Modern Machine & Pattern Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 7, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 480 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of J. J. ROURKE, D/B/A MODERN MACHINE & PATTERN COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, ,PETITIONER Case No. 11-R-1003.-Decided February 7, 1947 Mr. C. A. Rourke, of Terre Haute, Ind., for the Employer. Mr. Harry E. Burns, of Terre Haute, Ind., for the Petitioner. Mr. Carl Maddox, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the Molders. Mr. Frank Poit, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Molders. Miss Eleanor Scliwartzbacli, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon an amended petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Terre Haute, Indiana, on December 6, 1946, before Clifford L. Iardy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER J. J. Rourke, an individual, ^/a Modern Machine & Pattern Com- pany, operates an aluminum foundry at Terre Haute, Indiana. Dur- ing the past 12 months, the Employer bought material, consisting principally of aluminum, amounting in value to over $250,000, more than 75 percent of which was shipped to the plant from points outside the State of Indiana. During the past 12 months, sales of the Em- ployer's products exceeded $500,000, over 75 percent of which was shipped outside the State of Indiana. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees,of the Employer. ' 72 N L R B, No. 85 480 MODERN MACHINE & PATTERN COMPANY 481 The International Molders & Foundry Workers Union of North America, herein called the Molders, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer. III. TILE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Prior to the hearing in this proceeding, the Petitioner asked the Employer to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's employees. The Employer refused, alleging that a contract between the Employer and the Molders con- stituted a bar. The Employer and the Molders entered into a contract to remain in full force and effect until January 14, 1947.1 Since the contract has now expired, we find that the contract is no bar to a determination of representatives, pursuant to the petition filed herein. 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, excluding office and clerical employees, foremen, and all other supervisory employees with au- thority to hire, promote, 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. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with J. J. Rourke, d/b/a Modern Ma- chine & Pattern Company, Terre Haute, Indiana, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate In Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this 1 The record does not disclose the date on which the contract was executed The contract contains no provision for automatic renewal 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Direction, including employees who did not work during 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 Steel- workers of America, CIO, or by International Molders & Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.