- At, and the, Companies
were ordered to disestablish the Association as the representative of
any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the Companies
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment or other conditions of employment, its name will not
appear on the ballot.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Metropolitan Engineering Co. and Metro-
politan Device Corp., Brooklyn, New York, within the meaning of
:Section 9 ( c) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
2. All production, maintenance, and shipping employees of the
Companies , excluding salesmen , guards, watchmen, research workers,
and clerical , office, and supervisory employees , constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purpose of,collective bargaining within the meaning
Hof Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
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
3 See footnote 2.
117213-39-vol 8--44
676 , NATIONAL • LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, it is hereby
DIEEOTED that as part-of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining with Metropoli-
tan Engineering Co. and Metropolitan Device Corp., Brooklyn, New
York, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted- within fifteen
(15) days from the date of this Direction under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board and sub-
ject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all
production, maintenance, and shipping employees, excluding sales-
men, guards, watchmen, research workers, and clerical, office, and
supervisory employees, whose names appear upon the Companies' pay
roll for the week ending January 1, 1938, excepting those who have
since quit or been discharged for cause, but including those only
temporarily laid off, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union No. 3, or Local No. 1224 of United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, or by neither.